What camera/s do you use for what shots?

[*Brum6y*]

'''''Flash at dusk to evening is quite intense and will blind ....... It is so much of a concern, at known tourist spots there are rangers out who WILL confiscate any photographic equipment before you get near the beach ....

Brumby I take your point , any living thing can be upset with flash especailly in low light. However the discussion was about macro and flys ect and flowers do not have that problem. I will also give my weekends play in another post.

Agreed, it's not a problem for flowers nor would it worry me about insects. Just a bit of 'general' information - to help give an appreciation of one aspect of flash usage that may not be obvious. Photography is usually quite a benign activity - but, like most things, there are exceptions.

A couple of other points using flash - regarding distance:

 * The effective distance for flash is the distance from the flash to the subject - not from the camera to the subject. Usually these are the same, since the flash is most often located with the camera, but there are situations where you might want a flash located some distance from the camera. I won't go into the details here as this steps into another level of discussion.

 * If you are up in the grandstand for a night-time event - sporting, concert, Olympic ceremony or whatever - your flash isn't going to do anything other than light up the backs of the heads of the people in front of you. Flash intensity drops off according to the inverse square law - which simply means that if something is twice as far away, there is only one quarter of the brightness. Once you get past a certain distance, there is not enough light to give you a good exposure and the subject will just get murkier, the further it is away.  This distance will vary with the flash unit and the capabilities of the camera, but your average setup will struggle from around 20 metres (Shyer - is this still about right?).  There is one good thing - if a TV camera is around and focussed on the grandstand when a celebrity or other 'interesting' thing happens - the resultant storm of flashes makes for a very attractive 'sparkly' effect in the crowd.

 * Close-up, flash can be just too bright for the camera to cope. I think someone said this earlier (was it Shyer?) - just keep a plain white handkerchief handy and hold it across the front of the flash to reduce the intensity. You can adjust the amount of reduction by how many layers the hanky has been folded.

Only this last point is of any relevance for macro photography...

[Poddy]

Ubb if you want time to compose a macro pic of an insect do a preflash and then they freeze for a while and you have more time to set up

[shyer]

Your standard 4 AA battery swivel , tilt flash 200mm long 100 wide and 30mm deep is now 30 to 40 meter range (ISO 100 F2.8 50mm focal length) some up to 50 meters with Zoom (ie ISO100 , F2.8 100mm focal length)

Look at these pictures of cloth diffuser on a small 2 battery hotshoe flash. The first picture shows fitted . Elastic band fits 99% of consumer flash heads. The 4th one shows foil on one side, can use as bounce.
The last photo shows 3 photos one with external flash (built in always worse) notice hard light, hard shadows loss of detail colours distorted ie spotlight effect. 2nd natural light notice body shake as speed 1/30th and DOF bad as lens wide open. 3rd shows with diffuser all problems solved.

http://kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=4395

My local camera club sells these diffusers, if you can not find easily, only $10 post included and makes a few dollars to help with sundry costs. They are light, flexiable and small.

[Coinfucious888]

Taken with a f:2.8 150mm macro prime ISO 200. Diffused lighting from a Nikon Speedlight SB900.

[*Ubbie Max*]

Brilliant Photograph Coinfucious. So clear & detailed. I'm jealous. I can't hope to get such fine detail. I guess I better get a lense suited for macro.

[*Ubbie Max*]

Shyer. I haven't seen those diffusers around. They look great. Can you recommend where I could buy one?

[shyer]

Taken with a f:2.8 150mm macro prime ISO 200. Diffused lighting from a Nikon Speedlight SB900.

Caption " que music " I only jave eyes for you dear.

Coinfucious a great shot !

[lacey]

I just use a scanner.  It's sooooo much easier.  like this.  Just place the coin on the glass and hey, PRESTO!  All done. 

[golden]

Great LACE, you are there!

Ubb GR8 photos, subject lacking interest!!  .....lol.....pretty obvious which is MALE!!

[*Brum6y*]

Taken with a f:2.8 150mm macro prime ISO 200. Diffused lighting from a Nikon Speedlight SB900.

Quite impressive.

Could I ask - approximately how big were the subjects?

[Coinfucious888]

Hi brumby6y...purely guessing here...about a centimetre and a half...

