Can I have a "Redo"

pyanez

In trying a new macro lens on a relatively new body, I discovered that I will need to retrain myself. I had to fantastic opportunities today to get some pretty unique photos, and blew them both. One was of a gorgeous bug (some sort of stinkbug?) that literally looked to be diamond encrusted and the second was of a moth that was deep, I mean deep into a flower and was getting pollen grains all over itself. In both cases the shots had way too little DOF and the focus plane was not where I wanted it to be -- things I would probably not have missed with my usual "rig"

ARGGGGG!!!!!

Try the link below for a higher res image of both photos so you can see why I felt like bonking myself on the head when I saw the results:

My new journal

pyanez

I should have included the apertures... the top image was shot at f10 and bottom at f6.3, and both, as 99.9% of my macros, were shot with manual focus. Practice with the new camera maybe I need, but I should need practice in general. It's possible I was particularly unsteady as I'm getting over a stomach flu.

I think the bigger issue is that the apertures I choose was still in "Canon-think", as f10 on my Nikon is really only equivalent to f6.3, and the other shot at only f4.5 or so on my old Canon system.

Baffled by what I'm saying, thinking that the flu got the best of me? No actually it turns out and I should have know this, that all macro lenses loose light as you move in tighter -- I actually had to verify this myself as soon as I started shooting with my new Nikon Camera. After extensive testing I found that my Canon 60mm macro (which is f2.8) actually becomes more of an f5.6 at 1:1 distance. A true 5.6 that is, both in light transmission and DOF. Nikon on the other hand reports the apertures a bit more realistically so the lens I was working with (Tamron 60mm F2.0) becomes a f4.0 at 1:1 distance.

So the above shots would have been much better if I had used my old Canon rig at those apertures, but on my Nikon I really should have gone f16 and f10 or so respectively.

Live and learn.

Lord Vetinari

Well you only just missed the focus point in #1 - I would have used around F11 in #1 but at that shooting angle would have taken a series of quick shots at different focus points (for focus stacking). This does have one advantage that you effectively focus bracket the subject. To get good in focus coverage in one shot you would really need a higher shooting angle.
Brian v.

pyanez

Brian,

Is that f11 Nikon or f11 Canon?

jax

Your Nikon reports 'effective aperture'. Which is different from the real aperture. Basically what a nikon tells you is, 'I know you set it at 2.8 but depth of field looks like 5.6 with this particular lens'. Quite confusing if you ask me. ( And also the reason many new Nikon shooters ask questions like 'My new xxx F2.8 lens won't open at 2.8!!!!'

Brian talks about the real aperture.

Lord Vetinari

I'm talking about F11 canon. I'm really not sure if this equates to a Nikon apparent aperture of F22 at 1:1.
Brian V.

jax

Effective Aperture = (Aperture Setting) + (Aperture Setting x Magnification)

approximately.


So yes, f11 reads as f22 on the Nikon with a 1:1 magnification.

This comes down to, with an Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens used at f16 and 5:1, a teeeeeeeny tiny pinhole of f96

pyanez

Jax,

Thanks so much for the clarification - I look for this info everywhere as I was testing a Tamron 60mm f2.0 on my new Nikon Rig vs my old (and BELOVED) Canon 60mm f2.8. Beyond the (obvious) issues of comparing a lens two different bodies from two different manufacturers, I came on up on the problem that the Tamron f2.0 became an f4 at 1:1 and I need to know what the effective aperture was for the Canon 2.8 at 1:1. I actually shot an entire series to compare exposure and DOF and came to the conclusion that the Canon 2.8 was just a shade smaller (darker) than f5.6 on the Tamron. Boy your equation would have made things much simpler.

BTW - the obvious question for a hack like me is: given the amazing photos I seem from the MP-E 65, how come their not all ruined by diffraction? Does the effective aperture have nothing to do with the effects of real aperture on diffraction and resolution?

Cheers

PS - I almost think that this bit of info should be left at the top of the forum as a sticky note.

jax wrote:

Effective Aperture = (Aperture Setting) + (Aperture Setting x Magnification)

approximately.


So yes, f11 reads as f22 on the Nikon with a 1:1 magnification.

This comes down to, with an Canon MP-E 65mm Macro Lens used at f16 and 5:1, a teeeeeeeny tiny pinhole of f96

jax

pyanez wrote:

Jax,

Thanks so much for the clarification

You're very welcome.

pyanez wrote:

BTW - the obvious question for a hack like me is: given the amazing photos I seem from the MP-E 65, how come their not all ruined by diffraction? Does the effective aperture have nothing to do with the effects of real aperture on diffraction and resolution?

Exactly. Mechanically and optically seen nothing changes. The true aperture opening still stays at f16.

Besides, loss of image quality is very often mistakenly blamed on diffraction, while in reality it was due to user error (read: lens/motion blur)... But that's a different story.

paddler4

If you are worried about diffraction, I suggest you try a series of shots with a stationary object that has some curvature, using a tripod and remote release. I did this several times last winter with flowers on my kitchen table. Because the flowers were not even approximately on a plane, I wanted as much DOF as I could get. So, I took series of shots at decreasing apertures (higher f stops). I did this with an EF-S 60mm macro on an XTi. With that outfit, diffraction was not a big deal at least has high as f/22. Even at f/32, the results were OK at 8x10. So, in my case, it is pretty clear that 'diffraction' is indeed mostly the dreaded macro movement blur.

Here is one at f/20:



Here is one at f/32:

GOLDENORFE

it just takes practise with new gear, did you only get the one shot?
why did you change over to nikon?

as in paddlers flower example, shooting flowers at a smaller apperture is not the same as higher magnification shots at same f number.
i have never shot lower than f14 due to softening.
phil

PeterD-2009

An interesting thread. Instinctively, I generally use a set aperture of f18 to f22 with my Olympus E500 and Sigma 150mm Macro combination for macro shots. Less than this severely effects the dof. Having said that image 1 would be very difficult given the angle of the subject.

pyanez

In case some of you didn't see my follow up post to this one... I was eventually able to get some "satisfaction" from an about equally hard angle (satisfaction):



(no satisfaction):



you can see the write up in this post:

Follow up here at Dgrin