Macro On APS-C

[jiaxuan90]

thks for replying cowseye, i am not very clear about the 1:1 ratio and 5:1 ratio, care to share some knowledge with me?? pictures??

Regardless of which true macro lens, with the exception of Canon's MP-E 65mm, gives you a maximum magnification of 1:1. Which means they will look the same if you focus at the minimum focusing distance. The only practical difference betw. the lens is how short is the minimum focusing distance. Which is the reason why insect macro shooter wants a longer focal range with a higher min focusing distances for 1:1 in case the insect got scared away, and also why accessory product shoot can do well with, for example, the new Nikon 40mm micro lens, which has a very short min focusing distance, while the subject will not move (or attempt to move).

On top of the above, some Tamron and Sigma lenses has imprinted the word MACRO in their lens, they are not true macro lens. As compare to other similar focal range lens, they have slightly shorter min focusing distance, which though it allows greater magnification, but it's not enough to achieve 1:1. Look for the term 1:1 when you are buying a macro lens and you will not go wrong.

 

[jiaxuan90]

thks for replying ortega, i am not too clear about the reproduction ratio. Mind sharing some knowledge with me

do note the different angle of view that different focal length gives you

what you need to look at is

1. angle of view you want
2. maximum reproduction ratio
3. also note crop factor will increase maximum reproduction ratio

 

[SkyStrike]

thks for replying skystrike, if r u using raynox 250, did u notice that the picture is not that sharp...

If you are comparing it to 1:1 macro lens, yes, it's not that sharp...and also focusing skill plays a BIG part too (I still sucks at focusing it right)..

My 1st noob macro attempt at cactus plant (55-250 with Raynox 250).

*65mm, f22, 0.8s on Tripod*

*250mm, f32, 3.2s on Tripod*

thks for replying cowseye, i am not very clear about the 1:1 ratio and 5:1 ratio, care to share some knowledge with me?? pictures??

thks for replying ortega, i am not too clear about the reproduction ratio. Mind sharing some knowledge with me

There is a subsection called Macros and Close up, you can find some useful information about the reproduction ratio.. (the following 2 will provide quite some answers to your queries)
- http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/261356-Macros-and-Close-ups-FAQs
- http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/255554-Macro-Converter

*removed, refer to Spree's explanation of 1:1 and 5:1..*

 

[spree86]

If you are comparing it to 1:1 macro lens, yes, it's not that sharp...and also focusing skill plays a BIG part too (I still sucks at focusing it right)..






There is a subsection called Macros and Close up, you can find some useful information about the reproduction ratio.. (the following 2 will provide quite some answers to your queries)
- http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/261356-Macros-and-Close-ups-FAQs
- http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/255554-Macro-Converter

But in very short and layman terms
- 1:1 means, the subject will fill up 1 whole picture/viewfinder. Imagine a jumping spider filling up 1 whole frame (1:1)
- 5:1, the subject will be blown up 5 times more than the 1:1... Imagine only the spider eye filling up the whole frame (5:1) (Just an illustration...)

Actually 1:1 means that the subject will be reproduced life-size on a 35mm sensor. Similarly, 5:1 reproduction ratio would mean that the subject would be 5 times that on a 35mm sensor. 1:1. life-size ant on a 35mm sensor. 5:1, 5 times the usual size of an ant on the sensor.

 

[SkyStrike]

Actually 1:1 means that the subject will be reproduced life-size on a 35mm sensor. Similarly, 5:1 reproduction ratio would mean that the subject would be 5 times that on a 35mm sensor. 1:1. life-size ant on a 35mm sensor. 5:1, 5 times the usual size of an ant on the sensor.

oops..pai seh...bad illustration...

*me not really into macro lar....most of the time I take close up...normally 1:3 is good enough for me.*

 

[spree86]

oops..pai seh...bad illustration...

*me not really into macro lar....most of the time I take close up...normally 1:3 is good enough for me.*

Haha 1:3 will need heavy cropping for smaller subjects, invest in a macro lens, you won't regret it

 

[SkyStrike]

Haha 1:3 will need heavy cropping for smaller subjects, invest in a macro lens, you won't regret it

Depends on how small is small...

- my smallest so far is a 水梅花 (English name: Sacred Buddhist, Wondrous Wrightia, Wild Water Plum, Water Jasmine), aprox 1cm in diameter... which will require heavy cropping (if without Raynox or accessories to allow closer focusing) and in the end delete away cos IQ cmi..but I seldom take shots at this magnification..

@ TS, this was one of my shot using Raynox 250 @ 250mm (EF-S55-250) of this flower

*pardon my noob shot. But this image should be also suffering from abit of diffraction...cos I used f32 or something like that :sweat:*


- This is my normal "close-up range", but standing 1.x meters away makes me feels weird, which is one of the reason why I'm still considering a macro lens..




The flower is aprox 4cm in diameter.

 

[jiaxuan90]

Depends on how small is small...

- my smallest so far is a 水梅花 (English name: Sacred Buddhist, Wondrous Wrightia, Wild Water Plum, Water Jasmine), aprox 1cm in diameter... which will require heavy cropping (if without Raynox or accessories to allow closer focusing) and in the end delete away cos IQ cmi..but I seldom take shots at this magnification..