Have a look at this fly..........

http://www.boomspeed.com/mugarinya1/macro_fly2.jpg

......or this one of a dragon fly...

http://www.boomspeed.com/mugarinya1/dragonfly3.jpg


The underlying message here is macro prime lenses are better than zoom type lenses even though they may have a macro function capability.

For my other passion (coins), I use a 60mm f:2.8 Micro Nikor and the r1c1 ring lighting to achieve this sort of a result....

http://www.boomspeed.com/mugarinya1/1862_Gold_Mohur_O-1.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/mugarinya1/1862_Gold_Mohur_R-1.jpg


Cheers

 

[shyer]

Hi Coinfucious,

Some excellent shots,
The Two macro lens coinfusious is talking about and flash is some $3000. Here is link to show examples with a point and shoot camera lens more ultra zoom than best optical quality using $160 raynox lens set of 2 suit 95% of all cameras.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/40328999@N02/4169436653/in/set-72157622719063271/

[*Ubbie Max*]

Coinfusious. What is a macro prime lense. Are they expensive or moderately priced by lens $ standard. I have a Canon EOS 550D DSLR and I'm scratching my head as to what sort of (brand etc) lens I should be looking for. What would you suggest?

I'm only new to digital photography & have much to learn. I'm still trying to come to grips with Photoshop Elements, layering etc..

Shyer. What do you mean by "$160 raynox lens set of 2"? Can you point me in the right direction?

[shyer]

Ubbie here is a canon macro 100mm lens $900 some slighter cheaper tamron / sigma ect available in canon mount.


http://www.teds.com.au/canon-slr-lenses/canon-ef-100mm-f2-8-macro-usm/w1/i2105583_2074819/


Poddy has more experience than me with Raynox, $160 set which comprises 150 and 250 lens .

150 which is 1.5 times lifesize on a 200 mm lens about 0.8 on a 100mm . 250 is 2.5 times lifesize on 200mm lens.

This is my pick of canon macro lens note $1500 can get O/s for under $1000 but shipping, customs and GST apply.

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4390.htm

You can see the raynox are good bang for bucks.

[shyer]

Ps here is link to 150 and 250 raynox and sample photos notice how 3 element raynox lens eats the 20+ filter

http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod4390.htm

http://photovideo.com.au/raynox-dcr250-macro-lens-p-1445.html?osCsid=15d869de2b6ec7522cc2974f9c73a756

notice $120 for 150 alone, with 250 over $250 with post

[*Brum6y*]

A zoom lens is a lens designed to function at a variable focal length.

A prime lens is a lens designed to function at a fixed focal length.

Zoom lenses have a complex variable geometry setup in order to give the zoom function, as well as the focussing adjustment.

Prime lenses only have the focussing adjustment.

FACT: There is no such thing as the perfect lens.  Lens design and manufacture is a compromise. The degree of compromise is inversely reflected in the price - and will be evident when you make your lens work at its limits.  You aren't likely to notice much with 'Happy snaps' - but get into fine detail shots where centre, edge and corner sharpness and chromatic artifacts are important and you will see why one lens costs $150 and another $2500.

In accommodating a variable geometry, zoom lenses must deal with a continuously variable range of configurations.  Since the optical path changes (to give the magnification) light passes through different portions of each of the (less than perfect) lens elements with different zoom settings - and that means it is much more difficult to get a high quality result.

A prime lens, however, can be more easily designed to provide a high quality result, since the 'less than perfect' lens elements are in a fixed position (except for the minor adjustment of focussing) and it is much easier to compensate for the deviations from the ideal.

In a nutshell - a prime lens will ALWAYS produce a higher quality result than a zoom lens (of equivalent quality, of course).  Whether it is important for your needs, is a question only you can answer.


MACRO is a function of getting bigger images of smaller subjects.

A macro zoom lens will have one end of its zoom range allocated to the macro function. It effectively limits the maximum distance you can focus on.

A macro prime lens will do the same, but will have a higher quality image for the reasons given above.


The choice between a zoom or a prime lens for macro work involves a number of considerations, but distance from the subject is NOT usually one of them. To fill the frame at such close distances, moving a camera with a prime lens toward or away from the subject is usually just as easy as using the zoom on a zoom lens.

[Coinfucious888]

Well summarised brum6y/shyer, I would not have been able to put it any better........

