|
|
|
|
To all fans of the technical side of photography.
To prevent threads cropping up left right and center across many boards, please use this thread to ask techie questions, get techie answers and show off your techie skills.
|
|
|
|
|
<img src=YOUR LINK HERE width=500>
|
|
|
|
|
Would a Nikon d40 be any good for self takes
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a good lens I can pair with a Canon 70d for catch shots?
|
|
|
|
Thought i would put a link to my YT channel showing my learning curve with the Nikon P950 over the last 6 months
untill i bought this camera i only really used action type cameras GO PRO Drones etc and everything was strictly Auto everything ...so having to learn something new has been very frustrating but rewarding ...who said you cant teach an old dog new tricks 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHiInBcN9nU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to AB all i know is that PINAC....
Thanks AB.
|
|
|
|
I'm looking at getting one of cheap alternatives to the Rhino light that are all over Amazon\Ebay, will a very basic one be fine
Amazon link
Or should I go for one with the variable colour temp, dimmable brightness etc
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2592
That actually looks decent 
Some olympus cameras use the same jack canon use, I think all models since they switched to usbc instead of proprietary cables
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2589
Get yourself a Rhino release foot pedal for canon, so much easier than having to push a hand held remote,just tap your foot on the pedal and away you go.
https://rhino-tech.co.uk/shop/ols/products/rhino-release
Cable type S1 600d is in the specified camera list
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2590
Ok thanks, will do
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2589
Possibly a lack of light or too short an interval, but your probably better off bringing up a related thread in tackle or general, not many bother looking in this thread.
I know a few dslrs have weird quirks in live view mode, hopefully a user will have an answer for you.
The 50 will give better pics but can be impractical as you've found
|
|
|
|
Right folks, recently got my hands on a 600d and a plug in intervalometer and now have a couple of questions, mainly about the focus. Go easy as I haven't used a DSLR before 
Anyway, been experimenting using the intervalometer with the Live View screen and I find that if it's set to 'Live' focus mode it sometimes doesn't actually take a shot, sounds like its focusing etc but then no actual shot taken. If I switch it to 'Quick' focus mode it seems to take a shot every other time, like it uses one shot to focus then actually takes it on the next one, is that right or have I got some settings badly wrong?
I should point out I was experimenting in my hall (it was pissing down) with a bright multi-coloured cushion and not outdoors with a fish 
Also as it's on loan it comes with a 50mm and an 18mm -135mm lenses,. I've tried both, using the zoom at the 35mm setting, the only issue is with the 50mm you have to get miles away from the camera, would you suggest using the zoom is maybe a better option or not?
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 |  | |
|
Got some cameras for sale. Not sure if I am allowed to list on here but if anyone is interested drop me a pm.
Canon, olympus and miranda
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2586
Thanks for that, I have been looking at gaming laptops but didn't see many 2in1 versions, and I like being able to use the digital pen in photoshop. I can use the lightroom mobile app to use a tablet in the same way but I don't think I do that with photoshop. Will have to wait till later in the year now tbh
Will check out the video later
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2584
I upgraded my PC around 6 months ago as my previous one was struggling with the latest version of Photoshop, Lightroom and Luminar AI.
I found this Youtube video useful in giving me an idea of which PC to look for based on GPU, CPU and RAM requirements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96EEfOeNHDU
I ended up buying a gaming spec PC, and it works really well.
|
|
|
|
when doing self takes of fish. I set my camera to take 100s of shots about 3 seconds apart. i often forget to turn it off....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2583
Another related question, what do you guys see as minimum requirements for an editing laptop?
I bought my daughter a 2 in 1 jobbie, I put photoshop on it as she's using it a lot for coursework, so much faster than my laptop and the touchscreen with a digital pen is brilliant! So much better than my wacom tablet.
But what spec would I need, I'm not a big photoshop user, but I have been playing with focus stacks, and 8 images is about the max currently for this, also the same using deepskystacker but I do want something that would cope with a lot more images without taking a week. I think 32 images + calibration frames would be about the sweet spot.
Is it unrealistic to think I can do this with a laptop?
|
|
|
|
Anyone got any experience with astro tracking mounts?
I've been trying to get some shots of various deep sky objects with my 75mm 1.8 but with 3.5 sec exposures it's a lot of work stacking loads of exposures and results are still pretty meh, a stack of 8 images of andromeda is the best I've got so far but it's still grainy, I reckon I'd need 32 exposures to get anything decent
Ideally I'd like something small and fairly cheap so I can take it fishing for some wide field milky way shots, but I would like one up to tracking for 30 sec exposures with the 150mm equivalent lens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2580
Annoying isn't it 
I was watching a carp you tube vid the other day, reminded me of picking up the phone when someone was on the Internet in the early nineties with the focus motor jitters and clicky aperture stepping 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2579
Thanks duggs, I've got a shotgun mic that fits into the flash housing but yes as you say you can hear the motor!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2578
I can't really help with canon lenses but when video is involved you have to look out for noisey motors. Some of my lenses I can only use for video if I can use a lav mic, or a shotgun mic on an extension lead away from the camera. You'll do well to search for video specific reviews of any lens you consider
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi, I am looking for some advice based on experience and knowledge of what Lens to upgrade too.
I have a Canon 80D and have been using a EFS 18-135mm USM lens, but wanted to get a better zoom, possibly up to 300mm.
Can anyone recommend a high quality lens (for photography and video too)?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2564
This is so true.
I take pics in high q jpeg and raw with a 36mp camera. Each file is 40 times the size of an old 3.5 floppy disk. And yet I don't delete anything.
|
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to compare the size of cameras, this site gives actual sizes so you can see for yourself before you buy.
https://camerasize.com/compact/
And Camera price buster, fantastic site.
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/
And the used lens site i put here a while ago.
https://usedlens.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
Bought the big camera fishing hoping to get some shots of the hobby/s I saw snatching dragonflies last week, haven seen a glimpse of them this week but I did test the stabilisation last night.
8 seconds handheld was easy, 15 seconds was possible leant against a tree at 12mm (24mm equivalent) 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2573
here I think
I've never tried it myself
You can get a lot of camera for £500
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2572
Dont suppose you have links please. Its an old
Camera so not too fussed if it bricks
Cheers 👍👍
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2571
It doesn't look like it has ports for an intervalometer, your only option would be a software hack, chdk or magic lantern would be 2 places to start if your happy with the camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2570
Chaps after some advice.
Running an old canon s5is. The built in intervalometer dont give me many options so looking for an external one. For the life of me i cant find a compatible one. Possibly camera too old.
If anyone can help with one id appreciate it.
Failing that a new camera with a flip screen and will allow the use of an external intervalometer.
Im in no way an experienced photographer and camera will literally sit in my rucksack for fishing only.
Must have flip screen and hotshoe attachment for my rhinobeam and allow an external intervalometer.
Not looking to spend over 500 notes
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2569
lol duggs. it was shot at 4ish on saturday. i was killing time untill a zoom drink up with a buddy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2568
At 3 o'clock on a monday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2566
That looks interesting, there's a few programs I'll get when a new pc, I just don't think mine has the power to deal with that number of images.
I did see an article on speeding up light room by changing some default settings, I think I'll give the computer a tune up and see if I can speed it up a bit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2565
Have a look at Photo Mechanic, I’ve only ever heard good things about it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2564
Until I got this camera I wasn't too bad, since caf was useless on the em5 I was nearly always in single shot mode.
But this thing, I use mostly in burst mode, or the high speed Pro capture firing 60 frames a second, and it'll save 3seconds worth once I fully press the shutter, so 180 frames at a time and maybe a dozen if I'm lucky will make it to import.
My computer is struggling under the load, I don't think I'd ever tried to deal with more than 500 images at once before.
I've got around 3000 images from last year that didn't get wiped immediately, there's probably triple that since lock down and I've been more critical what I import
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2563
If you sort those 6000 pics out i have a couple of 1tb external drives that need sorting.
Why do we keep so many pictures we may never look at again.
Anyone else have trouble hitting the delete button.
|
|
|
|
Jeeeeeeeeeeesus
Playing with the pro capture mode to get some take off shots of damselflies, hover flies and bees
Filled a 64gb card in 20 minutes
Any volunteers to filter through 6000 images for maybe 20 worth keeping
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2561
What a great idea, thanks.
Keebs I love the detail in the Spider pic.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2560
Some nice shots guys, I've only really done some portrait stuff over the last couple of weeks, trying to say goodbye to my 75 1.8 but I keep having ideas for it 
Ken, those kingfisher shots would be good to revive the view from the swim thread, it'll get a bigger audience in that section
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2556
That's a great shot. What lens are you using for macro.
I use the Sigma 105mm but haven't used it for a month now but will be hopefully getting to do something with it soon.
This Blue Green Dragonfly was with a 150 to 600 Sigma lens taken on the same session as the Kingfisher, lucky shot really
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2553
I have never got a shot of any Kingfishers on my rods before but managed up to a hundred of this one over a four day period. I think this one is a juvenile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Kingfisher perched on my rods a few times
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2549
Really like the fly in the picture.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2547
I'm in sw London so I've got heavy light pollution in all directions. I read on the lonely speck site about red intensifier filters cutting light pollution but it's not working out for me. Some weird things happen with the star colours so trails look crap and I can't stack multiple frames to clean them up as the star might be a different colour in each frame.
Maybe with a camera that gives single files clean enough it might work well
|
|
|
|
Took the big lens fishing the other night, found a Spotted Flycatcher 2 swims down.
Click for bigger
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't even know where to look 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2546
500th or 640th, I think I should go a bit higher. Shot it in video and grabbed a few stills, there was no way I could do anything else with any hope of success. Handheld at 3000mm, subject about 250 miles away going 5 miles a second. There’s some great shots that someone got with a properly mounted telescope where you can even see someone on a spacewalk.
Just over half an hour until tonight’s first pass and it’s cloudy so no playing tonight.
I did want to try for the comet but laziness and lack of a decent northerly view that doesn’t contain east London’s light pollution means I’m looking at other people’s pics and saying “I could have done that.”
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2545
That moves bloody quick, what shutterspeeds do you manage with that?
Did you get any shots of the comet, I've been too busy to risk going to work sleep deprived to try for a shot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2544
That's not hard, this is the International Space Station handheld last night with a Nikon P1000. I'll try for something better tonight, clouds permitting.
|
|
|
|
A rather unique challenge 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53422345
None more black
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2542
There's a chance I might get my dad's old one, which was actually his dads, apparently it should be in my uncles loft.
I'd be over the moon with that
Just watched the add with James hunt
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2541
I remember the Olympus Trip adverts with David Bailey.
Very funny.
Great camera in its day.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2540
I don't think I'd use a larger format, just the size and cost per shot would mean I'd have to plan days around using it, which would likely see it stay in a cupboard once the novelty had worn off.
My dad had an Olympus trip years back, might be nice to get one of them
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2539
I’ve never developed at home and don’t even have the kit to do it anymore. I always had the facility at work and could make use of their recovery systems even if I was using my own developer. If you are talking tiny amounts then it probably makes more sense to send it off for dev and scan rather then buying tanks and chemistry. You could try the instant coffee method but you will still be flushing silver down the drain.
There are plenty of places to send film for processing, if you go for Ilford XP2 it can be done in an hour at Snappy Snaps as it is a B+W film that is processed in C41 chemistry. It is not the nicest film by a long way so bear that in mind.
I only run the odd bit of film for tests these day so use XP2 for that. With the 35RC I expect I’ll use FP4 or TriX and send it off somewhere. Medium format is worth a look if you’re going for film, a TLR from Rollei or Minolta can be had fairly cheaply and are an absolute joy to shoot with. Bag a cheap one then sell it on eBay once you’re done and you could even make a profit to help cover your film costs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2538
I do love the idea of getting an old film camera, an om1 or similar, but I really wouldn't have a clue what to do with the film. Small bits I've read on developing look like an ecological disaster zone with the chemicals involved.
That site does look useful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2537
I like the idea of removing the hotshot, self timer and engravings. I might have to practice on a spare top plate first. I really loved the look of the Leica Monochrome Stealth Edition so I would like to emulate that with matte black paint.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2536
What direction are you taking - carpy camo or maybe a nice bit of 70's Formica?
|
|
|
|
Used Lens
This place, that Ken posted on the thread in General a few days ago, is great. I've already bought an Olympus 35RC that I've been promising myself for years. My father had one and it was the first camera I ever used other than point and shoots.
Now to customise it a bit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2534
I like that beetle shot, I find something similar occasionally but with a iridescent blue green colour but it's difficult to get an angle to bring out the colours, usually just looking black 
Had a play with a 70-200 f4 the other day, focus worked really well so I'm back to looking for a 150-600, too late for the peregrines now as the chicks have moved on but hey ho
Might even make a few quid in trading a couple of lenses by the look of it.
Olympus announced that a longer macro lens is under development yesterday, I don't know what to think of that, I'd be all over a 100mm macro but I suspect it won't happen
Should get my kit back from Dorset this week, I'll have the flash power to set up the cross polarised rig then
|
|
|
|
David Carradine
Click for bigger
Violet Ground Beetle
|
|
|
|
|
Popped into wex earlier, bet its a brilliant shop normally but it's more like a trip to argos with the covid precautions
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2531
I found quite a difference for flight when you get into it, particularly with busy backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2530
I can't get on with back button focus, it just seems like a waste of a button. I can't see the advantage over just half pressing
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2529
Focus limit is on the lens(es) for me not the camera, so that's one I have to remember, and often forget!
I've a few things common to all.
Back button focus is the main one, although I'm considering taking that off the macro settings, it's not necessary for that at all just habit now, but it makes contorting for macro angles a lot more painful!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2528
It'll probably change but so far I've got
C1 for birds
C2 for macro
C3 for fishing catch shots (this will probably change as I think the em5 with the 17mm 1.8 will be my fishing camera most of the time)
Most general settings are really quick to change, but I've assigned buttons to different functions in each mode, so the dof preview button will do focus limiter for birds, focus peaking for macro and intervalometer for catch shots as an example.
I could do this on the em5 but it was much more complicated as you replaced things like the scene modes on the dial, and even then I was never quite sure what mode I was in
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2527
Focus limiter makes a big difference to "lock-on" speed
Custom modes are super-useful.
I missed it going from 7D to the 1D4(older camera), but with the 5D3 it's back again.
The settings I've settled on are...
C1 for flight - usually 300 + 1.4x
ISO 800, S/S 2500, f6.3, AF expand, High Speed burst, Slow tracking response
C2 for general birding usually 300 + 2x
ISO 1600, S/S 1250, f6.3, AF single point, High Speed burst, Medium tracking response
C3 for macro - always the 180 & Speedlight
ISO 200, F16, S/S 200, Flash pin-spot AF point, fast tracking response, single shot
All are in Manual mode and really good start points for each lens combination.
On the day of course it's all fiddled with on the fly as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
I've been playing with the focus limiter, what a useful feature!
Managed to set up a custom mode for birds and assigned the limiter to the dof preview button and can toggle between three settings that way. Setting 1 at 25-120m setting 2 at 30-70m and setting 3 at 15-40m. Doing this I can track a bird left to right from my garden and toggle through the settings and eliminate the problem spots where the focus jumps if my tracking isn't perfect
I can see this being useful when using tubes for macro stuff, I'll often use a tube just to bring the reliable af range closer, but then the focus limiter on the lens will be to close and the full range is too slow. I haven't actually tried this method on the em1 yet, it might not need the limiter
Also turned the stabiliser off for the first time since I bought an olympus and using much higher shutter speeds, I've always thought 1000th to 1600th would be enough but that video suggests much higher speeds are better. My lens isn't weather sealed so I can only play during breaks in the rain
|
|
|
|
Has anyone been to photograph The Isle of Skye before.
Landscape's
I will be going there in late September early October time. And visiting the usual places.
Neist Point, The Old Man of Storr, The Fairy Pools
Eilean Donan Castle etc.
Obviously all these places have been well photographed in the past and I do like to look for something a bit different than the usual.
I have a couple of ideas thanks to Google earth but wondered if anyone knows of anything off the beaten track.
A long shot I know.
|
|
|
|
The more I read about the olympus sell off the less likely it seems they'll exist in a couple of years.
I'm in two minds whether to move on some lenses or get some in the fire sale to come.
I could still use them on a panasonic body but they seem to be concentrating on the l mount range, with the top end mft bodies being past due replacing. It seems unlikely my next camera will be m43 mount
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2523
I've bought his books and they are well worth the money. The amount of 'free' content he has is very good so I don't mind supporting that by getting the odd product from him since I can't use any affiliate links or anything.
I haven't found much issue with VR interfering with the view but I don't do much in the way of high speed subject matter. I have been switching it off when I'm >1/1000 as I'm not sure that it helps anyway. It does nothing for the subject's movement and my movement should be dealt with by the shutter speed anyway. You also avoid the system fighting against you as you pan and tilt. Some can switch to a 'panning' mode to ignore horizontal movement but I normally just switch it off. It has improved but I remember having a Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 which was an early VR lens and the system being so poor I had to switch it off permanently. Even without VR the lens was pretty awful, with it on it was better suited to being a paperweight. The version 2 is supposedly a lot better but I haven't trialled one.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2519
That is a great tutorial
Took me months of Art Morris blogs to glean all that!
Mind you he does sell pdf guides too, so giving it away won't be in his remit - he's a real mercenary bugger.
The only bit I'll argue with is the turning off IS/VR at high shutter speeds.
Seems to be one of those hotly contested areas of the hobby.
The main problem is IS/VR for flight can make your viewfinder "jerky" making your tracking difficult.
But results will vary from kit to kit.
For example.
The Canon 300 2.8 in IS Mode 3 does not stabilise the image until you release the shutter, so you can see your own tracking properly in the viewfinder, right up to the point of the shot.
It still makes a positive difference to the resulting image regardless of the Shutter speed.
I've played around with it a lot!
Biggest problem at the moment is heat haze anyway, first hour or so of light is your best chance, rest of the day forget it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2521
I think a lot of us are guilty of buying stuff hoping it'll give us a bit more motivation.
I really reigned in my collection when the 6dii with 50mm art lens sat in a bag while I went walkabout with the em5ii and a dirt cheap toy lens, you know those poxy adapted cctv jobbies
I think if a day comes where Im scrapping more images because of my mft cameras capabilities rather than my own poor skills/timing/decisions I might give full frame another go and appreciate it a bit more. That said if olympus dropped a full frame omd with the same feature set I'd struggle to resist
Edit, just read that olympus have sold the imaging business, doh!
Found the first vid helpful, will check out the second shortly.
I did have the camera set up for back button focus but have now assigned that button for the focus target, that button is the only one my thumb can hit without little jitters that send the viewfinder all over the place at that focal length
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2520
Yeah, just the focus part, stacking needs to be done in post.
It won't be the first feature I've got excited about then never bothered to use again. I've got plenty of gear (photo and fishing) that falls into the same category.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2519
Is that focus bracketing or something for birds/action?
I was quite excited when olympus added that to my em5 via firmware update then never used it
Was around 6 months after I'd bought it, then about 18months later they added the in camera stacking bit. that only works with a few select lenses where the bracketing works with any af lens. Do any other manufacturers offer the equivalent to the olympus live bulb and live composite modes? These seem really gimmicky but I find them really useful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2518
This might help, it's the same guy I linked to recently.
I just found out that the Z 6 has an automated focus shift feature. It does the focusing, not the software side. I might have to have a play with that later.
|
|
|
|
So frustrating this wildlife photography, sat there last night with four of them up the pylon, three did fly off giving me a good opportunity, and with a bigger target I got a few decent frames
And then with one left, sitting right at the top of the pylon the light took on a beautiful gold hue, and from the low sun the undersides of the pylon structure glowing, I was praying for the last one to fly towards me, picturing the epic shot it would give.
F****r didn't move till after sunset
This is the range I'm coping with, even with a few more megapickles the crops are too deep.this is where the 150-600 would come in to play, even with a. 71x speedbooster I'd be much closer. Left it too late now but maybe get one later in the year if the new olympus 100-400 doesn't excite me
Lazy bloody pidgeons
I could crop this a touch more but its just not close enough really
Breakfast of champions
One of the better flight shots, again needs too much cropping to be any good
|
|
|
|
I don't often see them in the evening but there are three falcons sitting atop the pylon mocking me with there stillness
Mummy Bird isn't there for sure as she's much bigger, I can't tell if it's three youngsters or two with daddy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2515
Funny enough I'm used to 2 eyeing it with anything moving, because of the lag. I find it easier to predict the moment I need to press the shutter like that.
I can't say I noticed a big size difference with the viewfinders on the em5ii vs 6dii I had for a bit, I just remember how gloomy it was with manual lenses stopped down or slow zooms at the long end. The em1ii viewfinder looks pretty crap compared to the one in the lumix g9 but seems to have less lag.
Will watch the video later
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2514
I like the guy, he's done some good books and some of his explanations have been quite useful when I find mine aren't hitting home.
I haven't got on with 2-eyeing it (and I'm nicking that phrase!) unless it is on a full-frame DSLR or a rangefinder. The smaller viewfinder on M43 or APS just made it less easy to get used to. The other reason is the viewfinder lag on mirrorless (which they may well say doesn't really exist but I can see it) which affects me when I use the Z-series.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2512
Good video
One of the first things I realised with long focal lengths was keeping both eyes open (I called it 2-eying it!) made finding the subject quicker and easier.
Another mistake that I still make if I see something unusual is trying to take shots of subjects way too small in the frame!
It's easy to get carried away with a big tele thinking you can reach anything, then you look at the size of crop you need on the computer!
With Canon at single-point focus if the subject isn't twice the size of the little focus square it's not worth shooting!
I've shot stuff smaller than the AF square and wondered why the results weren't great. 
Of course the more you try to fill the frame, the harder it is to keep the subject IN the frame.
A loaf of stale bread down the local park will give plenty to practise on.
Head-on incoming ducks are good fun.
Or, as Art Morris says, "Point a camera at a gull and within 5 minutes it will do something interesting"
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2510
Yeah the tripod wasn't working out for me, might have been better if I had a collar on the lens but rigging something up with a ball head, lbracket and macro rail worked OK for panning, but was crap for vertical adjustment.
I need to figure out how to change target size with one button press, I need the small box to get them at range but then when they take off I really struggle to keep that small target on them, not tried using the tracking yet.
I've seen a focus limiter in the camera menu, I'll try and figure that out
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2508
This guy describes a few techniques but as Keebs said, it's all about practice.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2510
Another thing to look at is if you have a focus range limiter on your lens. Reducing the focussing range speeds up the acquisition considerably.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2508
To be honest I find tripod/gimbal too restrictive for flight shots.
Pre-focussing on something at the expected subject distance helps a lot.
Setting your AF to wider than single point ie Zone or Expansion or whatever yours calls it helps a lot with initial acquisition. This falls down with busy backgrounds though, as your camera will try to refocus if you lose tracking on the subject. You may have an in camera setting for how soon your camera tries to refocus after losing it. Go as slow as possible if so.
Practice a lot getting your AF point on the subject, I try to grab every gull and pigeon passing without firing the shutter, just exercising that hand to eye coordination.
It gets easier with time.
Focus acquisition is only half the story.
The bottom line is you are at the mercy of your cameras AF tracking speed and accuracy and that's why the likes of the 1D level costs money.
A lot of cameras just cannot effectively do flight/sports/fast action.
