Nikolausz
Senior Member
But they won't wait until I set-up my tripod either
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Macro and close up solutions
- Thread starter csintexas
- Start date
Nikolausz
Senior Member
If you master your flash lighting it's much more useful than tripod.
Sure ugly light is ugly, but it shouldn't supposed to be ugly if you know how to aim/modify it.
Natural lights can be ugly as well.
Nikolausz
Senior Member
Totally agree
Hi Chris,
someone mention an apsc camera almost always better because of deeper dof for macro comparing to a ff mirrorless. I'm looking into getting a ff mirrorless but I still wanna continue my macro journeys. Lenses wise still have not decided yet. The fe 90mm 2.8 or other manual lenses but I'm looking for something that has aperture control.. I mostly used f18-f20 for my macro shots and at night. I needed the aperture control in order to focus better else at f18 it will be goo dark to focus my subject..even with focusing light.
Dawson
someone mention an apsc camera almost always better because of deeper dof for macro comparing to a ff mirrorless. I'm looking into getting a ff mirrorless but I still wanna continue my macro journeys. Lenses wise still have not decided yet. The fe 90mm 2.8 or other manual lenses but I'm looking for something that has aperture control.. I mostly used f18-f20 for my macro shots and at night. I needed the aperture control in order to focus better else at f18 it will be goo dark to focus my subject..even with focusing light.
Dawson
I guess almost all modern lenses would retain aperture control and would auto focus to some extent. For budget and versatility I think that the 55-210 and tubes is hard to beat.
I shoot very regularly above f16 and never have a problem with light as long as the sun is out. I suppose if you are regularly in very deep shade those high f-stops could be a big problem though.
I think if you are trying to do macro in a deep forest there would be no easy way to not use additional lighting.
I was out shooting a sunflower this weekend and there was a little jumping spider I found but I had the 5018 + raynox on the camera and when I had to get close enough to focus it kept moving away so I wish I had the 55-210 on or maybe a good 180mm macro lens.
not quite there
Really could have used 2:1 or more and a 4" or longer working distance so maybe the Venus 60mm would have been good.
I have actually spent most of my time this year working on wildflowers which does not require really high magnification.
--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums
I shoot very regularly above f16 and never have a problem with light as long as the sun is out. I suppose if you are regularly in very deep shade those high f-stops could be a big problem though.
I think if you are trying to do macro in a deep forest there would be no easy way to not use additional lighting.
I was out shooting a sunflower this weekend and there was a little jumping spider I found but I had the 5018 + raynox on the camera and when I had to get close enough to focus it kept moving away so I wish I had the 55-210 on or maybe a good 180mm macro lens.
not quite there
Really could have used 2:1 or more and a 4" or longer working distance so maybe the Venus 60mm would have been good.
I have actually spent most of my time this year working on wildflowers which does not require really high magnification.
--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums
Last edited:
gil
Forum Pro
camera since smaller sensor must have deeper DOF than bigger sensor. For me, deeper DOF is good for my macro shots (when I was still playing with it a lot). My most rewarding macro shots was when using P&S zoom cameras with achromatic stacks and afocal front teleconverter. Advantage was on being able to AF and still get usable macros.
My crude setup something like the one below (I made some slight modifications later on like just using aluminum foil wrap around the built-in flash. The aluminum foil could reflect/bounce the light inside
). Inspiration came from pioneers before me and could be googled .
Above setup could give me below usable pics from a 4MP camera.
Increasing a bit my sensor size to 7.5MP I think (still P&S) gave me more fun samples as below.
--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.
My crude setup something like the one below (I made some slight modifications later on like just using aluminum foil wrap around the built-in flash. The aluminum foil could reflect/bounce the light inside
). Inspiration came from pioneers before me and could be googled .
Above setup could give me below usable pics from a 4MP camera.
Increasing a bit my sensor size to 7.5MP I think (still P&S) gave me more fun samples as below.
--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.
I'm limited by my 16mp Nex-5r. I need viewfinder at times because using live-view I'm not able to locked my arms to minimise camera shake. I wanted to have more detail as most of my subject are relatively small insects/bugs I will be doing a lot of cropping .. Therefore I looking into ff for better IQ. But I hasn't own a ff yet.camera since smaller sensor must have deeper DOF than bigger sensor. For me, deeper DOF is good for my macro shots (when I was still playing with it a lot). My most rewarding macro shots was when using P&S zoom cameras with achromatic stacks and afocal front teleconverter. Advantage was on being able to AF and still get usable macros.
My crude setup something like the one below (I made some slight modifications later on like just using aluminum foil wrap around the built-in flash. The aluminum foil could reflect/bounce the light inside
Above setup could give me below usable pics from a 4MP camera.
