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)
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 #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
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 #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!
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 #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
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 #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.
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 #2359
Just tried a 1.4 - no AF at all, not even trying
Just tried a 1.4 - no AF at all, not even trying
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
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 #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.
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 #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.
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 #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.
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 #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
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 #2365
Sure - I can only compare it to PS at the moment though. I think I'll probably pay for it.
Sure - I can only compare it to PS at the moment though. I think I'll probably pay for it.
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.
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 #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
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 #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.
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.