Good flight shots are not easy at all.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2508
In a situation where I can see them nesting I have a tripod with a gimbal head set up and focus the camera on the nest.
It's easier having everything set and ready. Yet even then it can be a pain but less so.
I visit a lot of airshows and if possible use tripod and gimbal there too as all day with a long lens it can get heavy at times.
I will add a couple of pics later of raptors in flight using this method.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips and tricks for finding your target with long lenses? Where the em5 couldn't focus on moving targets it's not something I've much practice with, and I'm missing a lot of opportunities.
Specifically with the peregrines, once they take off from the pylon I have around 3-5seconds before I lose them behind the tree line, and they seem to have a sixth sense to take off when the camera is down
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2506
Nice one pal
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2505
If you click on em you'll go to the site and yes it's free.
Easier to share from than photof*cket too
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2501
Nice pics mate
What site are you using, is it free?
I used to use photobucket until they came along with the subscriptions
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2503
There's quite a few bug hotels around RSPB Rye Meads.
When I go there it's usually in the hope of a Kingfisher or two, but the bug hotels are usually very good for macro stuff this time of the year but they are still closed I believe.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2502
I'm gonna have to try and get some slow mo video of them, the robotic movements are pretty hypnotic.
I saw the moment it caught it but didn't get the camera up in time. They seem to be about the only resident bugs of interest in my garden but I've made some rosemary and thyme and bought some parsley and chives so hopefully next year will be better. I might make a bug hotel too
Did you notice the laowa probe lens on springwatch? I didn't realise it was that big but I can really see a use for it, being able to stick it through the foliage rather than doing camera yoga and getting your head covered in webs/sap/other bugs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2501
That first one's a belter
@ken - even the most common insects feel like you've never seen them before.
It's like an alien world.
|
|
|
|
Dinner time
Flesh fly
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2499
I couldn't get too close as I just didn't have the light but I like this one
|
|
|
|
This shot was today in the garden.
I love the hooks on the feet.
The macro world is an amazing place when you get that small.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2497
Bloody hell, I didn't realise it was right there. I'll be a bit further along commercial street, opposite the coffee shop(Starbucks I think) at the end of the shops.
Might try and book my em5 in for a sensor clean
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2496
Spitafields market to WEX will take less than five minutes walking.
Leave the market on Commercial Street, turn right and go to Whitechapel High Street, turn left then first right and WEX is two hundred yards on your left
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2495
Used them a few times and been very happy with them, I did hope they'd keep the little calumet store off Oxford Street as the new one is a bit of a trek. One tube ride to Tottenham Court and I've got park, cameraworld, jess ops and a few small dodgy looking shops
Ive always had great service in park, they've even sent me to the London lighting store when they could have sold me something similar at a higher price. Little things can make a huge difference.
Shame I'm not working over there any time soon, and I'm not riding the tube for a memory card!
I may swap my p35-100 for the olympus 40-150 since some of the features are only available with olympus lenses, bit out of order that 
Saying that, I'll be over spittle fields soon, how far is wex from there?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2494
Keep an eye on WEX website for Current Wex promo codes.
They don't keep them up for long but often have half decent ones.
I am only two tubes from their East London shop, I could spend an hour at a time in there just looking around.
Usually end up buying from the used lens Section as they do some good prices on used lenses plus you get a guarantee.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2492
Yeah I've had it a little while but only really used it with the peregrines which have been frustratingly out of range.
Just been following a jumper around my lemon tree, bit of a revelation using caf for macro, was a shame I got it taking off and landing but with the modes I'm locked out of I would have got a few frames in mid air.
I might just get the card I want at wex, 40 quid difference isn't too bad for the peace of mind
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2491
I use CF in both my 1D4 & 5D3.
All my cards I bought from reputable stores for exactly that reason so I can't really help you there.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2491
That's a good camera you have, so you need decent memory cards.
https://photographylife-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/photographylife.com/fake-memory-cards/amp?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15926598795247&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fphotographylife.com%2Ffake-memory-cards
It's a long link but helps in identifying genuine SD cards.
There are a lot of useless copies out there.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2490
I went with the olympus em1ii, didn't fancy dropping another £500 for USB charging, that's about the only difference to me between the ii and iii.
Just need to get used to button placement, my thumbs are searching for buttons that aren't there at the moment
Is it safe buying cards on amazon these days? They're a lot cheaper but I've heard there are lots of fakes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2489
What is the new camera?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2488
F****** hives
Was a bit worried this morning but not a squeek today thankfully.
Gave me a chance to play with the new camera between showers, will take some time to get used to it but the "pro capture" mode could be brilliant for macro, available light only but one of those folding diffuser/reflector jobbies should help.
Some extra megapickles and cleaner high iso won't hurt either.
Focusing wasn't great with a sigma 1.8 zoom so I don't think I'll get a 150-600.
Didn't realise Id need a mega fast card to use some functions(60fps raw excluded)
Even at a lowly 18fps I ended up with over a thousand crap photos to delete
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2487
"Kept waking up with coughing fits last night so I'll be at home today
Edit; could be a nomad bee?"
If you're coughing up Nomad Bees you should probably see a doctor (do you have hives too?)
In all seriousness hope you're OK mate. Take it easy and bombard it with 4 Berroccas a day.
It's all new to me aside from the usual suspects so I sometimes spend hours searching for ID's, that's half the fun of it for me.
A lot of the time you find out you can only narrow it down to a Genus, Family, or even Order unless you start examining dead ones under a microscope!
I've quite a few "insect" pictures
It does look like Nomad Bee from a quick look at online images though.
This is a good one for spiders
https://www.naturespot.org.uk/taxonomy/term/19515?page=0
|
|
|
|
Here you go, I'm saying wasp looking at wings and head, and I suspect it's a juvenile version of the bigger wasps I've been trying to shoot on my lawn. From memory it was about 15-20mm
The other ones are around 35mm and the thorax is proportionally bigger, and the yellow bands are thinner.
I suspect Paul will know
Kept waking up with coughing fits last night so I'll be at home today
Edit; could be a nomad bee?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2485
The thorax is under the wings, I'll see if I can find a different angle of it in the morning, but it was black and yellow hoops. I'm no entomologist, anything like it gets called a wasp, bee or hover fly depending on hair, size or sting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2484
That last one is so strange looking, its head seems large compared to the body.
Any idea what it is?
|
|
|
|
Getting a new camera seems a bit like getting a new landing net, I keep grabbing the old one so I don't get it dirty
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2482
Some cracking shots again there Ken, love the jungle one too
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2481
The cricket is quite sharp.
These are aphids being farmed by ants, would hate to be an aphid knowing what the ants do to them.
I took about 30 shots for this one and it isn't great due to windy conditions at the time.
Focus stacked dragonfly
But my local park Trent Park at 6.45 am seems okay. F22 to get the starburst of the sun
I was out from 4.30 am until 11.30 and these are as good as it got, but hey ho not to worry.
Its a bit like fishing to me, not all about the catching. Being out there doing it is what its all about.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
Literally anything from 1 shot perfect to 100+ and still no keeper!
With wild creatures in situ, you don't tend to have a lot of control over the situation most of the time.
That aphid(?) is well taken
|
|
|
|
Bush Cricket
Click for bigger
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
I seem to take tons of shots for the odd keeper, I get loads like this
Just missed focus but enough to reject it
For any like this
I'd say I reject half my shots before they get to the computer, sometimes half of those that make it that far are rejected before import, and then maybe 10-20%of what's left actually get edited and exported.
My gardens pretty young so bug wise it's a bit sparse, plus I've had to rethink it a bit this year, it'll probably be a couple of years before I get a decent level of bug life which makes my macro stuff a bit challenging
It's been really frustrating lately, every morning my lawn is crawling with some large black and yellow wasps, they look like parasitic ones but they're so fast, unpredictable and skittish I just can't get a shot of them. If I was using film I think I would go bankrupt before I got one
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
Nice Ken
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
I thought the second shot was a frog at first glance.
Nice work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2475
Your spider images have inspired me to get out for the day with the macro lens.
How many shots do you take to get a good one, I seem to take loads.
The flower was a stacked image of 15 shots and I set the camera up so it picked up no light in the room then shined two rhino beams to light the flower so I had just the flower with a black background, I think it works quite well.
The second image the insect was less than 3mm wide, it was sitting on my backpack.
|
|
|
|
Long Jawed Orb Weaver
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2473
Done
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2472
I haven't actually tried the ikeas in my flashes, they are usually in my laser level that eats batteries in no time. They don't seem to last quite as long as the maplin ones but at half the price of enerloops I'd buy 2 lots of ikea ones
The Panasonic charger the enerloops came with is miles better than the energizer ones I've had. I haven't tried an ikea charger
Edit, having looked at the ikea website at the charger, it looks like my Panasonic one with different stickers!
|
|
|
|
Thanks both
I read that the Amazon Basics are likely to be Enerloop too.
With the price difference got to be worth a punt on the Ikea ones.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2469
link
Petapixel article on Ikea’s batteries being very similar to the eneloop ones. I’ve not used either, like you I get plenty of free ones.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2469
I've got loads of rechargeables I use, I bought all the aa size I could find when maplin were shutting, I think it was a fiver for 8 high power batteries
Also got some eneloops which are similar performance, and some ikea ones that are much cheaper and not that far behind.
I do have a godox v860 with a lithium battery, and it does last longer and recycle faster, but it is a bit heavy for on camera use and being lithium, it'll work at full power until it doesn't. You don't get that warning of things slowing down. A spare is expensive and you can't guarantee you'd get a replacement in the future. I did intend to replace my aa versions but decided against it. The tt685 heads I've got are the same bar the battery. My ad200s are lithium too but those heads are different gravy!
|
|
|
|
Any tips for flash battery power?
I’m getting a little frustrated with battery life in my Speedlight 430 EX II
It’s great with new batteries but obviously recharge times slow down as the batteries fade, taking longer and longer.
Normally I have AA’s coming out of my ears (work leftovers) but having been a little too generous with them lately, and no work to restock, I’m rapidly running out of my free ones and the the thought of actually buying them at a rate of 4-8 per shooting day is a bit much!
Are any of the rechargeables viable for this application?
Is there a better replacement for the Speedlight itself?
Eneloop Pro looking like the favourite...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2465
Superb shot that mate, look at its face, unreal!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2465
Very nice
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2465
Really clear picture with plenty of detail. That egg-sac looks uncomfortable to me.
|
|
|
|
Happy with this one
Click for bigger
Wolf Spider with egg-sac
|
|
|
|
I have been doing a lot of macro and attempting creative photography this year mainly due to the lockdown and I am enjoying it, but I much prefer landscape and seascape. I have some time off soon but not sure where to go.
Here's a couple from last year that I quite like.
Pinmill and Eastbourne Peer.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2462
Glad to know there's a reason even if I don't fully understand it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2461
It’s down to magnification. At these high magnifications things happen in the lens which effectively mean the aperture is smaller than marked. So you need a lot more light than at lower ratios.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2459
I was thinking the 4ft brolly for a portrait vs my pringles tube would be similar size/subject, but thinking about it, I doubt I was using the full surface of it. It just seems to take loads of power for macro.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2459
Thanks, I think I have worked out the sizing now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2458
Very nice stuff Ken
Duggs - all I can think of is relative surface area of the lights to the subject, something you pointed out to me further down and what led to the lumping great purple gaffa monstrosity on my camera
|
|
|
|
This is a doll house toy in front of quite a small waterfall, no photoshop just straight from the camera
Bug
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2456
Thanks.
I will upload a couple of others in a bit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2455
You can just add width=500 before the final > and it'll fit the page
I find it easier to do a linked image from imgbb but the quality is pretty poor
Cool shot
@keebs, light looking great now .
I want to get some black card to round off the corners on my box, I just find the square speculars unnatural.
I'm struggling to get my head round one thing with my macro lighting, done some portraits of my daughter and some other shots. using 2 speedlights, one bounced off a big brolly and one in a 2ft octobox type thing, both set very close to keep the background black, both at minimum power(1/128), and I had to stop down to f8 at base iso to avoid clipping highlights.
So why am I needing 1/8th at least to get f8 for a macro shot
|
|
|
|
I have never been able to load images here before, actually I never had the urge to but recently I have seen some good photography on here so thought I would give it a go.
If this works its a Bald Eagle I saw on my travels last year, if it doesn't work its just a load of gibberish.
So here goes.
It was originally in a field with trees around it but I thought there was too much clutter so edited out everything but the head.
What size is best for on here?
|
|
|
|
Harvestman - like a spider but not.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2451
Great shot and I do like a homemade speedlight diffuser, plus jumping spiders do look good on a photo.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2451
Wow 
Amazing that spider picture, you can see all the eyes
|
|
|
|
Mk4 Snoot - best yet - lovely wide dispersion.
Crinkled foil lined and double layer of Polystyrene foam sheet on the front.
Downy Jumper - on the bathroom window sill, narrowly escaped the hoover!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2449
I've seen those mushroom images before, they do look great, I might have a go with light painting flowers this week
I don't really do photo forums, there's a few sites I visit for inspiration but photographers seem a pretty argumentative bunch
I have been trying a few things this week on a sort of dramatic, emotive level, a kind of cathartic release, but I can't quite get them right and they're probably a bit 'dark' to share on here.
I might check out that forum for some constructive criticism if I can get them closer to the original vision
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2448
A couple of good people to watch on YouTube
Stewart Wood for macro
Jordi Koalitic has some fantastic creative ideas
And take a look at some mushroom light photography, amazing stuff.
Also not sure if you are a member but Talk photography is a fantastic forum, lots of stuff their to discuss.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2445
That nikon has been the lens that keeps cropping up in my research, but I don't have an adaptor for nikon glass and focus and V.R are pretty sketchy with the available adaptors by most accounts.
Lots of rumours that some of my favourite olympus lenses are made by sigma, plus being relatively new to photography compared to yourself, I've only really known sigma to make excellent, affordable but huge lenses.
I've ordered a new body so I'll have a play with it, see how it copes with c-af with the Canon glass I have, and if its use able I'll see what's cheapest if there isn't much between them.
Ken, macro is great for finding something interesting while confined, there's only so many times I could walk round the same garden though. I'm playing with flash a lot this week, studio portrait type stuff, water splashes etc, it'll give my flowers a chance to bloom and look very different in a fortnight
Keebs mentioned some of the projects in magazines being good, I picked up a copy of digital camera, seems to be mostly photoshop projects and adverts I think if I wasn't still working I might use this time to get my head around photoshop, but I just don't enjoy the bit between pressing the shutter and the finished image
Thanks for the help guys
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2446
Likewise, I didn't go off-brand until recently. The tsunamis, and what they did to production over there, meant that some firms are rumoured to have outsourced some production to Sigma and Tamron. Whether that is what has improved the quality of their own products I don't know but certainly the lenses those two are banging out now are great quality as well as great value.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2444
F4.5 at 900mm, if you get some good shots at that it would be good to see.
I don't have any Tamron lenses but going back a few years there was a noticeable difference in lens quality between the two but I think now they are both on par with each other. My favourite Sigma lens is the 105mm macro but that's probably due to the lockdown and when that ends I will be out photographing birds and landscapes so the macro will be consigned to my bag again.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2444
That 60-600mm is a bit daft. I borrowed one a while back and while I can see the appeal of having the shorter end when shooting sports and stuff, I wasn't that impressed. I tested the Sigmas, Tamron and the Nikon 200-500mm.
TLDR version, the Tamron with the 1.4x is lighter so rated that highest. Real world sharpness is fine for all of them. I have to admit I really like the Nikon, I did a head to head with an old 500mm f4 and it did great but against the others I'd buy the Tamron on a value for money basis.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2443
I can see the 2x would be a last resort, f13 when you want shutterspeeds in the thousands must be a problem. That's why I hope it plays nicely with the speed booster, 900mm ish equivalent at f4. 5ish sounds pretty good to me.
Google started giving me ads and reviews for the 60-600, that looks a serious lens!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2442
I use the sigma 150mm 600mm contemporary lens.
With the X2 Tele converter Image degregation is quite noticeable with the X2 converter the best f stop you can get is f13, you loose a couple of stops of light and I would recommend manual focus as auto is very slow with the X2 on.
When I photograph birds I use AF-C and the X2 is not good enough for that
The lens without any converter seems at its best around 500mm
Have a friend with the sport version and really the only difference I could see was the weight of the sport was much more, the price and maybe a fraction faster in focusing.
I would think the 1.4 converter would be better with the 600mm and would be better with a crop sensor
Also I only used the converter with a heavy tripod as hand held at full stretch there was too much hand shake for me.
I must say the Sigma 150mm to 600mm is a fantastic investment, I wouldn't pay the extra for the sports version though.
Although my mate loves his.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2441
Which lens is that Ken? I have been looking at the 2 sigma options and the tamron, I think the sigma s looks to be the one to get, I don't plan on keeping it long so the extra cost isn't such an issue.
How were you evaluating the sharpness? At that sort of range and losing two stops of light I expect it to amplify any flaws in technique, but then mounting one on my mft body is much like using a 2x on your camera. If it is a bit soft I still have the speedbooster to fall back on and still have a lot more reach than I've got now
When I got my 75-300 I thought it was dog sit at the long end, but when I tried it with a tripod and lit only by flash I found it was only a bit sit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2440
I use a 150mm - 600mm on my Nikon D810 full frame and had a X2 converter, to be honest as soon as I used it at anything over 400mm I wished I had a 1.4 converter. Image quality was not good enough for my liking.
Sold the X2 but not yet replaced it with a 1.4 but will one day probably later in the year now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2439
That sounds promising
The dof calculator app on my phone says the diagonal field of view will be 4.5 m with 1000mm at 105m. Will be a bit closer at 1200, might be OK for a shot of the family group but I'll still be hoping for them to fly in my direction. Even in a fairly steep dive they will quickly be at 75-80m
I'll be hoping for a chance with the speedbooster which will get me to just under 900mm but gaining a stop of light, and a fair bit sharper judging by other lenses I've used with it.
I'd probably start off with a ball head on a tripod, I've already got a cupboard full of heads and mounts I've bought for macro stuff I never use, I don't want to add another
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2438
It depends. There's heat haze, mist and pollution to think about. Early morning to avoid the heat and you may get mist, early afternoon gives you the opposite. How much you are willing to put up with is another thing. We all have a line that we don't want to cross (like with ISO). I've got away with a 1.4x converter on a 150-600mm whilst using a crop body and have been reasonably happy with the result. On a bright, clear day I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at the equivalent of 800mm if that helps.
If your subject is 100m away, 1000mm is still going to require a lot of cropping for a bird. Magnification from a 1000mm will give you full height of a person at 100m (ish).
It is usually movement that ruins long lens photographs, use a monopod. I'd use a gimbal with that sort of focal length as well, if you can get hold of one.
|
|
|
|
A question for those with some experience with super tele lenses, how long can you go before atmospherics destroy image quality?
I'm thinking of getting a used 150-600 in Canon mount as I have an adaptor and a speedbooster, but since the pylon the peregrines use is around 100m to the lower tier from my garden, I'm not sure it's gonna be possible to get anything decent at 1000-1200mm equivalent.
Even without the lock down there isn't really a better vantage point, I can get higher but further away, or closer, but beneath them. Short of feeding the pigeons and setting up a hide to try and tempt them I can see a lot of fruitless hours trying to get a shot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2436
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2435
It certainly looks like one to me mate. We had a bird keeper in the village where I grew up and me and my brother used to help her as kids. She had several peregrines.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2434
I think so but I'm not great on identifying birds. The speed of thing once it took off I had no chance of finding it with the long lens.
The last couple of years they've been a regular sight when I have my morning coffee through May and June, never bothered to shoot them before as they stay out of range for a decent shot. Last year there were regularly 4 birds up the pylon, the year before 3, I think it must be a favourite spot of a breeding pair to teach the fledglings
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2433
Is that a Peregrine Dave??
|
|
|
|
Held the box off to one side to try and add interest, still not that happy with it but highlights are under control
Excuse the poor quality (soft lens, 600mm equivalent handheld + very heavy crop), looking for an ID confirmation on this raptor
I had the camera trained on it for over an hour hoping it would take off towards me, typically it decided to move the moment I'd lowered the camera to get some blood back in my arms
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2431
That rig looks more manageable
I'm gonna have a tweak of the softbox, because of the closer worker distance I have I'm getting nice diffused light but at quite a high angle. So I'm gonna either try and make a notch for the lens to sit in or extend the front to serve the same purpose, and maybe make a gap in the diffusion to let a bit through more directly, it seems a bit too flat now.
My daughter has permission from the boss to put some blue dye in her hair, so I'll be doing some portraits. Now, given my aversion to editing, can I make the blue really pop by using gels and tweaking the white balance? I'll probably use a warming gel on her face given her pale skin, and I don't think lifting the blue channel in light room will do her any favours there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2430
Getting there with the diffusion. Found a great styrene film bag, that a monitor came wrapped in, for the end of the snoot and now have a bit of plastic milk carton elastic-ed over the end of the lens.
Gone back to the 5D as well, the weight of the 1D was just too much, half a kilo difference!
The AF is faster and more accurate. Sod the frame rate.
Sedge
Long-jawed spider & brunch.
|
|
|
|
|
And typically the day I don't bring my camera I've got an exhausted bee taking sugar water from a fake flower
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2428
I think I saw the original on Instagram, either a photography page or some # that popped up, really simple to do but I thought it looked great and worked out how to do it straight away you could easily do it with a phone camera and a lamp if you can set the white balance manually, although I've used a camera and a flash with an orange gel
Might have a go a bit wider and throw some blue into the 'sky'
Was trying to do something similar but with star trails in the garden, using a granite worktop and buckets and bottles to make the horizon and hide the ugly views I've got to the north, but even in the small hours there's to many lights from the neighbours 
Thinking about it, I might be able to use my tempest brolly as a light shield
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2425
Very nice indeed - magazine inspired?
I buy the occasional one for long journeys and they are full cool ideas like this.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2426
It is but with a large dose of plagiarism
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2425
Is that one of your own mate?
I was going to say cracking shot that but I guess it’s more like a piece of art work, brilliant
|
|
|
|
I miss sunsets over water
|
|
|
|
How great would this have been a billionth of a second later
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2422
I've got plenty of them 
With the general lower cost of glass in mft land its too easy to say "I'd only get £100 for that I might as well keep it"
My cull took a bit of a twist with the failed body upgrade. Whereas the em5 line fit in a pocket with a small prime, the em1 line don't, sooooo I'll be keeping the 5ii when I get the em1.
Which means I need to have a cull elsewhere, I think I can part with my 45 1.8 and I've never liked my 75-300. I do need to get rid of a selection of nissin and yongnuo flashes but I'm not sure flashes have much resale value.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2421
1 in - 2 out
Gotta be ruthless or you end up with cupboardfulls of redundant toys
Decided to sell my 400 5.6.
It owes me nothing at this stage and I just don't use it.
That may well pay for the Raynox AND a tube of Pringles
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2420
I can but its a balance, getting enough of the subject sharp and clearing the background, and the transitions tend to look a bit scruffy to me, whereas with a longer focal length it's cleaner. Sort of sharp-bit soft-wtf is that vs sharp-bit soft-fuzzy-I think that's a flower If everything stayed still for a stack @2.8 it'd be nice
I think I'd be tempted by a macro at around 120mm, but I don't know of a native one and tbh my bank balance can't keep up with my wants
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2418
Can you not lower the aperture to throw the B/G out?
If it's out of focus you can get away with blowing it a bit more.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2418
Double post
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2417
The difference in the bottom two can be seen in the highlights in the droplets, having the two light sources doubles the amount of specular highlights. I'm thinking blocking the sun is the way to go if you can do it without spooking the subject, as that's the smallest light source, I'll see if I can find something hairy either dead or very patient.
I had two flashes on the bag I picked up today, so I was using one to lift the background, looked nice despite me not getting anything worth sharing. One of the downsides to the shorter focal length is the cluttered backgrounds in certain situations, if I lift them till they're just clipping it might be better. I'm sure I'll have a play with that in future.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2416
Apart from a slightly different focal point I can't see a difference in the bottom 2 at all.
Next thing I'm going to try is a more flared diffuser, as you say, to widen the source
It's a trade-off between function and portability/subject-scaring. Obviously the wider you make it, the worse it is for getting in. under leaves etc.
@ Yonny - thanks
|
|
|
|
No prizes for guessing, but one shot is direct Sun, one Sun with fill from a low angle in the same direction as the sun and one lit by softbox blocking the sun
Straight from camera jpegs
|
|
|
|
Some incredible shots here lads 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2413
My big rig
I even put the hood on to give it a phallic extension the flash will be a similar size to yours for scale. I have a thin layer of diffusion at the joint and a slice of bog roll behind the lid. It's easy to see why I have the grip on, it's really unbalanced with that flash, olympus not making one for the mkiii was probably the biggest reason I backed it
Today I'll have a go like this, the flippy screen helps when you can't get in position with the viewfinder, it's a bit too bright out for it to show in the pic but the screen is set so when I turn the focus knob it magnifies the view x3 and turns on focus peaking, basically the are in focus will glow
I reckon I'll need 1/4 to half power to get f8 with this box, I'd love to try it with my ad200s but that'll have to wait. I could use a smaller 4 inch box but with this I can actually block the sun to lose those harsh specular highlights
I could actually go a bit smaller using my nissin i40 controlled with the clip on flash that's the size of a matchbox, but it hasn't got the guts for that box and can be a bit hit and miss as it needs line of sight
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2412
Nope - it's really hard on the elbow and wrist 
Just a few grams shy of 3Kg.
A quick grab shot is fine but holding and waiting for optimum pose gets painful quick.
I'll get a lighter set-up when the world goes back to being a big shopping mall again but I think the lens will stay.
My bird rig is well over 4Kg.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2411
You must have some guns throwing that around💪
I'll do some pics tomorrow of my macro rig, and my streamlined alternative
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2410
Nice one - I'll have a good read of that
This is the current best...
Tube is foil-lined, doubled up freezer bag on the front
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2409
brilliant source of info for all things flash
I read through 101 102 and 103 over a few days and revisited bits quite regularly. Not much specifically for macro but all the principals and techniques can be scaled down.
I think I'm going back to my juggling technique, separating the camera and flash makes it a bit more controllable and also let's me use a bigger diffuser. I've gotta try and get my kit back from Dorset, my big flashes might cope with cross polarising, 10inch softbox and still give me rapid recycling.
Because of the shapes and textures angles don't really help us, so polarising aside all we can really do is make the relative size of the light source bigger, so we either make it bigger, put it closer or both. Pringles tubes are popular for macro because they achieve both. With my rig and a pringles tube diffuser, at mfd it's roughly equivalent to using a 4ft brolly for a headshot, but that still isn't enough for a lot of bugs, and it wants an extra bit of diffusion or you get the dodgy donut effect you see on my bee pic below, a couple of sheets of bog roll works well but costs light again
|
|
|
|
4 layers of clear freezer bag seems to work well.
(Click for full)
|
|
|
|
I was playing around with flash underneath the camera, using the built-in grip and turning another 90 degrees. Awkward to hold but a definite winner, makes sense when the main ambient light is from above.
Then started playing around with diffuser materials as I’m still getting quite harsh light from the flash, spotted some nice opaque plastic on the top of an old camera bird-box and began dismantling…
…then got thoroughly distracted by the contents!
The absolute mother of all False Widows!
Of course at this point there was no diffuser at all in the flash cone and I just had to grab the chance before she scuttled off. She sat for a few minutes, enough to shoot a few stacks worth, but unfortunately, for such a fearsome beast she was quite shy and kept her head either in the web or well tucked under her. I wasn’t about to go poking her around so grabbed what I could with the angles she presented.
So much reflective material on insects, even the hairs, really need to sort that flash out.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2406
It'll be spray and pay....
... Someone else to filter the keepers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2405
With that much spray you wouldn't even need to pray!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2404
That bulk can help with stability though, I'm using a battery grip to try an balance the flash, with the bonus of the buttons on the portrait grip making it easier to shoot something on the underside of a leaf for instance.
Realised yesterday my newer godox flashes will keep up with contuous shooting for 8 shots @ 1/32 which is the magic number for in camera stacking and high res.
I think I'll get a used em1ii, 60fps with your stacking technique should work well
Mind you new one comes with a 30mm macro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2403
I wouldn't recommend a 1D for macro - it's a heavy chunk for doing yoga with!
It's just the better of the 2 bodies I have
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2402
I couldn't see me buying a 1D tbh, I'd probably be better off with an original a7r, bit of a dog to use but with a lot of scope to crop or work with the files. This sort of stuff, base iso, controlled lighting, my mft kit can't really compete on quality. Trouble is I've been down this road before and baulk at the huge increase in cost and size, and for a lot of what I shoot the differences get cancelled out.
I did buy an em5mkiii a few weeks back but sent it back due to a few downgrades over the mkii, and have been deciding whether to get the em1ii or iii but I'm tempted to dip my toe again with a macro and an ultra wide for astro
There are a few of those jumpers in my garden but they're that small they run away from ants
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2401
Mine are 1.3 Crop - Canon 1D Mk 4 - APSH sensor.
Sort of wishing I'd kept my 7D, it was great in good light but struggled otherwise. That would have been great for macro, physically smaller, fast frame rate if stacking and 1.6 crop for extra reach.
I'm looking seriously at a Raynox now.
The only one to fit my lens (72mm thread) is the 5 in 1 which is £300+
Gonna have to wait right.
Funny you should post that - I found one of those in the garden yesterday too!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2400
Your making me want to try full frame again
I'm looking on mpb like.....
|
|
|
|
(Click for full size)
|
|
|
|
Buzzinga
I never knew bees have five eyes
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2397
Check out some of this dude's work
https://beingmark.com
Something to aspire to
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2396
I'm trying to set up some wide angle macro but my wide lenses don't work with either the raynox or extensions
The 17 will have to do for now until I can get my 7.5mm prime back from Dorset.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2395
We must conclude that they flap faster than 250 times per second
Side on innit, you can sort of see the blur of the near one
EDIT:
For bees apparently they flap between 200 - 300 times per second, I'd say you probably want to try about double that and experiment from there. 1/640 ???
Just looked at the S/S for the Bee Fly in post 2348 - that one was 1600.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2394
Brilliant
Who stole the beeflys wings
What shutter speeds are recommended for bees in flight? I was messing about yesterday lunchtime using available light only, shots didn't look right with sharp wings but I just couldn't find the balance between blurred wings and sharp fur
|
|
|
|
Made a flash diffuser/beamer from card, tinfoil and gaffa.
Another big difference!
Now as long as I'm well off sun angle, shots are so much better lit and there's more detail as a consequence.
Discovered my lens was back-focussing.
Had a suspicion it was but just put it down to hand-holding.
Only -6 but it's made a huge difference at that level.
Also realised that the exposure tricks I use for long lens are pretty much the opposite down this end!
I'm used compromising to high ISO's to maintain a 1000+ shutter speed, exposing well to the right to reduce noise, and taking highlights down afterwards.
In macro I'm finding that I have bags of shutter speed at 250 (the flash does the freezing) and it's better to expose dark and not to blow any highlights at all, and with the ISO at 100 it's much more forgiving when you pull shadows. You can't pull shadows at higher ISO's due to the noise.
This looks up a gear to me
(Click for full size)
|
|
|
|
Another little "light-bulb-moment" this morning. ('scuse pun!)
Was thinking about multiple light sources to eliminate shadows when I suddenly realised - using a flash I already have 2, just need to position them correctly.
Normally if the sun is out it is natural to shoot to take advantage of it with the sun at my back.
Using flash on top of the camera just increases that contrast of light/shadow as it's the same direction intensified.
This is obvious in processing when the dynamic range needs some serious reigning in in RAW conversion and in PS afterwards.
I had the thought that shooting INTO the sun with flash would be a better option and tried it.
It is!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2391
I'm learning, and re-learning a lot this week.
My 17mm 1.8 makes a very interesting macro lens with extention tubes
But gives no working distance whatsoever, this fellas leg was on the lens
I've also re learned not to delete from the camera, this would have gone for sure
Red velvet mite
I also now know I need some plants that wake up earlier, there's no colour at the moment
I've also learned that South facing star trails are ugly, red intensifier filters don't cut light pollution now its all from leds and add some really weird colours, and even with the current clean air, astro shots in London don't work
Live composite, about 40 mins worth of 25sec exposures @400 iso! Pulled back in post too
Quite frustrating with meteor showers over the next week
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2390
You get days where loads just seems to fall into place then months of learning bugger all!
Found a dead one to practice on this morning so I think this is the limit of the gear I have.
180 lens, 1.4 converter, 100 ISO, f9 (which I keep coming back to as the sweet spot)
Lit by flash on full and a high CRI torch.
Focus incrementally stepped and shutter fired via EOS Utility on the laptop.
Of course I'd never get anywhere near that kind of thing in the field but interesting to see.
Length of body & head = about 5mm
(Click for full size)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2389
Just had a quick took, over 80 "what lens" or "what camera" type threads since 2017, over a thousand posts, this thread has had a hundred posts in that time and most of them are us two over the last week
It's funny seeing some of my questions from a few years back, i remember some of the things I was trying to shoot and struggles I had with some technical details that seem so simple and trivial now. There really is no substitute for experience!
The house I'm working in this week, the garden is almost deafening with the amount of bugs buzzing about, I might warn the neighbours there'll be a nutter doing yoga with a camera tomorrow
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2388
Used to be quite a popular thread.
Carp angling seems to attract less "countrymen" and more "screenies" these days.
The gadget threads seem to get plenty of traffic!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2387
I had to check the name
I actually read this whole thread yesterday, it's a shame so many pics are missing but there are some amazing macro shots going back a bit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2386
Good find - he actually has exactly the same lens and body choices as me!
Officially the gain in magnification is about 20% with a 25mm tube
Interestingly it looks like my failed TC experiment may be back on again though, apparently AF is available at f8 and below, I think I left it at 9 or 10 yesterday when trying it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2385
Interesting article
I'd say the difference in magnification probably follows the same pattern. I didn't notice any mention of sharpness or diffraction in that Q&A,how times have changed
I'm still not sure how much difference 25mm tube will make, the impact on my tele lenses is marginal
I avoid this site but the first few comments seem relevant
link
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2358
Regarding light loss with extension tubes I found this.
"On the other hand, light loss caused by extension tubes is inversely proportional to the focal length of the original lens. For example, a 25mm tube results in a 1 stop loss on a 50mm lens, but only a half stop loss on a 100mm lens, or a quarter stop loss on a 200mm lens."
From here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm
So maybe less of an issue at 180 with a 25mm tube.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2383
Let it cool, i had two taped together in a metal beauty dish with no airflow, they didn't like it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2381
That could be a little game-changer
Just had a play and at 1/32 I can get 7 shots at either burst rate
Better still is 1/16 - 5 shots quite a light difference too!
At 1/8 I can only get 3.
Thanks for that tip - that wouldn't have occurred to me at all
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2381
Always manual with macro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2380
Sorry, yes I was thinking manual, I don't think ttl would work for a burst
If the flash is charged for a full power burst, you should get a few shots on lower power before it has to recharge
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2379
1/32 what sorry?
Flash power?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2378
I haven't used it for macro but for some fast karate sequences I was using 4 flashes in two groups firing alternately, it halved recycle times but is still wasn't quick enough, a little hack that worked for short bursts was to set the flash on full, let it charge then drop to say 1/32, you won't get 32 shots out of it but you should get at least half a dozen shots at low sequential speed.
Give it plenty of time to cool between bursts!
Continuous lights have a problem of their own in the pulse frequency, if you want consistent exposures you have to drop the shutter speed too low. Low energy lights indoors I'll be at around 1/20th. I have some video lights that are OK to around 1/80th but I will get a slight variation
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2377
Salted!
I think flash is just not the thing for me. The time it takes to recharge is too long between shots to expect most subjects to remain motionless. At 10 frames per second without flash I've a much better chance of some stackable images.
Adding flash might allow a touch more DOF but nowhere near enough to warrant the expense of the frame rate.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2376
I've found the humble pringles tube to be as good as anything, even comes with its own diffuser and the snacks to keep you going
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2375
No - me neither. The nearest I came to an idea was those soft silver foil/white reflectors on a wire frame that you can bend about.
If you could somehow mount that and bounce a top-mounted flash off it. Not much weight but still just too bulky.
What about a high CRI torch mounted?
That at least gets around the problem of the flash not keeping up with the burst rate!
I'm never going to get the sort of quality that you see with an MPE65, Cross polarisation and a dead or frozen subject though, so It's more about getting the most out of natural light and accepting the limitations of that.
I'm happy with what I'm getting at the moment anyway.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2373
I’ve not come across a way of avoiding the specular reflections from a ring light. The benefit of them is the even spread of the light because of the proximity of the source to the lens. For a more diffuse source the light has to be larger and would be blocked by the camera, lens and photographer. A longer focal length helps with lighting as you get more space. Maybe one of those little soft boxes you can get rigged up on a bracket close to the lens might work as a more natural looking reflection. I can’t think of a way that isn’t going to add bulk though.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2372
Try it on trial first and see how it does YEMV as they say. full version free for 30 days.
The only editing I've been doing before stacking is the RAW conversion to TIFF which just maximises the exposure and a small bit of NR and capture sharpening.
Some of the more "random" framings have needed aligning and cropping in PS before stacking in Helicon, the alignment algorithm in PS seems to catch what Helicon sometimes can't.
Having said that I really should dust spot the layers first to avoid dust trails in the merge!
Spent all day yesterday exploring it.
The retouching is brilliant too, you get a circular brush which appears on both the selected layer view on the left and the stacked merge on the right in the same position, so you literally just find and select the layer with the sharp bit you want and paint it into the merge on the right.
Easier done than said!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2370
I do love the slo-mo stuff but if I got into that I'd be bulk-buying hard-drives! I have enough Gb of back-up as it is just from RAWS
Liquid drops are the thing I'd go straight for if I did, they always look really cool.
Re: Ring flash, all the shots I've seen of wildlife seem to have this awful highlight circle in the eye which looks very unnatural to me, that's one of the reasons I've not invested.
The other being more bulk to carry around as mentioned.
Just out of curiosity is it possible to get the benefit of a ring flash without that hard ring of reflected light? Can you effectively diffuse a ring flash I guess is the question?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2371
I'm glad you said that before I tried it
Got some work this week but got a couple of ideas for some shots later in the week. One will need cross polarising but I can't find the filter or my stepping rings
When you do the focus stacks are you doing any editing before stacking?
I'm looking forward to trying it out but the comments on focus breathing may explain why it's been hit and miss in the past, I know my 60mm is quite bad for that, the in camera function only works with certain lenses so I suppose it uses a correction profile
|
|
|
|
Worth bearing in mind is how much disc space Helicon Focus uses.
I did a big back-up to clear what I thought was plenty of space - about 42GB free.
While manipulating a stack of about 20 I got a disc warning - 2Gb left
I did have PS open at the same time with layers as well but it turned out Helicon was using something like 25Gb +
Possibly when you have multiple renders to compare, it makes lots of copies of the TIFF layers too.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2369
I had to dust off the cobwebs a while ago on the macro stuff. Wife wanted some iris shots of the family for some reason, probably a biometric scam or a picture for the loo maybe. Anyway, I used to do a lot of macro stuff in college and as a medical photographer. I really missed having a 200mm or a 120mm medical but got some reasonable pics with a Sigma 105mm on the D500 with a Metz ring flash. I had a Z 6 and a Nikon 60mm Micro on hand as well but the specular highlights were contained in the pupil and easy to edit out when using the D500 and the 105.
On lockdown I’ve been doing some poor-mans Slo-mo Guys stuff with the RX100 iv, some moon shots with a Nikon P1000 and turning one of the bedrooms into a camera obscura, it has kept the kids occupied anyway. Pinhole camera next.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2368
Same here - you may remember donkeys years ago I think it was the Daily Mirror used to do a "what is it" competition. An oblique, usually close up photo of some everyday object that you had to guess.
Always fascinated me.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2367
I've always been interested in macro, just the way everyday objects become surreal or insects becoming the stuff of nightmares. When I started getting into using flash, macro was one of the most demanding and critical uses I could think of. If you can get the light you want for macro, portrait lighting is a piece of cake. Shiny insects throw another spanner in the works with all those reflections throwing specular highlights where you don't want them. Cross polarisation is my macro equivalent of slapping inch thick makeup on a model to get a nice specular highlight in the eyes but not on the skin
Cinema 3d glasses work well as Flash filters, and my family go mad for pringles, so I had the diy materials to hand as soon as I'd been given the idea
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2365
Loading in files is the same as PS and appears as a stack of layers on the right.
No masks though.
Split screen view with highlighted layer and rendered composite either side by side or top/bottom.
There is a choice of 3 Methods A, B & C all have a smoothing slider, and 2 have radius as well.
So you load in your files, choose a Method and hit render.
An output file is created in the split screen and a thumbnail for it at the bottom.
You can create a bunch of different renders to compare via the thumbnails, taking layers in and out of the mix as you like.
Easy to to add and remove images to the stack and also just to temporarily remove (untick) them from the render.
In PS this was a nightmare as you had to reload the images and start again every change!
There’s editing (retouching) for each layer in another tab that I haven’t explored yet, it seems brush based.
So far just messing with the 3 preset methods with their adjustments already produces much nicer results than PS.
Pretty powerful stuff.
Cross polarisation! bugger that for a game of soldier ants, I'm already experimenting way beyond my normal shooting.
I'll always be a field shooter so things like tripods and flashes and junk just weighs me down too much.
I just want to wander - see - get the best I can on the spot.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2365
Sure - I can only compare it to PS at the moment though. I think I'll probably pay for it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2364
Would you mind doing a quick write up on helicon focus when you get used to it , I'm interested in that program and deep sky stacker but I think I'll need a more powerful computer, I need one with a better screen anyway
Your getting towards the cross polarised light stage now
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2363
Hiya Nine
Well my accidental and unscientific method for live insects in the field was basically that, the slight(!) movements as I try to hold still causes variations in focus. Framing can be an issue and after aligning all the frames I have to step through and remove any obvious stragglers before blending..
For tripod static, and the seemingly "correct" way of doing it which is what I've been playing with this morning, the focus breathing is a more obvious issue.
I am using quite a large subject (dead bee fly) and getting it as close to the lens as possible, using 20-30 shots depending on f-stop.
Probably the worst case scenario but it's good to test the boundaries of what I have.
Basically it tells me when not to bother if I have to go past any particular setting in the field.
I'm unlikely to use a tripod with any regularity so a rail would be even less likely.
Just downloaded Helicon for trial as well and straight away the results far exceed Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2362
Have you tried moving the camera for focussing? Either hand held or using a rail if you move the camera to acquire focus it avoids any issues with focus breathing which I would imagine would screw with focus stacking.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2361
What I normally do is manually rack the focus either to mfd for really small stuff, or as framed for things like butterflies and damsels etc, then as I'm taking the shot(s) use my thumb on back-button-focus to fine tune via AF.
In that scenario it's quite fast and very usable, but from scratch it hunts like hell.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2359
I'm not sure there's such a thing as a fast focusing macro, I use mine in manual usually but I have the tricks that come with mirrorless cameras like focus peaking and magnified view either on the screen or through the viewfinder.
I've never used a tc but I'd think it might work better with that lens. When I've tried tubes on telephoto lenses they don't seem to have much affect, I don't know whether you'd use the actual or equivalent focal lengths to compare or how to calculate these things but on my zoom at 100mm(200mm equiv) the difference is negligible with 25mm tubes. If I put them on my wide zoom at infinity focus it won't quite focus on something sitting on the front element
I'd wanted the laowa 7.5mm f2 for ages, when I finally got round to ordering it it took a lot of will power not to add the 25
The probe lens looks interesting too but above my price ceiling for a toy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2359
Just tried a 1.4 - no AF at all, not even trying
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2358
Shheeeeeet what have you done!
That 25mm looks tasty!
Shame I need all my (non-existent) money for food.
One thing I didn't consider with my existing rig, and I don't know why, is a TC.
It's free experiment anyway, but I expect AF will suffer terribly.
The only real downside of that 180 is the AF speed.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2357
I don't know how lens dependant it is, but after putting tubes on I have to move the tripod back by around the same distance as the tubes, the raynox does cut the working distance at full magnification. Using both I have a working distance of about 25mm but my lens is wider than yours at 120mm 35mm equivalent.
The bigger problem is the loss of light coupled with the shallower dof, by the time you adjust the aperture you've probably lost 4 stops so flash or stacking become critical.
If I had this time on my hands without the financial uncertainty I'd take a punt on a laowa 25mm macro lens, they look very interesting! 5-1macro on a 2x crop sensor
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2356
I'm mostly at 3200 ISO, and use Neat Image for de-noising, also a small bit of de-noising at the RAW stage.
That last little spider is a frustratingly large crop but getting closer by adding tubes, I've just realised, is going to bring a whole new problem, them staying put while the lens gets even closer!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2355
It looks a serious lens mate, I wouldn't want to put anything on it that would impair the quality either.
I wouldn't make any judgments on sharpness from those pics for a few reasons,a big one being I could gobo the flashes with the tubes but couldn't completely with the adaptor. I feel from looking at a lot of images that the adaptor isn't any worse than tubes but without losing all that light.your kit should give more useable iso range too, for stuff like this I'd be worried using 800 and expecting to have to use a decent noise reducer. I might try them both on my 75mm f1. 8 which is up there with the sharpest lenses for mft and find something worth doing hi res with.
In fairness a crop from a high res file will often be as good or better than a standard image with an adaptor. Some of the tech in these things astounds me
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2354
Didn't get long in the garden myself, clouded over quick and then rain.
That adaptor's quite impressive but I think to be honest the macro lens with tube has better quality, although you said you're losing light that way.
I'm going to a try a tube first anyway as it's cheaper, and my 180 prime is a bit of a belter.
Last night's refrigerated Zebra Jumper got his own back this morning - little bathtub was all over the place straight away - not a single usable frame!
Caught a couple more with slightly better results, but the best was the only Fleecy Jumper I found.
Half the length of an ant!
Sat nicely for 3 stacks worth - composite image below
All went back on the brickwork unharmed afterwards 
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2353
Having to give the garden a wide berth today, kid next door coughing something chronic!
So I had a play with some flash gels. Won't be any good to compare sharpness but it does show a difference in magnification and exposure
Today's subject
Here it is with my macro lens at mfd, 1:1 magnification. This will already be closer than you get just through the smaller sensor
But we can get closer still, using 26mm of extension tubes.