Increasing a bit my sensor size to 7.5MP I think (still P&S) gave me more fun samples as below.
--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.
Mir should I invest in a6300 with the 90mm 2.8 macro lens from Sony with the la-ea3 ?
dawson
Pixel Pooper
Veteran Member
If you are doing a lot of cropping FF won't give you better IQ, you will just have to crop even more and the A7RII is only 18MP when cropped to APS-C dimensions.
This would be my choice, but the Sony 90mm f/2.8 is E mount so you won't need the adapter. The other option to save some money is to use LA-EA3 with the Sony 100mm f/2.8 or Tamron 90mm f/2.8.
Okay. I think I got it.
By the way. Can someone compare the dof of a 55210 with Raynox At 1:1 vs the dof of 90mm (tamron /Sony if there's a differences) at 1:1 also, both mounted on a apsc camera? Which one will have more dof??
lasty, still Dilemma on purchasing another apsc camera , which mean my Nex-5r would be cold storaged.
55210 with Raynox 250 will be around 70mm for 1:1 (correct me if I'm wrong)
70mm vs 90mm which one better dof? Or does the Raynox screw the dof coupled to the 55210?
Apsc camera usually uses 60 mm for macro.. Is there a diff if I get the fe 90 or get the apsc 60mm?
70mm vs 90mm which one better dof? Or does the Raynox screw the dof coupled to the 55210?
Apsc camera usually uses 60 mm for macro.. Is there a diff if I get the fe 90 or get the apsc 60mm?
How exactly DoF would be calculated with added magnification is beyond my understanding but I have not found a noticeable difference in DoF between the Raynox and tubes and think that DoF is a relationship between sensor size and subject size and distance. I would not worry about the difference because in macro you are talking about extremely small distances and differences. I have seen good macro done with cell phones and FF cameras
--
-Chris
www.flickr.com
--
-Chris
Chris Stewart’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
Pixel Pooper
Veteran Member
DOF is the same at the same effective aperture for any type of lens.
The longer focal length will give you more working distance and more background blur.
Last edited:
Longer focal length also more prone to image blur? And also the max flash sync is 1/160. Not sure if I will be able to get decent amount of sharp images..
Pixel Pooper
Veteran Member
At the same magnification you will get the same blur regardless of focal length. Sync speed is not a problem as the short flash duration acts as your shutter speed, so you can get sharp pictures at low shutter speeds.
I have been wondering about that also because it costs a lot more for an OS lens.
So yesterday I compared the 55-210 with OSS on and off at 1/125 and 1/90 and did not see any obvious signs of shake with it off (the real challenge is getting the focus just right hand held)
Perhaps that means that I could have been using a slower SS
I would almost never shoot at 1/160 or more and if I did it would be because I had more light than I needed so would not use the flash anyway.
The one instance is maybe catching bees in flight and then the low cost trick seems to be using the manual flash as a strobe to stop action and not fast SS.
This makes me a bit more confident that a lower cost non-OS 180mm macro would probably be usable hand held.
So yesterday I compared the 55-210 with OSS on and off at 1/125 and 1/90 and did not see any obvious signs of shake with it off (the real challenge is getting the focus just right hand held)
Perhaps that means that I could have been using a slower SS
I would almost never shoot at 1/160 or more and if I did it would be because I had more light than I needed so would not use the flash anyway.
The one instance is maybe catching bees in flight and then the low cost trick seems to be using the manual flash as a strobe to stop action and not fast SS.
This makes me a bit more confident that a lower cost non-OS 180mm macro would probably be usable hand held.
how close you are for the bee shot?Nice shots. Do you know how much magnification you are getting from the 250 on the 55-210? Judging by the Lynx spider I would guess 4x or more. I use a Tamron 60mm macro with LA-EA1 adapter and a manual speed light. Sharpness is good, but it's only 1:1 and I need more magnification for small spiders. I have reverse mounted a legacy 50mm on the 55-210 which gives me about 4x magnification but sharpness isn't great, especially away from the centre so I'm thinking about getting the Raynox instead.
Here is a couple of shots from the Tamron 60mm:
60mm or 90mm on an apsc better for subject like those above?
Dawson
I do not know about using a lens reversed on another lens -although I have read about people doing it. I do not know if it works for all lens combinations. The problem with the newer Sony lenses is that they have electronic aperture control so it would be better to find an old lens that has a manual aperture.
You could always use the 35 with tubes I suppose.
How much are you wanting to try to magnify something?
You could probably go to pawn shops and find lots of cheap old lenses to reverse.
But really your much better off getting a dedicated macro lens.
You could always use the 35 with tubes I suppose.
How much are you wanting to try to magnify something?
You could probably go to pawn shops and find lots of cheap old lenses to reverse.
But really your much better off getting a dedicated macro lens.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum