New 7D owner.. Macro help

[dgatewood]

Ok, first of all, I am not just a new 7D owner, but a new owner of a camera in general. Before now I didn't even have a point and shoot because I never really cared to take pictures. I lived with the thought that I would spend the extra time living in the moment and I would have these memories later on.... but as I am getting older I begin to realize that the mind is a faulty camera.

So, I bought the 7D, the canon 17-55 IS/USM lens, and the sigma 180 macro lens about a month ago. I really have started to enjoy macro photography. My question is, I have seen some great, detailed shots, but I don't think I am getting the kind of shots I want. What do I need to do to increase the depth of view when completely close-up at 180mm.. Is it possible?

 

[balloonchasers]

http://www.fredmiranda.com has a forum that is devoted to macro photography. Might be a good place to visit.

My first suggestion would be to stop your lens down from f-3.5 for starters. Your shutter speed was very fast, so you have some room to change the f-stop without having to change your ISO. That will increase the ISO and may be what you need to get the results you are looing for..

Good luck and remember to have fun..

John
--

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c If you find any extra letters, please place them here for future use...

 

[aVolanche]

Here's a good place to start: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/techniques/macro-photography-intro.htm

As suggested,get that aperture closed down to f/11 or f/13.You may need flash.

Also,check out the weekly macro thread in the Canon Lens Forum (dpreview).

Fred

 

[Martyn_Bannister]

....I don't think I am getting the kind of shots I want. What do I need to do to increase the depth of view when completely close-up at 180mm.. Is it possible?

Hiya, yes the depth of field is directly related to the aperture. Wider aperture (smaller number) = smaller depth of field (DOF). Narrower aperture (larger number) gives greater DOF

First pick your minimum shutter speed (for 35mm equivalent, 1/focal length) So 180mm in the EXIF for your 7D is 180*1.6 or 288mm in 35mm equivalent, so you need 1/288s. Thats 1/300s for cash.

Then try and get the smallest aperture you can. If there isn't enough light, you can increase the ISO at the expense of noise, but failing that - you need more light!

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html might help.

BTW - nice shot

 

[Karl Gnter Wnsch]

You may need flash.

Forget about the flash - that is a surefire way of ruining a macro newbies life!

What you do need though is a good tripod, head, focusing rails and a shorter lens - the longer the lens the harder it is to get a decent macro shot because of the flatness of the perspective. So whoever advised the OP on the lens should be really commended on selling a newbie specialist equipment and making his life harder through it...
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 

[Karl Gnter Wnsch]

First pick your minimum shutter speed (for 35mm equivalent, 1/focal length)

No, no and still no! This applies only the handheld shooting outside macro ranges. Macro photography is all about balancing the DOF and appearance of the background, best with natural light and it is imperative as to not compromise image quality because of any casual aproach like "oh let's shoot macro handheld", handheld macros suffer from any number of problems with composition - so for a newbie in this area a tripod is imperative.

Then try and get the smallest aperture you can. If there isn't enough light, you can increase the ISO at the expense of noise, but failing that - you need more light!

No you need to let go of the idea that you can shoot good macro hand held.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 

[Martyn_Bannister]

First pick your minimum shutter speed (for 35mm equivalent, 1/focal length)

No, no and still no! This applies only the handheld shooting outside macro ranges. Macro photography is all about balancing the DOF and appearance of the background, best with natural light and it is imperative as to not compromise image quality because of any casual aproach like "oh let's shoot macro handheld", handheld macros suffer from any number of problems with composition - so for a newbie in this area a tripod is imperative.

Then try and get the smallest aperture you can. If there isn't enough light, you can increase the ISO at the expense of noise, but failing that - you need more light!

No you need to let go of the idea that you can shoot good macro hand held.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

Hi Karl. You are of course correct. I was assuming that the OP wanted to shoot macro hand held. The OP was enquiring on how to increase the DOF. I was trying to help.

Personally, I find it hard enough to get little critters in shot hand held, without anchoring myself to a tripod.

 

[Karl Gnter Wnsch]

Hi Karl. You are of course correct. I was assuming that the OP wanted to shoot macro hand held.

I don't see any such assumption. That's why I probably came down a bit hard on you. Sorry...

Personally, I find it hard enough to get little critters in shot hand held, without anchoring myself to a tripod.

- It's the same for me.

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 

[Martyn_Bannister]

Hi Karl. You are of course correct. I was assuming that the OP wanted to shoot macro hand held.

I don't see any such assumption. That's why I probably came down a bit hard on you.

It was what I meant, which isn't always what I say

Sorry...

No problem

Personally, I find it hard enough to get little critters in shot hand held, without anchoring myself to a tripod.

- It's the same for me.

Glad I'm not the only one then. For example, this one blurry shot was the best of about two hours of frustration I still have a lot to learn

 

[springbock]

I shoot macro hand held. I haven't used a tripod in years. I do understand the benefits of a tripod though, but I also understand it's limitations as well.

Shooting these first few with a tripod would have been much harder, and the other ones... well a tripod was not needed, at least for me. But the OP's mileage may vary. I consider these macro even if they are not exactly 1:1.















--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

 

[Harry Shepherd]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with using flash for macro, at times it's the only way to get reasonable DOF. I have numerous macros of equal quality to these photos.









Harry

 

[Martyn_Bannister]

Simply superb

 

[aVolanche]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with using flash for macro, at times it's the only way to get reasonable DOF. I have numerous macros of equal quality to these photos.









Harry

From reading many posts on many macro forums,it appears that a high percentage of macro shooters use flash.I use flash for hand-held macro.Do hand-held without a flash and/or use a tripod.

