Photography
Related: About this forumfly eye macro
finally got a decent shot of the compound eye of a fly.
ive been trying for a long time.
magicarpet
(14,149 posts)It looks like my tea strainer or the screen on the summer time back entrance door.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,611 posts)Amazing shot, IMHO.
3Hotdogs
(12,375 posts)Callalily
(14,889 posts)I literally said whoa out loud when I opened your photo!
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Im thinking of buying the Olympus 60mm Macro.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)it lets me stay further away from the insects
alfredo
(60,071 posts)I still have a soft spot in my heart for Pentax.
I have used the Olympus 40~150 with extension tubes. I love that the zoom becomes the focus ring.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Short macros can have some of the best optics and they tend to be much cheaper, but for nature photography they are pretty much useless beyond about 1:2 magnification. If you are photographing objects sometimes you can get down to 1:1 and beyond, but working distance is measured in mm rather than inches which can make the lighting tricky.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)They tend to produce very flat lighting. So they work great for taking photos of dental work. Not so much for insects and flowers.
With close focusing you generally want to use the narrowest aperture setting that will produce a sharp image. Another problem is with a short working distance, blocking ambient light becomes a real issue. This makes supplemental lighting very handy, if not essential in some situations. Personally I dont like ring lights. I prefer to use a bracket that holds two strobes if Im hand holding and trying to capture a moving subject. For fixed subjects Ill use strobes and light stands.
So I absolutely love my Nikkor 55mm macro for a number of reasons, but the big limitation with a short macro is working distance at high magnification which is a good thing to be aware of depending on how you want to use it.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)I don't get so close, I'd rather pull back a bit and crop.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)In fact even a very cheap strobe that only does manual settings will work just fine.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)One thing I like about the ring light is it can strobe or provide constant light. Sure makes for more reliable outcomes.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)However as far as macro goes, that extra capability is mostly wasted since manual mode works better and even the Chinese strobes you can buy on the cheap work in manual mode. Pretty much all digital cameras have a histogram which works far better than any flash meter you can buy.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)and this is at f16
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Its not so much the optics themselves change, but rather our techniques. F/16 becomes the standard aperture for most macro, while much less often otherwise. The lens focus barrel becomes an adjustment for magnification, while actual focus is controlled by moving the entire camera in or out.
For moving subjects, Im never able to achieve much better than 1:2 magnification. I set the lens focus to that magnification (my lens is manual focus only), and I use one or two strobes mounted to a bracket fixed to the camera. The strobes are set to manual mode because the lens to subject distance never changes, and I just move the camera in and out to focus. It takes a few tries to get a useable image, but otherwise works quite well.
With stationary subjects, you can do whatever magnification ratios your equipment allows and most serious macro people will use a focusing rail.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Diopter filters are one way. Extension tubes are another. A true macro lens provides a number of advantages, not the least of which are close range correction for aberrations that tend to soften the corners when a normal lens focuses closely.
My Nikon 55mm macro will do only 1:2 magnification natively, but you can put it on extension tubes and get even better than 2:1. However the working distance gets so short the lens is almost touching the subject.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So it definitely works. Theres a few practical drawbacks that are solved by using a normal macro lens.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Legacy glass is another route.
mnhtnbb
(31,386 posts)CrispyQ
(36,462 posts)~insert blue ribbon smilie here
How far away were you? Or did you sit perfectly still until the fly approached?