I have a Sony a200. I am on a limited budget so I can not go get a nice cannon. When it comes to macro should I give up and walk away or will my Sony be OK? My wife wants to get me a tripod and macro lens for my 50th birthday. But if we would be wasting our $ I would rather get something else.
Please do not get me wrong I LOVE my Sony but I keep seeing how everyone is saying that the Cannon is better.
Thanks ahead of time for your honest advise.
Love & Prayers
Darryl
Sometimes, it is better to be kind than to be right. We do not need an intelligent mind that speaks, but a patient heart that listens. Unknown
************* irpappyroot2.photoshop.com My flickr Account
0
Lord VetinariRegistered UsersPosts: 15,901Major grins
I have a Sony a200. I am on a limited budget so I can not go get a nice cannon. When it comes to macro should I give up and walk away or will my Sony be OK? My wife wants to get me a tripod and macro lens for my 50th birthday. But if we would be wasting our $ I would rather get something else.
Please do not get me wrong I LOVE my Sony but I keep seeing how everyone is saying that the Cannon is better.
Thanks ahead of time for your honest advise.
Love & Prayers
Darryl
Can't really see why your Sony should not be absolutely fine for macro as long as you can get a reasonable macro lens for it.
Can't really see why your Sony should not be absolutely fine for macro as long as you can get a reasonable macro lens for it.
Brian v.
Thank you so much Brian. I did not think it would matter.
Love & Prayers
Darryl
Sometimes, it is better to be kind than to be right. We do not need an intelligent mind that speaks, but a patient heart that listens. Unknown
************* irpappyroot2.photoshop.com My flickr Account
I am also using Canon camera (EOS 5d MKII) and a range of Canon lenses. In the photo of your equipment I see that you are using the three Kenko extension rings together with 100mm Macro. I used to do exactly the same, until I discovered that the 50mm lens with the Kenco rings allows much closer focusing! I don't know why but it happens!
I notice that most of you don't recommend the ring flash with the 65mm MP-E. Might I ask why? I was fortunate to be given both as Christmas gifts last year and I'm just wondering if I should use that ring flash or my regular 580EXII? Of course, FIRST I have to learn to focus and adjust for my deteriorating vision as noted in another thread
I notice that most of you don't recommend the ring flash with the 65mm MP-E. Might I ask why? I was fortunate to be given both as Christmas gifts last year and I'm just wondering if I should use that ring flash or my regular 580EXII? Of course, FIRST I have to learn to focus and adjust for my deteriorating vision as noted in another thread
shadow give depth to the image
the light from ring comes from all directions , thus eliminates shadow
what i would try ;
-remove from the lens and mount it on the tripod-mount of the lens
-try to make a diffuser on it
-if you 'd use the 580EX , you would have to do that also
shadow give depth to the image
the light from ring comes from all directions , thus eliminates shadow
what i would try ;
-remove from the lens and mount it on the tripod-mount of the lens
-try to make a diffuser on it
-if you 'd use the 580EX , you would have to do that also
Ah - so the ring flash would create a flatter light / flatter image without depth. Thank you. That makes sense.
Can someone explain image sizing when using an O)lympus 620 and a 105 MM macro lens.
Cannot get my brain to cooperate.
Hope I have worded the question correctly.
Ah - so the ring flash would create a flatter light / flatter image without depth. Thank you. That makes sense.
The Canon ring flash has two flash tubes which are rigged as groups A and B. You can control flash output of each. which moves flash source at an angle to the subject introducing shadow. I have both the ring flash and the one with two heads that everybody uses, but sometimes like the ring flash for it's compactness. Use the A:B flash settings and you will come closer to the other flash results than most believe.
ciao!
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Can someone explain image sizing when using an O)lympus 620 and a 105 MM macro lens.
Cannot get my brain to cooperate.
Hope I have worded the question correctly.
it is called Breathing
the rear element moves during focusing , this causing a slight zoom effect
Lots of great stuff here, I have a set of Kenco tubes and have used them stacked 36mm+20mm+12mm behind a 24-70mm f2.8 @ 70mm @ 2.8 and love the magnification but the DOF is Razor thin I have seen some work using the Raynox DCR 250, I am curious if anyone here knows what would produce better sharper images the Kenco stack and my 24-70 stopped down with a flash set up or this Raynox DCR 250 and say Canons 100mm f2 or f2.8 with this Raynox or Kenco setup? I could make some educated guesses as to expected performance from any of these combinations but I really like to here from people about what they have tried and what they like.
0
Lord VetinariRegistered UsersPosts: 15,901Major grins
edited July 2, 2013
The DOF in macro shooting is only dependant on the aperture and the magnification not the method of producing the magnification so that does not change. Add-ons such as ext tubes or a dioptre will always work best with a prime lens and a macro lens such as the 100mm 2.8L will also give a flatter focus field. Using that as the base lens then ext tubes should give better image quality than the Raynox but both would give very good results.
Brian V.
The DOF in macro shooting is only dependant on the aperture and the magnification not the method of producing the magnification so that does not change. Add-ons such as ext tubes or a dioptre will always work best with a prime lens and a macro lens such as the 100mm 2.8L will also give a flatter focus field. Using that as the base lens then ext tubes should give better image quality than the Raynox but both would give very good results.
Brian V.
Nice work! Have you ever tried 24-70 f2.8 as a base lens, it is fairly sharp not sure if it is as sharp as the 100 f2.8. I hear you with the "prime objective" the big thing for me was that the Raynox option is not possible with the 24-70 f2.8 given the filter thread size. So 100mm would be the base for a Raynox set up. I have seen some very sharp stuff from people using Raynox set ups, but who knows what there workflow is. I could DOF bracket 60 shots with no flash at 70mm with 68mm extension @ F2.8 in daylight to prove it is possible and the image might look alright in the end but that is a lot of work to get around the obvious need for more light and the broader DOF of a smaller aperture. I am curious what works best for single exposures to get good magnification and deep enough focus to get say a large ant (5mm) "all in"! right now I seem to be working with a DOF @2.8 of about .001 cm.
0
Lord VetinariRegistered UsersPosts: 15,901Major grins
Nice work! Have you ever tried 24-70 f2.8 as a base lens, it is fairly sharp not sure if it is as sharp as the 100 f2.8. I hear you with the "prime objective" the big thing for me was that the Raynox option is not possible with the 24-70 f2.8 given the filter thread size. So 100mm would be the base for a Raynox set up. I have seen some very sharp stuff from people using Raynox set ups, but who knows what there workflow is. I could DOF bracket 60 shots with no flash at 70mm with 68mm extension @ F2.8 in daylight to prove it is possible and the image might look alright in the end but that is a lot of work to get around the obvious need for more light and the broader DOF of a smaller aperture. I am curious what works best for single exposures to get good magnification and deep enough focus to get say a large ant (5mm) "all in"! right now I seem to be working with a DOF @2.8 of about .001 cm.
To get good detail at mags from 1:1 and higher you really need to be using flash - this obviously allows the use of fairly small apertures but also runs slap bang into diffraction softening . You then need to balance out the DOF vs the absolute sharpness via the aperture. eg a standard aperture to set at 1:1 is around F11 but this is already a slight compromise between DOF and diffraction softening. It really gets down to your own requirements in the shot.
Can someone explain image sizing when using an O)lympus 620 and a 105 MM macro lens.
Cannot get my brain to cooperate.
Hope I have worded the question correctly.
I use various lenses, often on (various) extensions or with supplementary lenses or teleconverters. If it is not my regular setup I just view a ruler (white with black markings, using full aperture for this purpose only) and see how wide the field of view is. (On my m4/3 1:1 at the sensor is 17.5mm wide). I don't aim for a particular magnification but, rather, to get my subject to fill an appropriate portion of the frame. I may also check working distance.
