Then flash til it's stunned lor... hahahah
Then flash til it's stunned lor... hahahah
Kill it directly la.
Macro of dead insects?
Cleanse your thoughts, not by the foods you eat.
- The tissue paper is thin and black color (so what the purpose of tissue paper as diffuser?).
- Hammer head flash with high GN and M mode in rapid flash shooting (most probably the flash tube burn first than a tissue paper).
IIRC, flash does not allowed in museum as flash contain UV light that will damage/affect the painting.
(b) You will lose optical quality as well. Otherwise it would be a simple matter of lens makers simply making a cam (cam - a mechanical engineering device, not camera) that delivers the lens elements further to get the close focus. Then the $180 50/1.8 get extended into micro range 1:1 at $180 plus cost of extension tube. Why would people still get the 60/2.8 micro? Answer lies in that the micro lens is optimized at the micro range while still delivering at normal range. Lenses not designed for micro when pushed, most of them anyway, will have significant corner sharpness loss.
If you dispute (b), just set up your camera and photograph a piece of newspaper or other print material and see your corners go horribly wrong*. Shooting insects' ok, cause you won't be looking at corners.
*If you are using DX sensors you are in better shape, as the cropping would have reduced the horrible corner images.
That said, there are some lenses that are well known for their ability to be extended and performed well. I just don't know which ones right now, knew them back in the manual focus days.
In the Nikon range anyway, there are some close-up filters with a suffix "T", e.g. 5T, 6T, etc. These are twin elements close up filters that can deliver much better results than the simple single element close up filters. Fast too, but expensive, not different from buying extension tubes (in cost), but no loss in light.
My current most used option.
I have a reverse ring that I must have used maybe 2 times in 20 years.
Last edited by diediealsomustdive; 16th November 2006 at 10:37 AM.
I know these "T" filters are way better than the plain jane close-up filters, this through actual shooting. But never made the comparison (don't own extension tubes), so can't tell you same result or not. I opted for it instead of extension tubes for convenience.
If someone will lend me a set of extension tube (Nikon mount), I don't mind testing and tell you guys.
And Artosoft is correct, it is called achromatic close-up filter.
Last edited by diediealsomustdive; 16th November 2006 at 02:52 PM.
reverse lens technique?
Here is my contribution, in case you have missed these CS discussions, here is a collection of links. It is about Olympus dSLR cameras and macro solutions but it can be implemented with any camera brand.
The first is a generic macro discussion of cheap solutions.
This is about my bellows solutions, equally usable on any dSLR as far as I know if you are handy or can buy a bellows made for your camera.
This is about my DIY general macro adapter. It is a modified extension tube originally made for modern E-system camera combined with an old extension tube making it very useful for all kinds of macro work.
Many words to read and images to look at.
I 'discovered' magnifying glasses about 7 years ago after I paid $32 for a set of 3 - +1, +2, +4 Tiffen lenses. They looked like magnifying glass and worked as so. I resolved to test my thinking and got a pair of $1.00 reading glasses at Dollar Tree. It worked as well.
Usually I stretch my left hand out after looking through the magnifyer with my bare eye and use hand to set the distance. Then the camera goes about where my eye was and all comes out 'OK' . Not perfect but 'OK'. This is good for the poor people on ebay who try to shoot something as close as possible to get close and live with out of focus and their apology.
Most camera that are focussing (not point and shoot) will have macro since the lens move the mfg includes macro. This type along with anything over 640.x480 should be enough for most web shots.
For the killer closeup shots you'll want to seriously think about using the smallest aperature
and then you need a tripod and then your closeup is 'automatic' ..
Let's think of it this way. IF you had an very tiny aperature you could move as close as you want with any lens and you'd have a good closeup. Why? Because your depth of field would be good at all distances. Why doesn't it work in real life? It does if you use a pin hole camera and 1 hour of exposure. It's something to remember when you're going for the best digital closeup. Try for the min aperature and your focus problems begin to go away.. even if you use a magnifying glass. You have to use a tripod.
1. Think of 'Third hand' magnifyer holders.
2. Permenant setups work with a desktop lighted magnifyer. $15 at harbor freight.
===You have to start somewhere
I always believe that learning the history of a topic gives the user a mind for thinking up their own solutions. Go back to camera obscura and learn some history and your brain will solve most of your new questions.
Here are some pinhole (camera obscura) images. See how the depth is nearly infinite?
It works the same when you are much closer.
Last edited by SnapNapper; 3rd October 2007 at 06:01 PM.
Anyone here tried the Raynox DCR-250 attachment? It's got some great reviews... This guy even mounted it on his EF70-200 F/4L:
Last edited by DLord; 4th October 2007 at 04:58 PM.