Focusing on dragonflies at maximum zoom

number_5 said:

Venger said:

Many thanks for the continued replies.

rsn said:

Manual focus is how many - most - photographers shoot different bugs, I've shot only butterflies. But manual focus is not adjusting the lens, instead you move your body back and forth ever so slightly to achieve focus. Your lens is set to manual and you don't adjust the lens at all other than to acquire desirable focus for your initial set up.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting concept I've not come across, so excuse the stupid question but what exactly are the benefits of this method? With the camera in MF, you initially adjust the focus ring and get good focus on the subject, then, without touching the focus ring again, you move slightly...isn't the subject only ever going to be in focus when you are at the initial position?

Click to expand...

That's the process I use when I shoot better than life size (1:1) macro, even with a AF lens. The DoF is very shallow and at times, the AF is not precise enough. For me, it's just easier, but YMMV.

That being said, I think in your case, it's less of an issue; you images are nowhere near to 1:1.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's quite usual method of shooting macro as AF struggle at very short distances. From my experience, at magnification 0.5 and closer is better to use manual focus.

number_5 said:

Venger said:

Many thanks for the continued replies.

rsn said:

Manual focus is how many - most - photographers shoot different bugs, I've shot only butterflies. But manual focus is not adjusting the lens, instead you move your body back and forth ever so slightly to achieve focus. Your lens is set to manual and you don't adjust the lens at all other than to acquire desirable focus for your initial set up.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting concept I've not come across, so excuse the stupid question but what exactly are the benefits of this method? With the camera in MF, you initially adjust the focus ring and get good focus on the subject, then, without touching the focus ring again, you move slightly...isn't the subject only ever going to be in focus when you are at the initial position?

Click to expand...

That's the process I use when I shoot better than life size (1:1) macro, even with a AF lens. The DoF is very shallow and at times, the AF is not precise enough. For me, it's just easier, but YMMV.

That being said, I think in your case, it's less of an issue; you images are nowhere near to 1:1.

Click to expand...

Google tips for macro photography and you will read about this process. When reading about it here it might sound hard, actually relying on autofocus with close up and macro photography is hard. Moving your body, realize the movement is ever so slight, to achieve focus. Rather than sweat the details just go try it out.

I do use a monopod a lot with butterfly photograph but it's in an area roughly where I know the insects will land. Realize this area maybe 3 square feet, but I have an idea of where the butterflies will be and go from there. Every genre of photography has its challenges, depth of field and focusing is the macro/close up challenge.

There are probably locations where more dragonflies congregate than others, if you can find those locations in your area your hit rate for focusing goes up.

The FZ1000 is a brilliant camera(not "basic" in any way) and there is nothing wrong with the images.

If you want the entire insect to be in focus, you'd have to take the shots from above, this way the plane of focus or whatever it's called is perpendicular to the body of the insect(so a 90 degree angle). Otherwise, the head will be in focus but the rest won't, that's absolutely normal and the only way to avoid it would be focus stacking, like macro photographers do.

Very many thanks for the continued replies, it's much appreciated and gives me plenty to think on.

These are great shots, super sharp! I've never seen a dragonfly so detailed (even with my own eyes, hehe).

**** Dastardly said:

The FZ1000 is a brilliant camera(not "basic" in any way) and there is nothing wrong with the images.

If you want the entire insect to be in focus, you'd have to take the shots from above, this way the plane of focus or whatever it's called is perpendicular to the body of the insect(so a 90 degree angle). Otherwise, the head will be in focus but the rest won't, that's absolutely normal and the only way to avoid it would be focus stacking, like macro photographers do.

Click to expand...

Or from the side 90 degrees so part of the body is not out of focus. At 90 degrees you can be slightly above, slightly below or directly on with your composition.

Hello,

I suppose you want to keep the same framing for comparisons, so you can step back even further and crop and use minimum aperture (f/8).

If you go twive turther, then crop 2x, you will have the same framing and an aperture equivalent to f/16.

But f/16 with your camera shows lot's of of diffraction, the optical quality will not be good. though there will be more dof. Besides, it might be grainy with a small aperture.

So in my part of the UK today it was very warm for a late September day and I really thought that it maybe the last time to see dragonflies before winter, so out I went!

I must admit that I didn't experiment with taking shots with the intention of using them for photo stacking, I still need to get my head around that a bit but I did try the suggestions of @SoCalAngler, namely attaching the lens hood and turning off iZoom!

The photo of the Willow Emerald damselfly I'm particularly pleased with, to my eye these do feel a tiny bit sharper altho I know when I'm back to birding at a distance, I'll probably miss the extra reach of iZoom.

I tried so hard to get a dragonfly on the wing, Migrant Hawkers particularly seem to have a split second when they hover in one position but it's very difficult to catch them just at the right moment.

Thanks for everyone's input on this thread.

Venger said:

SoCalAngler said:

Possibly as good as you can do. Super zoom lenses are usually weakest optically at maximum zoom. And you have diffraction coming into play at f/8 where you get the deepest depth of field. If you have any camera movement you may adversely affect focus. I didn’t perceive any camera handling issues in your examples though. In some situations optical stabilization may impact acuity too. Higher quality lenses may have better coatings and better optical properties. If you have the lens hood make sure you use it as it may reduce flare from light sources outside the field of view.

Click to expand...

Actually I've never used the lens hood, I don't really know why tbh, I need to experiment with that then.

Earlier in the summer I did buy a monopod which I have used a bit to try and help with stability but it's obviously useless for anything moving fast, not so bad when things are at rest.

All the photos above were hand held as there was so much going on, taking off, flying, resting etc.

Venger said:

The I.Zoom feature does a crop and then some processing magic. According to Panasonic’s documentation it’s better than digital zoom but still results in lower quality compared to having it off.

Click to expand...

I need to bite the bullet a bit then I think and switch it off, I have got so used to that extra bit of zoom it creates.

Thanks once again for your comments.

Click to expand...

You can get equivalent "extra zoom" by cropping on your computer. The camera may claim some special magic, but cropping is cropping in the end, and you can see the effects more easily working on a computer monitor than on a camera with a relatively low-res rear screen and viewfinder. When you're just trying to get a shot of an active insect you don't have time to worry too much about composition, but you can fix that afterwards, and try as many different compositions as you want.

Others have already noted the basic physical limitations of shallow DOF in those circumstances. You should be proud that you got results as attractive as you did. That's a difficult subject whatever equipment you use.