@ TS, this was one of my shot using Raynox 250 @ 250mm (EF-S55-250) of this flower

*pardon my noob shot. But this image should be also suffering from abit of diffraction...cos I used f32 or something like that :sweat:*


- This is my normal "close-up range", but standing 1.x meters away makes me feels weird, which is one of the reason why I'm still considering a macro lens..




The flower is aprox 4cm in diameter.

Thks for the link skystrike it was really useful!!! and your explaination spree66 thks.
Was wondering, if u use a raynox issit a must to use such small aperture??? If really there's a need, do u use external flash or a mini soft box to pump in more light for the subject?

 

[jiaxuan90]

Another enquiry,

.
Is this shot taken with macro lens?

 

[SkyStrike]

Thks for the link skystrike it was really useful!!! and your explaination spree66 thks.
Was wondering, if u use a raynox issit a must to use such small aperture??? If really there's a need, do u use external flash or a mini soft box to pump in more light for the subject?

Not just raynox, so long as you are closing in on the subject (esp at macro range 1:1), your DOF will be very shallow and to get more depth, you will have to use a smaller aperture. And with the smaller aperture, you will likely require flash to get a stable shutter speed at a reasonable ISO.

For flash, macro shooters I've read about use their DIY diffuser (I think it's called Victor Diffuser...you need to use the forum search for this one) to get diffused light.

 

[jiaxuan90]

Not just raynox, so long as you are closing in on the subject (esp at macro range 1:1), your DOF will be very shallow and to get more depth, you will have to use a smaller aperture. And with the smaller aperture, you will likely require flash to get a stable shutter speed at a reasonable ISO.

For flash, macro shooters I've read about use their DIY diffuser (I think it's called Victor Diffuser...you need to use the forum search for this one) to get diffused light.

Will it be good if i use a soft box instead of the DIY diffuser

 

[ed9119]

this thread is getting featured in Clubsnap Photography Community FB page
http://www.facebook.com/#!/ClubSNAP.Community

 

[SkyStrike]

Will it be good if i use a soft box instead of the DIY diffuser

I will not be the best person to answer this question...cos I've never used either before. And most of my subjects are either non-moving objects which I used tripod for it at >1 sec.

But according to my readings, It should be more or less the same... cos the ultimate aim is to diffuse the light and "spread" it as wide as possible. But DIY is MUCH cheaper than buying a ready made softbox.

The victor diffuser (IIRC) is made using a
- Daiso Chopping Board $2 (I think it's the flexible one)
- some foam paper (~$5? I got it from popular for some of my macro uses)...
- Scissors (if you need it to cut the chopping board, daiso have it at $2 too :bsmilie

I believe the soft box already cost more than $10.

this thread is getting featured in Clubsnap Photography Community FB page
http://www.facebook.com/#!/ClubSNAP.Community

:thumbsup:

 

[jiaxuan90]

I was even more budget than you on one occasion where i really have to make do with what i have.
I shoot this shot using tissue paper and A4 size white paper as a diffuser.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f....441610702941.229655.626277941&type=1&theater

I will not be the best person to answer this question...cos I've never used either before. And most of my subjects are either non-moving objects which I used tripod for it at >1 sec.

But according to my readings, It should be more or less the same... cos the ultimate aim is to diffuse the light and "spread" it as wide as possible. But DIY is MUCH cheaper than buying a ready made softbox.

The victor diffuser (IIRC) is made using a
- Daiso Chopping Board $2 (I think it's the flexible one)
- some foam paper (~$5? I got it from popular for some of my macro uses)...
- Scissors (if you need it to cut the chopping board, daiso have it at $2 too :bsmilie

I believe the soft box already cost more than $10.


:thumbsup:

 

[SkyStrike]

I was even more budget than you on one occasion where i really have to make do with what i have.
I shoot this shot using tissue paper and A4 size white paper as a diffuser.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f....441610702941.229655.626277941&type=1&theater

There are too many DIY diffuser out there!, but if it works (without causing anything to catch fire), it's good


The only diffuser I have is the omni bounce, which I've yet to try while taking macro shots.

 

[spree86]

There are too many DIY diffuser out there!, but if it works (without causing anything to catch fire), it's good

The only diffuser I have is the omni bounce, which I've yet to try while taking macro shots.

I started out using an omnibounce, doest work that well. So I quickly DIY-ed one

 

[Cowseye]

Light source is very small in hard cap diffuser. U need to "spread" the light...

 

[SkyStrike]

I started out using an omnibounce, doest work that well. So I quickly DIY-ed one

Yet to DIY one yet, but may look into it sometime in the future

 

[jiaxuan90]

I started out using an omnibounce, doest work that well. So I quickly DIY-ed one

spree86, care to share y omnibouce doesnt work for u?? I spotted alot of people using omnibouce.

 

[spree86]

spree86, care to share y omnibouce doesnt work for u?? I spotted alot of people using omnibouce.

Are you sure you see many macro shooters using omnibounce? Every macro shooter I know do not use it. The omnibounce does not spread and diffuse the light enough, causing harsh shadows to form on the subject. This will make the lighting look very unnatural and also cause a lot of reflections off insects with more reflective exteriors.