Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Those TINY shots of flies...

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Farrer Road
    Posts
    354

    Default

    yay .. bluestrikkk is going to bring down all his toys at next SEED and teach us how to assemble his super duper macro combination!

    wonder why it's called MACRO instead of MICRO ....

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    In the Shepherd's hands
    Posts
    690

    Default

    wonder why it's called MACRO instead of MICRO
    Is it becos macro is life-size and a bit bigger, but micro is like microscope magnification e.g. 100X?

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Originally posted by Poledra

    But so many different ones to choose from!! It's worse than shopping for clothes, I swear.....
    Oh ya! I so totally agree with you on this!!!!

  4. #24

    Default

    Originally posted by lavenderlilz


    Oh ya! I so totally agree with you on this!!!!



    Just pick 1 and go!

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Originally posted by togu





    Just pick 1 and go!
    Ouch!

    An even better solution on my pocket would be ..... DON'T BUY LAH!!!!

  6. #26

    Default

    Please treat this thread more focus on the newbie requirement than banal talk. Do not reply anymore unrelated comment include apology ....
    See my Photo Gallery at the Clubsnap

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    In the Shepherd's hands
    Posts
    690

    Default

    Poledra, why on earth would you want to photograph a fly's leg hair???

    So, now your dad knows... anyway he didn't kill you. He's right, if you wanna see things real large you either get a telescope or a microscope... Seriously though, what does the magnification issue have to do with good photography?

    Your Sigma 28-80 Macro can do 1:2, or half life-size. That means the image on the negative is half the size of the actual thing. Now if you print a 4R of that, the image in the photo will be larger than life-size already. If you do 8R...

    Anyway, from library books, I gather you can use one or more of these gadgets:

    1. Close-up lens: looks like a filter, attaches like one. Downside: only fits a certain diameter, I think.

    2. Extension tube: enables you to focus closer, thus bigger. Downside: Lose some light, and your lens already gets you very close, with an extension tube you'll be sniffing the fly's 6 smelly feet...

    3. Teleconverter: multiplies the normal and macro views of any lens by a factor, e.g. X 2. Downside: reduces your aperture by a similar amount; may affect autofocus when using your lens at 80mm (non-macro) cos can be too dark.

    As mentioned, you can also get a reverser thingy to mount a lens backwards. You can also get an extendable accordion-like bellows... but may I suggest you stop ogling hairy legs & go exploit your Sigma first?

  8. #28

    Default

    d7t3, care to enlighten why using extension tubes will result in loss of light?

    poledra, my simple thread sometime ago may give u some idea on extension tubes: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...threadid=16942

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    In the Shepherd's hands
    Posts
    690

    Default

    That's a good question. I can't explain how or why, but some people have tried to:

    http://www.reefnet.on.ca/gearbag/tubes.pdf (many equations)
    http://www.web-nat.com/bic/ont/tips41.html (simpler)

    Apparently the loss is slight. How was your experience with your tubes?

  10. #30

    Default

    You are correct. With fixed zoomed digital cameras and added lenses, (generally 35mm lenses) much larger macro ratios are possible. More than a film medium. With a 50 or a 100mm lens added to a digital camera with a fixed zoom lens of 10x optical and 2x digital zoom, huge ratios are possible, handheld in the field.

    With that setup on a 2.1 megapixel camera, macro ratios of around 75:1 is possible. Can it be done with a 35mm SLR, no it can't. A 50mm macro lens and bellows on 35mm SLR, will get to around 7:1.

    The difference is the eye of a fly on digital, compared to the entire body of the fly with a 35mm SLR.

    Danny.

  11. #31

    Default

    Originally posted by macroholic

    With that setup on a 2.1 megapixel camera, macro ratios of around 75:1 is possible. Can it be done with a 35mm SLR, no it can't. A 50mm macro lens and bellows on 35mm SLR, will get to around 7:1.
    I wonder how you obtained your calculations, it appears to be a bit off to me...

  12. #32

    Default

    Hi YSLee . Over 30 years shooting only photomacrography. Using an engineers rule and examining millimetres, etc that have been photographed. This gives scale, size and ratio at set distances and according to the 35mm size and 2/3 CCD size.

    The setups I use now are at

    http://www.nzmacro.50megs.com/lenses/lenses.htm

    All the best and still using Canon and Nikon 35mm SLR's as well for macro.

    Danny.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •