tips for super close macro?

[Steve Balcombe]

For a beginner, the explaination provides the detail they need.

On a crop camera, the final image will appear larger than on a full
frame using the same lens. Effectively creating the same effect you
would have as using extenions tubes on a full frame to get to 1.6:1.

Final picture from 1:1 crop camera = final picture from 1.6:1 full
frame camera.

It reallly about conveying information to a newb, without making it a
PhD thesis.

1:1 refers to the image size at the sensor, it has nothing to do with the print size or filling the frame. Smaller sensors do indeed have an advantage for macro work, but 1:1 is 1:1.

Incorrect information is never helpful, in the long run it just adds to the confusion.

 

[harrygilbert]

Definitely the reversing ring is the cheapest and most effective way
of producing high magnification images. You can produce very high
quality results with quite reasonably priced lenses. If you do not
have much experience with macro, especially high magnification macro
I would strongly recommend you try something like this before you
consider buying something like the MPE 65mm, even if you can easily
afford it.

After reading the posts advocating reversing rings, I went looking. Unless I missed something, one cannot use newer Canon lenses on EOS DSLRs unless you either (a) shoot wide open or (b) purchase an expensive Novoflex rig

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197010-REG/Novoflex_EOSRETRO_Reverse_Lens_Adapter_for.html

I did see so-called reverse adapters that are merely male-to-male or female-to-female, but cannot see how they would mount to an EOS camera.

Any ideas?

 

[PicPocket]

Conveying incorrect information puts a newb on the wrong path. If PhD is to be feared, don't learn, but there is no point justifying something contrary to a correct PhD as an alternative to correct knowledge. It's simply wrong

Coming back to the point, when you say same image, what is your reference frame? When I print same quality, I will end up printing larger from a FF image. With that argument aside, why is magnification being discussed in relation to output size? Why confuse FoV (appears larger) and pixel density of a sensor with lens magnification

For a beginner, the explaination provides the detail they need.

On a crop camera, the final image will appear larger than on a full
frame using the same lens. Effectively creating the same effect you
would have as using extenions tubes on a full frame to get to 1.6:1.

Final picture from 1:1 crop camera = final picture from 1.6:1 full
frame camera.

It reallly about conveying information to a newb, without making it a
PhD thesis.

--
http://dogluver.smugmug.com

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[jpr2]

After reading the posts advocating reversing rings, I went looking.
Unless I missed something, one cannot use newer Canon lenses on EOS
DSLRs unless you either (a) shoot wide open or (b) purchase an
expensive Novoflex rig

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197010-REG/Novoflex_EOSRETRO_Reverse_Lens_Adapter_for.html

I did see so-called reverse adapters that are merely male-to-male or
female-to-female, but cannot see how they would mount to an EOS
camera.
Any ideas?

when we use a shorthand notation of "reverse lens" it actually covers TWO
situations, not only one:

• in most (if not all) above replies only one was discussed;
• using a [possibly prime and bright] lens as a close-up, akin to the 500D and

alike filter attachments, utilizing a male to male connection ring which will
allow to put such a lens in front of another (lets call them a "reverse"
and "primary" lenses);

• and the "primary" will control metering, lighting, aperture, etc;
• whereas "reverse" will be in substantial way contributing to an

overall magnification of such a setup;

now, in your post, you're introducing a SECOND possibility:

• where some lens will be attached directly to a camera body;
• through yet another type of reverse lens ring = male filter threaded

on one end,

• and an EOS EF mount (for canon systems, or nikkor F for nikon, etc)

on another end;

• this obviously will lead for such a lens (if it's aperture is electrically

controlled) to be best used by some additional gimmick, like the
Novoflex one above;

jpr2
-

--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/

 

[harrygilbert]

Thank you, much clearer now.

 

[lx200]

I'm sure your explaination has made everything completely clear to a newb.

For many folks (perhaps yourself included) trying to provide the most detailed and confusing explaination to a newb (one they won't understand), is the best way to make yourself appear intelligent.

What is my reference for comparing cropped and non cropped cameras. The 35mm format. Duh.
--
http://dogluver.smugmug.com

 

[SteB]

At 1:1 on a Canon 1.6 crop area filling the frame is 22.3 x 14.8mm and on full frame a 36 x 24mm area fills the frame at 1:1. So an object roughly these sizes is what fills the frame at 1:1. I'm not sure if this is what you needed to know.

 

[Bastian09]

Do you want to do super macro or microscopig macro images?

The kit lense and a retroconverter is all you need (+ one or two extrem bright flashlights and one or two Canon 580 II EX). Forget about Rings and CloseUp-Lenses or the so called macro zooms (which are only scaling up to 1:4). Rings and CloseUp-Lense can do near macro but not super macro.

Closeup-Lense providing a minimum distance on a tele(zoom) you need if you want to take pictures of living insects. But you will not get any super macro results.

Here is a link to a gallery with some freehand done retroconverter pics. this Images are not resized or cropped... they are just like taken.

The pictures are done with 16-35 USM 1:2.8 L, Canon 50mm 1:1.4 and Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6. but the 18mm will be wide enough to start with. (I needed two flashes and used a extrem bright LED flashlight with 200 Lumen near sunlight color)

http://www.shadows-lights.de/pixlie/pixlie.php?action=showgallery&pfad=Macro-Test

(Because of my small band internet connection I had to reduce the size to a max of 800x600.)

 

[PicPocket]

I'm sure your explaination has made everything completely clear to a
newb.

Depends if the newB supplement it with all the information they needed, how much they wanted to understand it, and whether they asked enough questions for parts they did not understand. Learning is not a one stop process, its continuous

For many folks (perhaps yourself included) trying to provide the most
detailed and confusing explaination to a newb (one they won't
understand), is the best way to make yourself appear intelligent.

If someone doesn't understand anything, they should say so. It may be that the explanation wasn't comprehended correctly (perhaps mine), or maybe in some cases completely wrong (perhaps yours). Only a discussion and further understanding can resolve that. Intelligence is a virtue, there is nothing to be apparent there. If some people try to show they are intelligent by providing more complex but correct explanation, there are others who who want to appear intelligent (shall I say so) by defending even their incorrect explanations by arguing that correct explanations are hard to understand? I think the latter are right and that's why they haven't understood it so far

What is my reference for comparing cropped and non cropped cameras.
The 35mm format. Duh.

What is 35mm? Size of sensor, right? Find out the size of sensor on cropped and you will have your answer. 1:1 is not a term for that comparison (there are other terms that you can learn if interested). Duh

--
PicPocket
http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/GalleryIndex.html

 

[KENTGA]

Go with Canon MP-E 65 for best results!

Kent

 

[kira233507]

I've also shot macro with non-slr before and wanted to go macro (read no close-up) with 450d. I got a lot of advise in this topic: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29053022