Macro competition final reminder

On Jul 28, 4:51 pm, "Jonathan" <Jonat....TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > Just a final reminder to get your work in for the DIMi Macro
> > photography competition with the prize of a Thinktank Photo 360
> > backpack for the winner:
> >http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/thinktank/july07.php
> > Cheers,
>
> > Wayne
>
> How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped or
> do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens they
> call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close up
> filters?
>
> Thanks for any pointers.
>
> AJ

Macro lenses come in all shapes and sizes with different magnification
specs. There is debate as to what is a "real" macro as many tele-
macros don't have a very high magnification ratio and are more "close
focus" than anything.

I personally call the start of macro at a ratio of 1:1... that is the
subject itself is recorded life size on the sensor/film, but if you
want to get into fly's eyes and stuff, you should be looking around a
5:1 ratio.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

Jonathan wrote:

> How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped or
> do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens they
> call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close up
> filters?

I believe tubes give better quality at the cost of exposure time,
filters are easier at the expense of image quality & bokeh. I've barely
experimented with tubes, 'filters' are easy & merter proper.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

"Jonathan" <Jonathan.DeleteThis@house.not> wrote:
>What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a 60mm
>f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something closer. I
>wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can only get within 8
>inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something that can show a larger image
>or appear to get into that fly's eye.

You're getting into some fairly difficult ground
there.

First, it requires a *very* stable platform, and is not
something you'll do with a handheld camera, or a $50
tripod. Get yourself a very good tripod or a good "copy
stand". I would also recommend a good 2-axis focusing
rail.

You will probably also need one or more flash units.
Almost certainly a regular flash, and maybe a ring flash
too, depending on exactly what you want to do. Various
things like light tents or boxes, again depending on
what you want to do, are very helpful.

Then you'll have to decide on lenses, and there are many
ways to go. For more magnification you'll want a longer
focal length lense. That also has the added advantage
of giving you more working distance between the lense
and the object being photographed.

There are all sorts of lenses that will work at high
magnifications. Many if not all of them require the use
of extension tubes or bellows to get that sort of
magnification. One other option is a good quality
achromat close up lense fitted to the front of a macro
lense. I'm not sure what the maximum magnification
would be, but typically +3 diopters are available (from
Nikon, Canon and Olympus; and do not even think of
bothering with the $20 set of single element closeup
lenses).

Hence you might want a set of extension tubes, a 105mm
or 180mm macro lense and possibly a +3 diopter closeup
lense too. And maybe a 2x high quality teleconverter.
That is a lot of flexibility.

A bellows is also handy, especially for indoor work (the
extra rigidity of extension tubes is nice outside) if
the flexibility of continuous adjustment is useful.

Of course once you start using a bellows, none of the
automatic features of any lense are generally available.
Most of them aren't very handy at that magnification
anyway, so that is not really a handicap. But bellows
also open up a few other potential options for lenses.
Enlarging lenses make *wonderful* macro lenses when
mounted on a bellows. I've heard that microscope
objective lenses are also good, though I haven't used
one (I do have a bunch and will try it someday.)

Obviously there are several different possible
approaches, all of which can produce equally top quality
images. The big differences are cost and ease of use
for the photographer. At a minimum it is going to cost
a few hundred, and it can easily be many hundreds if the
budget is available and the time to find bargains is
more expensive than equipment.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

"Paul Furman" <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:43Cqi.102$rG7.72@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped
>> or do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens
>> they call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or
>> close up filters?
>
> I believe tubes give better quality at the cost of exposure time, filters
> are easier at the expense of image quality & bokeh. I've barely
> experimented with tubes, 'filters' are easy & merter proper

Tubes are easy and meter properly..
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

"Paul Furman" <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:43Cqi.102$rG7.72@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > How do you guys get so close with your macro shots?

Use proper macro equipment.

> > Are they all cropped or
> > do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens
they
> > call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close
up
> > filters?

There are lenses that go to 5x image size without filters, tubes or bellows.
You need to use a microscope adapter to do much better than 10x.

> I believe tubes give better quality at the cost of exposure time,

I agree with the first part.

> filters are easier at the expense of image quality & bokeh.
> I've barely experimented with tubes,

That would explain it then.

>'filters' are easy & merter proper.

So does a decent extension tube.
(assuming merter was meant to be meter)

MrT.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

PixelPix wrote:
> On Jul 28, 4:51 pm, "Jonathan" <Jonat....TakeThisOut@house.not> wrote:
>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>
>>> Just a final reminder to get your work in for the DIMi Macro
>>> photography competition with the prize of a Thinktank Photo 360
>>> backpack for the winner:
>>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/thinktank/july07.php
>>> Cheers,
>>
>>> Wayne
>>
>> How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all
>> cropped or do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second
>> macro lens they call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I
>> use tubes or close up filters?
>>
>> Thanks for any pointers.
>>
>> AJ
>
> Macro lenses come in all shapes and sizes with different magnification
> specs. There is debate as to what is a "real" macro as many tele-
> macros don't have a very high magnification ratio and are more "close
> focus" than anything.
>
> I personally call the start of macro at a ratio of 1:1... that is the
> subject itself is recorded life size on the sensor/film, but if you
> want to get into fly's eyes and stuff, you should be looking around a
> 5:1 ratio.

What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a 60mm
f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something closer. I
wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can only get within 8
inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something that can show a larger image
or appear to get into that fly's eye.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

On Jul 28, 2:25 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <wa....TakeThisOut@dimagemaker.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just a final reminder to get your work in for the DIMi Macro photography
> competition with the prize of a Thinktank Photo 360 backpack for the winner:http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/thinktank/july07.php
>

I'm in!
Just e-mailed my 3 entries, all taken with the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro.
Keep it fair, Judge, keep it fair.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Jonathan.RemoveThis@house.not> wrote:
>> What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a
>> 60mm f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something
>> closer. I wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can
>> only get within 8 inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something
>> that can show a larger image or appear to get into that fly's eye.
>
> You're getting into some fairly difficult ground
> there.
>
> First, it requires a *very* stable platform, and is not
> something you'll do with a handheld camera, or a $50
> tripod. Get yourself a very good tripod or a good "copy
> stand". I would also recommend a good 2-axis focusing
> rail.
>
> You will probably also need one or more flash units.
> Almost certainly a regular flash, and maybe a ring flash
> too, depending on exactly what you want to do. Various
> things like light tents or boxes, again depending on
> what you want to do, are very helpful.
>
> Then you'll have to decide on lenses, and there are many
> ways to go. For more magnification you'll want a longer
> focal length lense. That also has the added advantage
> of giving you more working distance between the lense
> and the object being photographed.
>
> There are all sorts of lenses that will work at high
> magnifications. Many if not all of them require the use
> of extension tubes or bellows to get that sort of
> magnification. One other option is a good quality
> achromat close up lense fitted to the front of a macro
> lense. I'm not sure what the maximum magnification
> would be, but typically +3 diopters are available (from
> Nikon, Canon and Olympus; and do not even think of
> bothering with the $20 set of single element closeup
> lenses).
>
> Hence you might want a set of extension tubes, a 105mm
> or 180mm macro lense and possibly a +3 diopter closeup
> lense too. And maybe a 2x high quality teleconverter.
> That is a lot of flexibility.
>
> A bellows is also handy, especially for indoor work (the
> extra rigidity of extension tubes is nice outside) if
> the flexibility of continuous adjustment is useful.
>
> Of course once you start using a bellows, none of the
> automatic features of any lense are generally available.
> Most of them aren't very handy at that magnification
> anyway, so that is not really a handicap. But bellows
> also open up a few other potential options for lenses.
> Enlarging lenses make *wonderful* macro lenses when
> mounted on a bellows. I've heard that microscope
> objective lenses are also good, though I haven't used
> one (I do have a bunch and will try it someday.)
>
> Obviously there are several different possible
> approaches, all of which can produce equally top quality
> images. The big differences are cost and ease of use
> for the photographer. At a minimum it is going to cost
> a few hundred, and it can easily be many hundreds if the
> budget is available and the time to find bargains is
> more expensive than equipment.

Thank you very much. You have given me much information to learn more about.
It sounds like fun and will keep me busy for some time. I have a wide open
budget so I will be spending more time than money in the beginning. I have
in the past spent more than I had to in order to find out that I had over
purchased but what you have supplied here will no doubt save me both time
and money. Money is much easier to come by than time so I am grateful for
this insight you have provided. It is about time I updated my old Nikon D100
any way. I guess it's time for the D200 at least. I have been eyeballing
that macro flash I see all the time on CSI even though I know they only use
it to look cool. My SB800 has been fine so far but I can see macro is a
totally new game.

Thanks again.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> What would you recommend as a good lens for a Nikon? I just bought a
>> 60mm f/2.8D that shots nice looking pictures but I wanted something
>> closer. I wonder why they call it a Micro-Nikkor. I think you can
>> only get within 8 inches. The ratio is 5:1 but I wanted something
>> that can show a larger image or appear to get into that fly's eye.
>
> Here you go:
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/50VR.htm>
>
> and
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/small_stuff.htm>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

Great links. Thanks Rita.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

There are four options that I have used:
- closeup filters are cheap (relatively) and allow a normal lens to
focus closer
- extension tubes that only work on SLRs but also allow a normal lens to
focus closer
- a dedicated macro lens will focus close and offer great image quality
- attach the camera to a microscope

I've used the first two with everything from a wideangle zoom to my
100-400mm zoom, with good results. I also have a 100mm macro (Canon
f2. which is a great lens. And I've been experimenting with the
microscope approach for that 'extreme' approach.

Cheers,

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Jonathan wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just a final reminder to get your work in for the DIMi Macro
>> photography competition with the prize of a Thinktank Photo 360
>> backpack for the winner:
>> http://www.dimagemaker.com/comps/thinktank/july07.php
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>
> How do you guys get so close with your macro shots? Are they all cropped or
> do you use a lens that does that? I just bought my second macro lens they
> call a micro but it doesn't get that close. Should I use tubes or close up
> filters?
>
> Thanks for any pointers.
>
> AJ
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
> There are four options that I have used:
> - closeup filters are cheap (relatively) and allow a normal lens to
> focus closer
> - extension tubes that only work on SLRs but also allow a normal lens
> to focus closer
> - a dedicated macro lens will focus close and offer great image
> quality - attach the camera to a microscope
>
> I've used the first two with everything from a wideangle zoom to my
> 100-400mm zoom, with good results. I also have a 100mm macro (Canon
> f2. which is a great lens. And I've been experimenting with the
> microscope approach for that 'extreme' approach.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne


Thanks Wayne. I have been wondering what shooting with a microscope would
be like. I think it is about time I found out. I can see me getting into
this with a whole new enthusiasm. I have seen so many nice macro shots taken
with Canon and other fine cameras and lenses. I have been using Nikon for
some time not that they are any better, just a bit more expensive. I have
seen better pics with Canon than anything I have been able to produce
although I do like my new Bigma.

Regards.

Jon
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder 

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:50:29 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

> Thank you very much. You have given me much information to learn more about.
> It sounds like fun and will keep me busy for some time. I have a wide open
> budget so I will be spending more time than money in the beginning. I have
> in the past spent more than I had to in order to find out that I had over
> purchased but what you have supplied here will no doubt save me both time
> and money. Money is much easier to come by than time so I am grateful for
> this insight you have provided. It is about time I updated my old Nikon D100
> any way. I guess it's time for the D200 at least. I have been eyeballing
> that macro flash I see all the time on CSI even though I know they only use
> it to look cool. My SB800 has been fine so far but I can see macro is a
> totally new game.

I tried using and SB-800 with a 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor on a D50
to make copies of some old, small prints the other day. Despite
diffusing the flash, there were too many tiny bright dots on the
surface of some pictures due to the texture of the original prints
not being as flat and smooth as they appeared. Not using the flash
solved the problem completely (2 sec. @ f/7.1 exposure), and this
may work for you if you're not taking pictures of moving things.
The sharpness produced by the lens was much more than necessary, as
the detail of the reproduced images wasn't as great as the detail of
the paper holding the images.
 >> Stay informed about: Macro competition final reminder