[*Ubbie Max*]

Very interesting reading. Are the 150 & 250 macro lenses what I call filters that screw on the end of a lens?

What's this lens like, it's very cheap, Canon 50mm 1:1.8 EF II lens

[shyer]

Hi Ubbie.

That 50mm lens is not macro is what is usually used as portrait lens or some lanscapes group shots.

A dedicatted macro lens is always expensive as limited production runs and complicated . On your canon your lens choice is limited to lens made in last 15 years, so even S/H still dear also canon IS, is in lens if you want that extra again. My old pentax 50mm f4 macro lens fully manual thus about 30 years or older. excellent appearance and working condition I sold for $110 recently. And I paid over $400 for a 5 year old f2 100mm auto apature. auto focus. Pentax shake reduction is in body.

I find 90% of my macro shots are manual with flash with some sort of rest. Only in 5% of shots kept, do I use auto features. Auto is only an aid sometimes to get right manual settings.

The raynox 150/250 are not a filter IMHO even though they attach to frount of lens, they are a lens as they are three lens arranged in a group of 2 sets. If you look at earlier link photo the hoyo +20 filter is one piece of glass. Thus IMHO a filter in reality an expensive, best quality magnifing glass. Still with major distortions. The raynox have minimal distortion till prints poster size. Even the best $2000 macro lens often display faults at poster size.

The main reason I wanted 100mm was not auto or or F2 but the exta focal length, as it keeps me at 200/300 mm from subject. not the 100/150 old ones working range. This means not scaring things and better light from on or off camera flashes. Also more depth of field .I use the raynox lens on my macro lens to go past marco life size  to micro up to 3 x times magnification. even with flash a tripod is needed as focus is wafer thin, as moving 0.2mm  and out of focus

[*Ubbie Max*]

Thanks for that info Shyer. If I get a Raynox 150 or 250 macro lens which lens is best for it, my 18-55 or 55-250? Also should I get the 150 or 250 (what is the difference)

[Coinfucious888]

Have a read of this macro discussion over at the coinee's section of OZRT. I am not sure whether non  coinees can access this link.

http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=2102.80

[shyer]

Hi Ubbie raynox will suit your 55-300 lens if filter thread is 66mm or less. Even up to 72mm with a reducing ring just a few dollars . You will mainly be in the 150 /200 range in use.

The links above give prices for both the 150 and 250 $120/$140 while most people use the 150 about 60% of the time. Both 150 and 250 for $150/180 odd dollars is good value IMHO . The only difference is the 250 has more magnification .

Some interesting shots in that coin thread

[*Yibida*]

  Hi shyer, I would think the coinees would be right into macro photography because of the type of hobby their in, I'm surprised they don't have more input into this thread...

[*Ubbie Max*]

Ripper everyone. I just bought a Raynox 250 from a USA seller for A$79.95 including post. Down the track I'll buy the 150 as well. My lenses have 58mm threads.

[shyer]

Hi Ubbie,

Often large price difference's in camera stuff between USA and OZ. It will lessen as OZ importers see sales going OS. The 250 is a little harder to use. I for walk a bout carry a monopod and a table tripod flash on hotshoe and cloth diffuser, all  ready discussed and a folding stool , Yes I am lazy but not that lazy.

Macro is manual , so get used to focusing manually and setting appatures, set speed to camera flash sync speed to start. Start with matchboxes NO raynox to get farmilar with DOF and flash power and direction.

Then move to stamps with raynox and get used to monopod and tripod on stool or table. In field I use mini tripod lying on ground or stool everything else set the monopod to the height I want the using stool as arm rest or sitting on stool even standing on stool And move monopod in and out to get focus. with 250 I usually use remote release rather than go for button on camera. 250 is harder to learn than 150.

Then move on to dead leaves or dead insects . When you are happy with results then go after them live plants and Things. ALL Live things give you tiny setup times, also everything in nature has a defence . 50 wasps stings, red back bite  and stink bug squirt in eye tought me that keeping your distance is VERY important. Stink bug the worst took 4 weeks for sight to start to improve, doctor got me worried damage was perement. 

[Coinfucious888]

Yibi.......I think most of the coinees are not aware of this thread.

shyer...yes, he little darlings don't just stand around for you to take photos and some of them do BITE.