A early comment says you can't do much about sunlight. When I was mostly photographing flowers I found a translucent diffuser, placed between the sun and the subject did the trick.
Comments
I have a Sony a200. I am on a limited budget so I can not go get a nice cannon. When it comes to macro should I give up and walk away or will my Sony be OK? My wife wants to get me a tripod and macro lens for my 50th birthday. But if we would be wasting our $ I would rather get something else.
Please do not get me wrong I LOVE my Sony but I keep seeing how everyone is saying that the Cannon is better.
Thanks ahead of time for your honest advise.
Love & Prayers
Darryl
*************
irpappyroot2.photoshop.com
My flickr Account
Can't really see why your Sony should not be absolutely fine for macro as long as you can get a reasonable macro lens for it.
Brian v.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
Thank you so much Brian. I did not think it would matter.
Love & Prayers
Darryl
*************
irpappyroot2.photoshop.com
My flickr Account
http://www.imagesbyceci.com
http://www.facebook.com/ImagesByCeci
Picadilly, NB, Canada
the light from ring comes from all directions , thus eliminates shadow
what i would try ;
-remove from the lens and mount it on the tripod-mount of the lens
-try to make a diffuser on it
-if you 'd use the 580EX , you would have to do that also
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Ah - so the ring flash would create a flatter light / flatter image without depth. Thank you. That makes sense.
http://www.imagesbyceci.com
http://www.facebook.com/ImagesByCeci
Picadilly, NB, Canada
Cannot get my brain to cooperate.
Hope I have worded the question correctly.
The Canon ring flash has two flash tubes which are rigged as groups A and B. You can control flash output of each. which moves flash source at an angle to the subject introducing shadow. I have both the ring flash and the one with two heads that everybody uses, but sometimes like the ring flash for it's compactness. Use the A:B flash settings and you will come closer to the other flash results than most believe.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
the rear element moves during focusing , this causing a slight zoom effect
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Brian V.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
Nice work! Have you ever tried 24-70 f2.8 as a base lens, it is fairly sharp not sure if it is as sharp as the 100 f2.8. I hear you with the "prime objective" the big thing for me was that the Raynox option is not possible with the 24-70 f2.8 given the filter thread size. So 100mm would be the base for a Raynox set up. I have seen some very sharp stuff from people using Raynox set ups, but who knows what there workflow is. I could DOF bracket 60 shots with no flash at 70mm with 68mm extension @ F2.8 in daylight to prove it is possible and the image might look alright in the end but that is a lot of work to get around the obvious need for more light and the broader DOF of a smaller aperture. I am curious what works best for single exposures to get good magnification and deep enough focus to get say a large ant (5mm) "all in"! right now I seem to be working with a DOF @2.8 of about .001 cm.
To get good detail at mags from 1:1 and higher you really need to be using flash - this obviously allows the use of fairly small apertures but also runs slap bang into diffraction softening . You then need to balance out the DOF vs the absolute sharpness via the aperture. eg a standard aperture to set at 1:1 is around F11 but this is already a slight compromise between DOF and diffraction softening. It really gets down to your own requirements in the shot.
Brian v.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
I use various lenses, often on (various) extensions or with supplementary lenses or teleconverters. If it is not my regular setup I just view a ruler (white with black markings, using full aperture for this purpose only) and see how wide the field of view is. (On my m4/3 1:1 at the sensor is 17.5mm wide). I don't aim for a particular magnification but, rather, to get my subject to fill an appropriate portion of the frame. I may also check working distance.
Harold
A early comment says you can't do much about sunlight. When I was mostly photographing flowers I found a translucent diffuser, placed between the sun and the subject did the trick.
https://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/reflectors__diffusers/lastolite_lr2007_translucent_diffuser_50cm_20/11255_p.html
You have alter the WB .
Harold