Note all images are at f8, flash power and distance doesn't change either
Another option are the excellent raynox adaptors, not to be compared to those cheap diopter, this is using the raynox 250, there are more or less powerful models
We can also use both
... 
That first circle is less than a mm
I think I'm gonna order the raynox 150, I think stacking both will give me better results than using tubes. They don't seem to have the same light penalty, and will turn any of my lenses into macros, where the tubes only really work with standard to wide primes
I've got dozens of DIY modifiers for macro light diffusion, I'm going to have to knock up some mini snoots, I wanted more contrast than this
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2352
That would be great Paul, I did do a few but got really fed up with ps when trying to stack some astro images, I don't think I've used it in a year, light room does most of what I want.
I haven't noticed it before but my tubes seem to be robbing me of a lot of contrast and some sharpness, not sure if it's a light leak or some internal reflections but it hasn't always done that.
Tubes are a great cheap way to get closer, I'm finding the raynox adaptor previously mentioned costs a lot less in terms of light, contrast and sharpness, I think they're about £60
I've set the camera up for star trails now but I'll do a comparison tomorrw
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2351
Photoshop is what I'm using, happy to do a quick guide via PM if it helps?
Going to have to get an extension tube to get closer.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2350
Seeing the outline of my head in the eye highlight I want to try it with a flash fired on my face
My camera does it well but it only takes a tiny movement and it will fail, its been like a yoga workout today getting into positions where I can hold it steady. I have a few worth editing from today, I might see whether the photos hop focus stack is easier than last time I tried.
Also had a go with the high res mode, a few frames were slightly missing focus but the frames may stack, would be great if they do, I'm always amazed at the detail when high res works
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2349
Found one! Couldn't catch it, it was deep in the Rosemary so shot it in situ.
After a little think I'd decided to go back to the 1D4 because I wasn't seeing any noticeable improvement in quality with the 5D3 and it only shoots 6fps.
1D4 does 10 fps and of course a little more reach which is always welcome.
Just took this - a 22 shot, and hand-held, focus stack.
Shocked at how well it's come out with such an unscientific way of shooting.
Same as yours really, for an in-camera algorithm that's pretty stonking.
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2348
I'm glad to finally know what the bee fly is called, I get loads in my garden and never knew whether they sting
I wasn't looking for one but this managed to meet a sticky end under my drink! (click)
Stacked in camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2347
Can't find one now!
Today's bests...
(Click for bigger)
Wolf Spider - stack of 5
Bee Fly
Sand Wasp (I think) covered in pollen
Shield Bug (stack of 9)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2346
Jumpers look so cute up close
The stacking can do better than I've shown here, I had it set a bit too narrow by the look of them. It's also jpeg only but with the single raw frames if you want to go to the next level.
I did mean to do some composite star trails last night but a couple of ciders in the sunshine went right to my head
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2345
Thanks for the tip 
I have the same thing with wanting to fill the frame at the expense of focus! Of course backing off a little also increases your DOF so win-win. There's always a fair degree of luck involved with anything live.
That's pretty impressive in-camera stacking mate.
Going to try to catch a Zebra Jumping Spider today and chill it a little in the fridge...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2344
Squashed slugs seem to get their attention
I can't seem to resist getting closer and closer, that ant and greenfly shot is the full frame and the long end is about 6mm, using an olympus 60mm macro, extension tubes and a raynox dcr-250 adaptor. The tubes seem to cost 2to3 stops of light and at that magnification any aperture below f11 will need stacking. Because of the speed the ants go at, using flash it takes an awful lot of luck to get one in focus. I could do with a couple of 100w bulbs
It's a lot easier when you back off a bit
This is a straight out of camera stack (click)
Would be better with a bit of work but just wanted to show what the camera will give you when you can't be arsed to edit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2343
I tried little piles of sugar around the patio as bait but they're not interested!
Saw that Septimus had one "on the mat" so grabbed the tripod - this one is a stack of 5 shots.
First time I've done more than 3, pretty pleased how it came out.
(Used full frame body today, yesterdays were 1.3 crop)
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2342
I struggle with anything live but olympus cameras do focus stacking in camera. It works well with flowers as you can use the sharpest aperture and the camera stacks 10 shots. It will also focus bracket up to 99 shots but that's too much processing for me
I couldn't be chasing around trying to focus, I found the most popular path set the focus and spray and pray when one was in the area
I'll have to set up some better lighting, even in late afternoon sunlight with a reflector and a rhino beam I didn't have enough light for proper close macro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2341
Imagine if they were the same size as us! Terrifying.
You did better than me - they move too fast for me to get anywhere near a focus - gave up in the end.
I'm using a 180mm 3.5 which has a MFD of 0.48 metres.
Mostly at f8 or f10, hand held and no flash.
If I go any higher on the f-stop I start losing quality.
The Shield Bug is actually focus stacked from 2 shots.
I didn't think I could get into focus stacking by shooting hand held, but I've found if you "machine-gun" once you obtain focus there are usually enough variations in focus to pick one or two or even 3 shots to stack.
On a tripod you would deliberately alter the focus very slightly as you shoot to get the range, but hand-held, forget it!
Obviously you need a static target as well, which rules out ants.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2338
Very nice
I planted some lavender hoping to get some pics of the beetles but after both kids got stung by bees I had to get rid
I stuck a macro adaptor on my long zoom, 300mm on a 2x crop body, ants are bloody scary lookin up close
Not nearly good enough to share but interesting to see how close you can get with these adaptors, not very practical with about a microns depth of field at f14
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2339
Thanks Ken - (just the Shield Bug...)
(Click for bigger)
Crab Spider on glass coffee table.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2338
Fabulous pix, Paul. I've saved the Shield Beetle in my desktops folder.
|
|
|
|
Some back-garden mini-beasts.
(Click for bigger)
Shield Bug
Rosemary Beetle
Cross Orb Weaver
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2336
Thanks mate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2335
Mpb are pretty good for trade ins, I have used park cameras and cameraworld but went to the stores after an estimate online.
I've found places like cash converters and cex often pay more than camera shops when selling but you tend to get better value with trade ins
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1333
Hi I’m looking to trade some camera gear in as I’m looking to upgrade,can anyone recommend someone online where I’d get a half decent deal ?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2333
Thanks Duggs, your thoughts resemble what I have recently concluded having used a filter for as long as I can remember. Bare back it is going forward
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2332
Depends how you use your gear really, if your often wiping fingerprints off the lens then yes you should use them.
I only really use one for insect macro or days out with the family when I might pass it too one of the kids.
I do usually use a hood tho, both to stop flares and for a bit of protection
bit geeky but interesting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
What are the current thoughts regards using UV filters to protect the lens ? You buy the best glass you can afford, then put a cheap (in-comparison) piece of cheap glass in front of it for protection, or dismiss the filter and risk getting water /debris on the lens ?
|
|
|
|
|
My friend is a photographer and I envy him. It's that rare case when your hobby is your job. And I took a look at wedding photographers in cornwall and like really, you can get a job in some company organazing events and voila, you're all set!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2329
Yep, they're not shy are they
Top one is a fledgling, second one is him or one of his 2 siblings being fed.
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #2328
Is that not a kookaburra?
Lovely birds, have fed the greedy *******s with prime cuts of steak in the wild
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2327
I wish!
25 hours of flying, in an hour's time
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #2324
Great shots
Australian Christmas?
|
|
|
|
Couple more - click for full
Black-fronted Dotterel
Spoonbill
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2324
Love the bottom shot
|
|
|
|
Always nice to have some new subjects
Click for full
Kookaburra fledgeling
Kookaburras
Purple Swamphen
Rainbow Lorikeet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2321
my heads spinning tbh, why cant cameras have voice activation like smart phones,
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2320
You could look for a camera with a built in interval timer or buy one that connects to your camera for about 12 quid on eBay. I use a Nikon D7200 that has a built in one and never had any issues with photographing fish this way.
|
|
|
|
guys
im giving myself a headache looking at cameras, im looking for a camera with a flip round screen..a.budget of £300.
i want to be able to set it on a tripod,pick the fish up and then take the pucture,on my previous g5 i had a remote. do cameras have wink/smile recognition to take the picture. i dont want to have to press the button,scramble to pick the fish up for the 10 second timer...
what camera gives me the options to do this please.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2307
F4 will keep you and the fish sharp but throw the background out nicely aslong as there is a good separation from the background
Use a depth of field calculator if you are unsure, plenty online or apps to download.
edit: just replied to a year old post - apologies!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Well, maybe this will change soon. I got into fishing photography thanks to this: http://noon-day.com/ and I've become quite good at it. That company is also worth checking out, by the way.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone had any luck capturing the blood moon?
I got up at 4 and have only had the odd glimpse through clouds. Here's hoping it clears a bit before I head to work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2314
I don't think there's anything to worry about really, with all the advantages of mirror less and the fact all the lenses will work with an adaptor, the only real issue is that some people just won't get on with an evf.
I'd think the Eos m mount will die before the ef mount, I expect to see crop sensor Eos r cameras in the near future
I'm a little disappointed Olympus didn't join Leica sigma and Panasonic in the l mount group, I'd definitely be interested in a full frame omd.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2314
Guess not
|
|
|
|
|
So guys, with the recent release of the Nikon Z6/Z7 and Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless bodies, Sony's established mirrorless line, and Canons established EF-M APS-C line selling well, is anyone getting worried that DSLR will be phased out over the coming years?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
right guys...I own a canon 700d and am looking for recommendations for a good scenic/wildlife lens to give me more options than my 18-55 and 50mm. Can anyone recommend me anything - don't want to spend the earth (under £200 used)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Stunning birds they are.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2307
Got the same lens. I find f5.6 the best all round aperture but f11 gives more depth of field. I use it wide open only for landscapes (scenics) when the focus is at infinity. Otherwise the dof is too shallow and it is all to easy to get blurred trophy shots.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Only just realised this thread existed.
The Non Carp section often gets over looked. I did suggest they include it when you do a 'Read Next' but it never happened.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Lovely shots
Bloody foreigners
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2307
Risky. It will be sharpest a few stops above wide open. 2.5-3.2 I normally favour. Trial and error though mate, every day is different.
|
|
|
|
|
Just bought a Nikon 35mm 1.8 lens. What aperture would be best for trophy shots? Is 1.8 too low?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Plenty to learn still but relatively happy
see if this guy can help
MIKE BROWNE LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2304
Only just realised this thread existed. Had a scroll through and there’s some serious images on here!!
I got a bit of cash for my 30th so treated myself to a new lense which has really upped the interest. Here’s a few recent ones. Plenty to learn still but relatively happy.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2303
It actually seems fine now, I might send it for a service anyway.
It's an olympus 12-40 2.8 so not exactly cheap!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2302
Ouch
At least the eye will heal for free! Lenses can be expensive!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2301
I thought some slow shutter + 2nd curtain flash shots of the kids throwing snowballs would be good....
About 3 shots in I got a football sized one right at the camera, got a bit of a black eye from the viewfinder and a jittering sound when the lens focuses
Longer lens and take cover next time
|
|
|
|
Anyone been out in the snow?
All that white background great for high-key stuff.
