DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Macro Photography
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/07/2013 09:10:17 PM · #1
So, I have a question....I'd like to try my hand at macro photography, with my main interest being insects. A good example is here:

Scopecube

My question is: are these brilliant close-ups a product of crazy setups (lens + extensions, or lens + reverse lens), or is this possible with standard macro lens?

Second question, while I know the longer focal length macros like 150mm and 180mm give you longer working distance, I "assume" they still only give you 1:1 like a 100mm macro lens? Thus one lens doesn't get you "in any tighter" than another?
10/07/2013 09:32:51 PM · #2
Some beautiful macro work there, to be sure. All of it is at very high magnification, definitely higher than 1:1. You are correct that most macro lenses reach only 1:1 without some additional assistance/ On APS-C, this gives a field of view of about an inch. The Canon MP-E65 goes from 1:1 on the *low* end to 5:1 on the high end. It is for macro only, however,and will not focus to infinity (or even to 1 foot, LOL).
I had some trouble finding any references to his technique on a short search, but it does seem that he uses focus stacking, another almost necessary technique at these magnifications. In the end, if you can get results anything like he does, you can say you have really mastered macro photography. It is a difficult, challenging, but ultimately rewarding area of photography.
10/07/2013 09:50:38 PM · #3
Thanks for the insight Fritz. So I'd basically need some tubes with a macro lens to get anything close to that?

Same thing with these images? Can't pull the EXIF, so can't see what he's using.

Jumping Spiders
10/07/2013 10:17:03 PM · #4
Yep. Magnification looks like at least 2:1, probably higher, although even 1:1 on a small-sensor camera can look like a lot more. For comparison, this:
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_104756.jpg
was shot at just over 2x, and is still cropped significantly.
10/07/2013 10:20:30 PM · #5
I sent you a PM Garry.

I think the spiders are doable with regular gear.

Remember that a higher density of pixels equals a higher resolution result for the same amount of DOF.

See this conversation.

In other words, with a dense enough sensor those kind of results might be possible with a regular 1:1 lens, but you'll need to crop to get there with any level of usable DOF.

Message edited by author 2013-10-07 22:20:45.
10/07/2013 10:24:44 PM · #6
Thanks guys, useful info!
10/07/2013 10:35:54 PM · #7
Some more pics.

:)
10/07/2013 10:40:11 PM · #8
This guys is my man-crush:

Thomas Shahan
10/07/2013 10:50:32 PM · #9
I am by no means an expert. I have been shooting bugs for a few months.
I originally had a Nikon D7000 and had pretty good results initially with a manual 105mm and eventually I bought the latest AF version which gives you 1-1 magnification and migrated to the D7100 because of the higher pixel density and the absence of the low pass filter. I debated the upgrade for a while but I think it was money really well spent.
I tried the reversed lens with extension tubes but I have not had much luck with it, probably because of my own limitations but I found it really hard to do.
Some of the pictures I have been able to get are here:

drgoose68 flickr
Since you are a Canon guy you have the advantage of having available to you the Canon MPE-65 lens that can give you a magnification of up to 5:1.
Apparently not an easy lens to use.

Out of all the types of photography I have given a shot at, macro is by far the one I have had the most fun with.
Hope it helps. Have a blast.

Message edited by author 2013-10-07 22:55:24.
10/07/2013 11:04:57 PM · #10
Sometimes it's easy to forget just how magnified 1:1 is.

Here's a reminder. :)

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_963203.jpg
10/07/2013 11:10:41 PM · #11
Nice one, Cory.

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_960778.jpg

Drgoose, Is this with your standard macro lens or the extensions+reversed lens?

Fly

Message edited by author 2013-10-07 23:13:16.
10/07/2013 11:24:55 PM · #12
Check out the macro work by 21_F.gif Roz. She is amazing!
10/07/2013 11:51:10 PM · #13
Originally posted by Enlightened:

Check out the macro work by 21_F.gif Roz. She is amazing!

Absolutely!

Stupid question #7. With extension tubes, do you lose any extra stops of light?
10/07/2013 11:58:08 PM · #14
Ditto on the Roz is amazing.
A bellows can get you deep into macro territory with a normal manual lens, but it's a bit of a trick to get adjusted to using it effectively. It's essentially a variable/ zoom extension tube.
A short lens like 24mm can get right in there with even a short extension. The longer lenses require longer extensions to get to the same magnification.
Or, you can "roll your own", starting with any old simple lens if you are handy with duck tape and hammers. This one cost me less than $25 total, and about 30 minutes with a lathe.
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1064722.jpg
10/08/2013 01:04:21 AM · #15
Garry that is with the 105mm cropped all the way in.
This is the original frame.

fly
10/08/2013 01:10:47 AM · #16
Originally posted by drgoose:

Garry that is with the 105mm cropped all the way in.
This is the original frame.

fly


Thanks! Were you at minimal focussing distance?

Message edited by author 2013-10-08 07:16:58.
10/08/2013 01:28:15 AM · #17
I cant say with certainty but I am pretty sure I was.
10/08/2013 08:23:17 AM · #18
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1085844.jpg

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1085845.jpg

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1085848.jpg

All shot with the old Canon 100 mm f/2.8 Macro.
10/08/2013 09:05:43 AM · #19
Thanks Doc. Those iridescent eyes in the middle one are natural like that or enhanced in PS
10/08/2013 09:24:19 AM · #20
Originally posted by Garry:

Thanks Doc. Those iridescent eyes in the middle one are natural like that or enhanced in PS


Natural. Like in compliance to basic editing.
10/08/2013 10:00:17 AM · #21
Originally posted by Garry:

Stupid question #7. With extension tubes, do you lose any extra stops of light?


Yes. Two stops for every doubling of magnification. When you double the magnification, you are spreading the same quantity of light over four times the area, thus two stops of loss. You do gain something in return, though. The effective f ratio gets numerically larger, so the DoF increases. This effect is why the Canon MP-E65, though labeled f/2.8, actually has an effective f number of f/5.6 at 1:1, and f/96 at 5:1 (yes, that's f-ninety-six!), even though the camera reports f/2.8.
10/08/2013 10:10:31 AM · #22
Thanks Fritz.

Can you help me here. If I start with a 100mm lens with 1:1 ratio and add a 12mm or 20mm or 36mm extension tube, how do I calculate what the resultant magnification would be?
10/08/2013 10:15:08 AM · #23
Originally posted by kirbic:

The effective f ratio gets numerically larger, so the DoF increases.


Is that true? I always thought that you're losing light without gaining DoF.

10/08/2013 10:18:17 AM · #24
Originally posted by Garry:

Thanks Fritz.

Can you help me here. If I start with a 100mm lens with 1:1 ratio and add a 12mm or 20mm or 36mm extension tube, how do I calculate what the resultant magnification would be?


My opinion: unless you've got a handle on the light with macro photography, don't go chasing after more magnification. Things get complicated very fast in that realm (effective aperture, focusing, etc.), so if you want to keep life easy, start with the basics.

Only my opinion, of course, but i've made the same mistake :)
10/08/2013 10:43:53 AM · #25
Originally posted by Dudski:

Originally posted by kirbic:

The effective f ratio gets numerically larger, so the DoF increases.


Is that true? I always thought that you're losing light without gaining DoF.


The DoF is larger than what you'd expect based on the reported f number, but since the magnification is increased, that does offset it. The end result is still damn narrow DoF! The bottom line is you need to use the effective f number when calculating DoF, and DoF for macro is a different calculation than for normal work, because terms in the equations that are negligible near infinity focus play a large role at macro distances.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/17/2018 08:27:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/17/2018 08:27:22 PM EDT.