I have for quite sometime now, wanted to capture on camera, close up shots of the dangerous snakes that inhabit the country here (some of my friends think I am mad) especially the Mulga snake (aka King Brown), but todate have not had a single success yet.

[shyer]

I have for quite sometime now, wanted to capture on camera, close up shots of the dangerous snakes that inhabit the country here (some of my friends think I am mad) especially the Mulga snake (aka King Brown), but todate have not had a single success yet.

Hi Yids,

IMHO Coin macro is a macro specialist field, I think it belongs in coins. just good that readers and posters are now aware of both threads

Hi Fucious ,

What flowers do you and your family like?
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.

.

.
.
Just need to know so I send right ones to your funeral

[*Ubbie Max*]

Plenty of snakes in summer at my archery range. Mostly black snakes but we see the odd Brown. When they are around agin in the spring/summer I will try to photograph one or two.

[*Yibida*]

Plenty of snakes in summer at my archery range. Mostly black snakes but we see the odd Brown. When they are around agin in the spring/summer I will try to photograph one or two.

Hope your going to use a X 10 magnification lens Ubb's ?.... I have a Lumix with that lens and built in stabilizer....

Panasonic Lumix ....DMC-FZ1A-K

[Coinfucious888]

Shyer...definately orchids, as I was originally from Singapore. Migrated to this great country in 1973...

The Mulga apparently is more venomous than the tigers or even the taipans. On top of it, we also have the death adders.

[*Ubbie Max*]

Yep Coinfucious. The Brown, specifically the Eastern Brown is the second deadliest snake in Australia & one of the most deadliest in the world.

Our deadliest snake rated on potency of venom is the Fierce snake which is found in inland Australia. Although there are no recorded deaths attributed to the Fierce it still rates in the top 10 deadliest snakes in the world.

There is considerable debate as to which is the world's deadliest snake & it is split between the Black Mamba & the Saw Scaled Viper, both found on the African continent.

There area number of categories each snake is scaled on & they include, potency of venom, amount of venom injected, aggressivness, speed & number of recorded deaths. There might be one or two other categories but, I can't remember.

[*Yibida*]

Ubb's I thought you said the Brussels Sprout was the deadliest of all ?....

[*Ubbie Max*]

Yeah Yib your right. It doesn't get a rating by the experts simply because it is such a subtle killer & many thousand, probably millions, of deaths by Sprout are not attributed to the evil sprout. The Sprouts only mortal enemies are, Pepsi Max & Pluto Pups.

[*Brum6y*]

Vipers, venom and vicious creatures..... ?

I think I'll let you take them on - I'll just admire the works you create!


I'll going to stick to my desktop setup - where my biggest risk is the silent but deadly wind passed by the dog. (seriously - you HAVE to leave the room!)

[*Yibida*]

Vipers, venom and vicious creatures..... ?

I think I'll let you take them on - I'll just admire the works you create!


I'll going to stick to my desktop setup - where my biggest risk is the silent but deadly wind passed by the dog. (seriously - you HAVE to leave the room!)

Feed him a can of Pepsi brums... thought I'd get in before Ubb's....

[*Brum6y*]

You want me to add MORE GAS to that gut???


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Coinfucious888]

I have this question for someone more knowlegable than moi, it concerns "vibration reduction". Which is better, lens based or camera based ?

Thanks

[shyer]

I have this question for someone more knowlegable than moi, it concerns "vibration reduction". Which is better, lens based or camera based ?

Hi fucious,
I am sure a physist could argue benefits of each system. Having used VR for 10 years now on Video, DSLR and compacts and many brands including canon nikon pentax fuji lumix sony . Two basic rules seem to apply new technology is better than old technology and you only get what you pay for. A $100 xxx brand item will never be as good a what is in a $2000 lens alone both same age.

In DSLR I prefer body correction which is sensor based rather than lens correction. Just for the facts that you only pay for the hardware and software once. Easier for 3rd party lens to be produced from both cost and copyright issuses. You are able to use old thus cheap good lens and get the benifit. The fewer contacts or info going betwen lens and body is less things to go wrong in the real world with dust, water and contaminates.

In fixed lens unit I see no difference. I think you will see the hobby market soon move away from starter DSLR as 15 to 30 zooms will get better and that covers 90% of hobbists . You eliminate contaminates problems when changing lens and total package gets smaller and lighter. The cheap box browning of the 1920s got the public taking photos. The

[*Brum6y*]

First, a query.... Exactly what criteria do you use to determine "better"? Performance; Price; Features/options?


I have no practical experience on this subject, but I will offer a couple of thoughts in favour of body based "vibration reduction".

The first thought is to echo Shyer's comments on duplication of cost, the ability to use regular lenses and the reliability issues.  The second is that, within a lens there are greater space constraints than there are within the body.  To compromise or limit the design of any mechanism within the lens due to space will not provide an optimal solution.

A question to be raised is whether there are any fundamental mechanical/optical benefits that are inherent in lens over body based solutions.  I do not know the answer to this.

[Coinfucious888]

Thanks guys for the replies........

VR, VC, IS or whatever each different brand manufacturer uses, I guess the principles are the same.

Here is an interesting article I came across, a MUST read for Nikon users....

http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

Happy SHooting

[*Brum6y*]

Interesting article.

I would suggest anybody asking about VR be directed to read it. If they come out of it wondering if they need VR, then (in my opinion) they have a good grasp of the subject and are more likely to make wise choices.

If they still think VR is the best thing since sliced bread, then they are a victim of the marketing hype.


As with so many things - being capable of producing a result is one thing ... but understanding what is actually going on will allow you excel.

[*Ubbie Max*]

All you camera officianado's who use Photoshop. Check out these sites. There are a lot of free plug ins for photoshop & some are very good.

http://www.photo-plugins.com/Plugins/Plugins/

http://www.mehdiplugins.com/

If you are not sure how to install them let me know & I'll try to explain how I installed to photoshop (Elements 8) on my Windows 7 systemn.

[Coinfucious888]

Thanks Ubbie....I use Elements 8 on a Windows 7 (64bit) system as well. 

[*Ubbie Max*]

Coinfucious. Do you photograph in RAW? I do & it can be a pain downloading the photos. I try to download direct to Photoshop (full edit) as the Cannon program is fairly useless with RAW, unless I'm doing something wrong.

I'm Windows 7 64 bit

[shyer]

I find photoshop complicated I use free arcsoft and Silkypix (shareware around) for raw loading and basic conversion. Do not know if either works under 7 or 64 bit.

[retribution]

I find photoshop complicated I use free arcsoft and Silkypix (shareware around) for raw loading and basic conversion. Do not know if either works under 7 or 64 bit.

I'm no expert on photography in fact I'm a novice's novice. LOL

However, when you say unsure if works on Windows 7 or 64 bit, it seems this is always a problem for awhile whenever new OS's come out. There are so many packages that the producers of have not yet updated to accommodate. I had the same trouble with Vista Home premium because I got it with a new computer when it first came out. For awhile it was really frustrating getting drivers for cameras etc. Items that would work on XP but not with Vista. It seems now things have caught up but a lot of older cameras are defunct re drivers still even for Vista. I had to purchase a New Sony Camera because my previous one also a Sony I couldn't even download the photos to my PC. I wasted heaps of money on "Card Readers" hoping to get in that way who claimed OK for Vista but no drivers ever found that even those would work. My PC doesn't have a card reader as such.

 

[*Ubbie Max*]

Yep Shyer. I can't get a grip on layers in photoshop. I'm getting a book (Photoshop Elements 8 For Dummies) & I hope this explains layers in plain English.

Ther are many other aspects of Photoshop & I use a lot of them with success to embellish or improve my photos.

[*Ubbie Max*]

I recently joined a photography club & have already learned a lot.

On the first Tuesday of each month the club has a competition & members bring photos (generally A4 size) for judging by a qualified judge from another area.

I decided to give it a go last Tuesday night & showed the photo depicted below. I had to reduse it's size so I could post it here.

Much to my surprise the judge commented on it favourably & it won a merit.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[shyer]

Yep Shyer. I can't get a grip on layers in photoshop.

My ex wife was at one time a screen printer I find thinking about layers as print screens so you will first prirt the black screen then dark red screen then the light red then ...... and finish with the light yellow and light grey screens.

[*Ubbie Max*]

This is a tree I photographed while away in the Snowy fly fishing. I've done a bit of photoshop to it.

I had to reduce it's quality to post it here.



[attachment deleted by admin]