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2299
Ive made a few diffusers for macro stuff to give different effects, but they were all for a little nissin i40 and we're too small for my new flashes. The new ones are a bit too big tbh, I'll keep the nissin for now, I might get a godox tt350 and sell the nissin
I came across a website called strobist a few weeks back while I was trying to get to grips with a new multi flash setup, and it's helped me a lot.
lighting 101
A lot of the concepts can be scaled down for macro if that's what your struggling with
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2298
I don't know if this will help but....at our local flower nursery they sell ali tube about 15mm dia plus plastic fittings, I made a frame for a light box, when finished take apart and store, at Wilko's in the food storage section there are stainless steel bowls about 300mm dia, I drilled and fitted a bulb holder in 2 of them and used what ever bulb I wanted, cheap as chips
BTW I too am having problems getting the light I want.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2297
I got a pair of godox flash guns and controller for Christmas, and couldn't resist when I saw an olympus 75mm 1.8 for £400, so my house has been like a portrait studio for the past week. The family were getting fed up do I thought id try them out for macro, but hit a snag when I realised none of my small diffusers would fit
60mm macro with 26mm extention tubes at mfd
I could have done with a grid and a hood but I thought this would look interesting backlit
Can anyone recommend a book on portrait/studio lighting, I'm finding it difficult to get the look I want
|
|
|
|
Since all my pics are gone from the forum i thought id stick a few here.
I seem to be looking up a lot lately
Taken handheld and heavily cropped, with another big moon at the end of the month I'll be hoping for something better
I've never been happy with my astro shots, but i usually take them in the south east with all the light pollution that goes with it. An overnight stay in dorset fo work a couple of weeks back during the new moon got me the 1st shots I've been happy with,now I need to figure out how to stack multiple images to clean them up a bit. I'm also looking into getting a laowa 7.5mm f2 which should let me use a longer shutter speed,potentially letting me drop the iso by 2 stops
But there's always time for some arty stuff
I really enjoy macro, but I've struggled a bit focusing on live insects, so I thought I'd practice by chasing the fish I'm my tank. I got a similar shot by mistake that was miles out of focus, so I spent a while trying to replicate it. In the end I swapped the 60mm macro for a 75mm with extention tubes to use the faster af
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2295
I still can't consider the canon mirrorless tbh, when you look at the dslr lens lineup for crop sensors there are some big gaps there, and with lots of reports of canon and nikon dropping full frame mirrorless cameras next year, the new lens lineups will probably be the same. Fuji and mft have better lens options for me unless I decided to step up to full frame.
Where can I get a 22mm f1.2 so cheap, the olympus one is £1200
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2294
Agree, you can buy an M5 mirrorless with kit lens PLUS a fixed f2 pancake for the same as the MKIII.
I was really looking forward to the MKIII release but tbh it's just confirmed that my next camera will be mirrorless.
Edit: You can get an M100 which has the same sensor as the MKIII, plus kit lens, plus 22 mm f1.2, for several hundred quid less than the MKIII!!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2293
It has gone up a sensor size though, a 15-45 constant 2.8 would be huge on that camera.
The price is more off putting, you can get a decent body and very good lens for that money
|
|
|
|
|
So I see Canon has announced their G1X MKIII with a really slow lens. Very disappointing. The MKII is like the ultimate fishing camera IMO, looks like I'll be sticking with it....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2291
If it's canon mount then yes, it'll say ef or ef-s in the name.
|
|
|
|
|
Can I use a Tamron Telephoto lens for my Canon 60D?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2289
I probably should have updated those posts, I've gone through loads of options over the months since that post.
I think it's because I'm often using extention tubes with a macro lens, I haven't checked but it's probably giving me around 3:1 without throwing crop factor into the mix, so lighting is critical
Led ringflash, was adjustable but still pretty flat, colour was poor
Olympus twin macro flash, my favourite but pricey, also had the opposing effect to a ring, being a bit too harsh and directional for a lot of shots
Also tried a few leds on flexible arms without finding anything versatile enough to cover most bases.
Then I found 1001 articles about diy diffusers and now have a few options that cost next to nothing that I prefer to all the above options.
I may have to get an olympus flashgun soon to fully utilise the focus stacking features in my camera, and i may get a raynox filter to fit a zoom that doesn't work well with extenders, but other than that I'm quite happy with my kit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2284
If you are a Canon user then the Yongnuo Macro Ring Lite YN14EX is worth looking at. This model meshes in with all the auto flash settings on the EOS models and is very easy to use.
This new breed of ring lite features two separate tubes that sit each side of the lens as opposed to the old style which was an unbroken ring around the lens and yes did give boring lighting but all that has changed with the new breed of guns.
I have been using one for over a year with a range of macro lenses magnifying from basic 1:1 life-size and 3x life-size and can't fault it apart from a slightly flimsy battery cover catch which I corrected with a small screw
From memory the cost was around £70UK from a well known shopping channel which is a fraction of the cost of the Canon model which this one seems to be a direct copy of.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2286
D P
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2286
the one I have is adjustable, can have light on one side or the other or both, also the amount of light.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2285
You can do an awful lot with ps, but editing is a chore for me. I'd rather get 99% right in camera and do minor tweaks where needed.
With macro stuff I like to see the textures my eyes can't, and the ringflash does a good job of hiding this. I'll add a couple of pics later to show what I mean
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2284
when I'm doing macro I use a ring light but shoot in RAW, when post editing in PS or PS Elements there are lots of tools for light/exposure adjustment, amazing software can do things you never thought possible.
|
|
|
|
|
What type of macro flashes are best? I used a ring light type and didn't like the flat dull look. I don't want to spend much but want something easier than juggling off camera flash guns
|
|
|
|
The clouds were not very friendly tonight, lets hope tomorrow evening will be better.
|
|
|
|
On the theme of surprise visitors I stumbled across a load of these in a clearing by my local river
Anyone know what they are? The Mrs wants some
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2280
this guide popped up in my news feed
I don't have a lens long enough for the idea I had and I doubt I'll get one today.
|
|
|
|
|
this Monday 14th Nov @4.30 pm there will be a "Super Moon" the closest its been to Earth in 70 years, SO, what's my best way to capture the occasion, shoot in RAW and adjust everything in L R/PS or fully auto and hope for the best?
|
|
|
|
Highly unusual visitor to my garden this morning. We love pheasant but I could never bring myself to shoot such a beautiful creature.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys.
Mrs just bought a cannon eos 80d.
Looking at buying her a memory card for this.
What would the best options be here?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2276
No it was the filter, my camera is mirrorless so light leaks aren't an issue.
I tried a few options and the cheap srb photographic one had the best colours, I'm now looking at the square filters from srb and cokin
Not sure whether to start with hard or soft grads, also whether auto focus works properly with linear polarisers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2248
I know it may be a bit late, but have you tried covering the eyepiece on long exposures? light hits the sensor through that as well.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2272
I use the 1.4 on my 750, lovely lens, 1.8 is ideal, don't want to be much under 2.8 for trophy shots as the DoF is too small.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2273
I already have a Sigma 24-105mm art lens but its a little bulky and heavy (and expensive) to use for trophy shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2272
It deserves better
I nearly bought the same camera with the sigma 50mm art lens, which is an awesome combo, too good for me, and too big for me to lug around like I do with my m43 kit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi fellas
Anyone recommend a decent lens for self takes in all conditions
I've just purchased a Nikon d750 and was thinking of a Nikon f/1.8g 50mm prime lens
Anyone use one of these?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2269
A flash will help a lot to fill the shadows, for ease of use you want one canon ttl compatable, and with a decent output
Something like a yongnuo 500 would fit the bill, but they're huge on small cameras
This flash is the same size, the camera probably twice the size of yours and half the size of a basic dslr.
I have a nissin i40 which is a better match with smaller cameras but given the cost you'd be better off getting a cheaper flash and better camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2269
I think it depends on........in 30 years time do you want a good photo of what you caught today, I would get a good second hand DSLR and a half decent flash, but till then experiment with what you have now, I would be tempted to use the flash even on a sunny day (as infill) make notes and keep records of what you do, before digital I would put a NUMBER in the shot and on a note pad put what I did in that photo with that number, settings/distance/clouds/sun etc, can pick up a used camera for about £100-£130 and a flash for about £40 or £50, good luck and be patient
BTW how are you replying to a post 4 years ago that doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
After some advice i own a cannon g6 but only ever use it on auto.A place i fish has very tight swim and is half boards half greenery the last 2 times i have caught decent fish my photos have been awful as half the light in half the shot has been dull the other half bright due to low early morning sun.Resulting pictures were awful 1 was a blur with over exposure i was told the other 1 end of fish dark .Obviously i am a noob do i need a external flash or would a better camera be a better option for someone who only uses auto also night shots are not great either
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2267
...generally the money is better spent on upgrading lenses rather than the cameras.
Good advice A camera is only as good as the glass on the front of it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2265
The 600/650/700d are all very capable cameras, touch screens in my opinion are not worth the extra, its definitely worth paying out for the best glass you can, people often say they need to upgrade cameras to get a better picture, and yes this is right in some cases, but generally the money is better spent on upgrading lenses rather than the cameras.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2265
I've recently been looking for the same and by the sounds of it I have a similar level of understanding of cameras. I've decided on a used 650D and a STM kit for now. I'll see how the kit images come out first and then decide if I want a prime or not. The 650D is almost identical to the 700D (although 700D has slightly better low light performance) but around the lower price of the 600D. 600D has an older processor, no touch LCD and a few other differences. I've had a play with a 50mm prime a bloke has at work and it seems you have to have the camera a mile away from you for a self take. Not great in tight swims. I was finding used 650D bodies with low-ish shutter counts (around 1500) for around £260. Used 18-55 STM kits for around £65.
If you want new though, the 700D is the only one available from those three. I'm sure there might be some new grey market or american 650s (T4i) around if that doesn't bother you.
I've learnt a shed load from watching reviews of these three cameras and some of the equivalent Nikons on Youtube. Their worth a look.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2264
Thanks for the input mate. Excuse my ignorance as I am really hoping to learn a lot about the technical side of photography. So the camera you recommend on paper seems less camera than the other 2. Am I right in assuming as long as the camera body has a decent pixel count it's the lens that makes the difference to the image quality/end result? The pancake lens looks a good option..soo many choices!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2261
Canon 600d, and 35mm f2 would be within your budget or a 40mm pancake 2.8, id stay away from a 50mm on a crop sensor as it can be a bit tight in smaller swims, and to get that shallow depth of field you need a bit of distance between you and the camera or you won't even have the fish fully in focus.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2262
that might be a good option for me will take a look and look at some shots taken by this camera.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2261
I've got a canon 700d. Less megapixals than the nikon but great camera.. flip round screen too and 399 at currys at the moment with the 18-55mm kit lens which means you could get the ef 50mm 1.8 lens too and still be in budget for the out of focus backgrounds.. great lens for the money. Not ideal if your capture shots are in very tight swims as you need the camera back a bit with the focal length on a crop sensor. You don't need to be a mile away and you get great shots. Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Hi guys, I am looking for someone to point me in the right direction as am looking to get my first DSLR in the next few months.
I have a top budget of £500 and just wondered for me what would be the best option. What I want from it is crisp images 80% of my photography will be of captures with a few scenic shots and wildlife snaps. I like the shallow depth of field shots so needs good capabilities re this. Finally good self take capabilities so rotating screen is needed with good night-time results . I am currently looking at the Nikon d5500 this is obviously at the top end of my budget with standard kit lens. Are there better (cheaper which will give me the results I want) options out there to consider.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Dan
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2259
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
Evening guys. Do polarising filters have the same effect as polarised sun glasses do in reducing surface glare? So as to use with a telephoto zoom lens to locate and identify fish from distance.
|
|
|
|
This chap was in the garden for about an hour calling for mum, I'm a lazy amateur so used a Nikon D5300 with a 70-300 zoom, no tripod (didn't think I would get as many photos as I did)
EDIT
After posting this photo he came back and it rained......where's my mum 
2nd EDIT
He was still in the garden at 8pm so out came the spare landing net and he was caught, he was a guest at the cardboard box B&B for the night (he wouldn't have a prayer with the local cats), took him out this morning gave some breakfast before showing him the door, a bit later one of the parents came down and fed him, came back home couldn't see him.....job done, no it wasn't there he was on the bloody front gate post, I came out slammed the door and he flew down the road, from now on I'm letting nature take it' course
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 &nbs | |