There is more than one way to skin a cat,just as there are many shooting situations.I wonder how Karl lugs all that equipment on a 5-mile,uphill trek.Or how he suggests that I shoot macro when I wish to "travel light"?

I think flash is an intergral part of macro and there is no reason a newbie cannot use flash.

 

[barbossa3127]

Love the snail shot. Thanks for sharing those.

--

Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.

-John Wayne as Sgt. Stryker in Sands Of Iwo Jima

 

[Fabian628]

heres mine.

A flash is very hard to handle and diffuse well at long distances that will be with your 180mm macro, so i would not reccomend.

People suggest rails and tripods. If you want to shoot insects, this setup is going to be difficult, insects dont stay still for long and they often are on shrubs which will limit access by the tripod.

You mention the shots 'you want'. More DoF, for sure, stop down the lens, its nice to have more DoF, but sometimes a shallow depth of field adds an artistic touch. I previously sold my 60mm macro which i used alot for natural light macro, now only using the mpe65mm at very narrow apertures. I found i was missing the shallow dpeth of field i used to use on the 60 macro.

Anyway, for me, the nicest macros you can make with this lens will be using natural light (that is, if you do not use extension tubes). Stop down the lens, f/5.6 at 1:1 and greater will be quite good for insects, just learn how to control the DoF, choose a focus point well and you will pull it off.

As i mentioned tripods are nice, but if you are shooting in decent light, even if it is a bit dim, increase iso, keep aperture at a resonable level and you will get a nice shutter speed. Practise your technique in hand holding the lens, it takes time but its fairly achieveable. And stay away from the flash unless you are going to magnifications greater than 1x

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/

 

[MrScary]

Seeing as you got the 180mm (which I think is f3.5) start from f5.6 up to f8 without flash in good light. seeing as you are more or less a beginer with a semi-pro DSLR that cost you quite a bit, practise with what you got.

You should of gone for the 150mm f2.8 Macro but it don't matter as I have seen Excellent shots with that lens you got. If you like hand holding like lots of others do then the 150 OS macro from Sigma would of been very good. Now practise with tripod.
Happy shooting.
--
MrScary (DennisR)
Swansea, Wales. UK
http://russ4tography.com/
http://copernob.jalbum.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scarecrowdr

 

[Larry de March]

I guess I'll add my $.02 here.

I won't tell you what to do but here's how I shoot.

Nothing wrong with a long lens. I typically use a 300 and extension tube for larger insects. You get much longer working distance and are less likely to disturb the critters. If all you want to photograph is flowers, any length will do. I also use a tripod. I may miss some shots, but more of the ones I do get will be in focus and not blurred by camera movement. I use manual focus to make sure what I wan in focus is in focus. I prefer natural light but I've seen excellent shots taken with well-diffused flash. I like to shoot about 5.6 to f11 - near or at the lens's sweet spot, away from diffraction effects and reasonable DOF

Practice, practice, practice.

Larry

 

[Karl Gnter Wnsch]

I wonder how Karl lugs all that equipment on a 5-mile,uphill trek.

Well my tripod weighs less than your average flash - my gear (as I don't just do macro) on day treks weighs up to 20kg with water, food and longer lenses... If I want to travel light I decide which subjects I am after and thin out my gear. For macro my gear weighs in at 2.5 kg which is easy to carry...

I think flash is an intergral part of macro and there is no reason a newbie cannot use flash.

It's a surefire way of ruining shots. Of course this depends on your standards, if they are low enough then you can get away with less quality. I for one would delete all of the flying bee macro shots presented here because the light is so harsh and the flowers in the background are so overcooked that there is little worth salvaging but the learning effect from them which should be that there is better light than bright sunshine.

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 

[Karl Gnter Wnsch]

You should of gone for the 150mm f2.8 Macro but it don't matter as I have seen Excellent shots with that lens you got. If you like hand holding like lots of others do then the 150 OS macro from Sigma would of been very good.

Seeing that there isn't a 150mm macro lens from Sigma (or anyone else) with optical image stabilization this is a very good advice... IMHO and IME stabilization is a thing that's greatly overrated and only leads to shoddy decisions such as to skimp on the tripod.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 

[springbock]

I wonder how Karl lugs all that equipment on a 5-mile,uphill trek.

Well my tripod weighs less than your average flash - my gear (as I don't just do macro) on day treks weighs up to 20kg with water, food and longer lenses... If I want to travel light I decide which subjects I am after and thin out my gear. For macro my gear weighs in at 2.5 kg which is easy to carry...

I think flash is an intergral part of macro and there is no reason a newbie cannot use flash.

It's a surefire way of ruining shots. Of course this depends on your standards, if they are low enough then you can get away with less quality. I for one would delete all of the flying bee macro shots presented here because the light is so harsh and the flowers in the background are so overcooked that there is little worth salvaging but the learning effect from them which should be that there is better light than bright sunshine.

I don't think so Karl, there is nothing wrong or over cooked with my bee pics. You're just jealous. You say you would delete those flying bee shots? I doubt it, because I bet that you couldn't capture them to begin with .

Do you have some insect pics that you would like to share with us? You don't seem to have anything on your web site except some dead rocks shots, at least that's all I could find.

BTW... I'm still trying to imagine a tripod and head that weighs less than an average flash. I suspect that if one exits it would be absolutely useless!

edit.... I forgot to thank barbossa3127 for the compliment. So.... thank you Barbossa, I'm glad that you like it.

Cheers,

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde