Bridge, MFT, achromats, dSLR, primes - a journey of exploration

[GardenersHelper]

Interesting the way the ranox achomats work they seem to reduce the working distance more than I would have expected
See what you mean 60cm isn't much room when you are after butterflies
I know that I've mentioned it before but an extension tube may be a better bet just for butterflies
You would get a good working distance
It would be a change in the way you work but even if you used it just for skittish subjects and used the ranox for most other things
As I mentioned before it's amazing the quality you're getting with your current setup looks to me to be as good as with a dedicated macro lens

Thanks Pete.

I'm confused about extension tubes though. Don't they decrease the working distance?

 

[GardenersHelper]

To be honest, I'm not that surprised you've sent back the 100. I was struggling to understand where it would fit in your setup (as you seemed to be getting such great results with the achromats). I know you mentioned about using it on rainy days, but I was thinking it would hardly get a look-in (I imagine it would be a fair bit heavier than the 250, and I bet your favoured components would be able to withstand the odd shower).

I think the camera should be ok, and the flash units might be too. It's the 55-250 that concerns me. I was nipping in and out between showers today trying to do some testing and when one of the showers started (just a few small drops at that stage) and I saw drops on the extended part of the lens it suddenly struck me that if I wound the lens back in then moisture could well get drawn into the lens.

Your findings are very interesting to me. I thought I had my wishlist all figured out, but now that's pretty much all up in the air. I think I would like to be able to get some bugs in flight shots (BIFs), specifically Dragons, and I'm pretty sure the 100L is no longer the right solution for that. I have been reading up about the 180mm F2.8 macro which, although it is an older lens, still has a great reputation. Then again I might be able to go for the latest 55-250 and get the same, if not better results. It sounds like I might need to rent some lenses and give them a go before making any purchasing decisions, or relying on reviews I read on the internet!

Speed of focusing is going to be critical for BIFs. I had read about dSLR macro lenses hunting, and found it very noticeable with the 100L. I haven't noticed the 55-250 hunting. However, would the 55-250 give you a small enough field of view? I measured it (see table above) as about 75mm (at a working distance of about 60cm). I suppose that probably is enough for dragonflies. Not so sure about bees, hoverflies etc (not that you mentioned them of course).

I'm going to try the 55-250 with the Canon 500D for bees and the like in flight. Using an achromat is a bit iffy because of the extra complication of getting within the working distance envelope, but that is quite wide for the 500D and so may not be too much of a problem.

Renting sounds like a very good idea.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Fwiw, what I do to test specularity and reflection is to shoot a sewing pin - it shows the reflection so you can adjust and see what's going on.

Thanks very much for the link Johan - it was very useful. I tried using a mirror to compare various setups. It was very instructive.

 

[LCPete]

Thanks Pete.

I'm confused about extension tubes though. Don't they decrease the working distance?

Yes they do reduce the working distance but not by as much as the raynox achromats
It's been ages since I used them with my 70-200 so can't remember exact distances but at 200mm I did get a decent working distance

 

[GardenersHelper]

Yes they do reduce the working distance but not by as much as the raynox achromats
It's been ages since I used them with my 70-200 so can't remember exact distances but at 200mm I did get a decent working distance

Ah, I understand. We are coming from different places.

With my 55-250 I'm already down to a working distance of 60cm (close to being too small) to get a scene width of 75mm (which is too large). I want a smaller scene width and preferably a bigger working distance. Extension tubes will give me a smaller scene width, but the working distance will be smaller too, back towards/into half a metre territory. If I'm going to be there I might as well use the FZ200, which with the 500D will give me a scene width of 30mm at half a metre.

 

[LCPete]

Just realised actually that you're talking about smaller subjects than I'm thinking of
I used an extention tube with my 70-200 for large butterflies and dragonflies so would have had a good distance from the subject
If a scene width of 75mm is too large then you are thinking of smaller subjects
Have to excuse me I'm on nights at the moment so brain isn't working!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Oh dear. This is turning into a bit of a roller coaster. Another big surprise. Bear with me. I'll get to it in a minute.

Several days ago, using achromats on the 55-250 with flash I captured some images that came out quite well - a bluebottle and some drone flies, and several small things. All very satisfactory. Since then I have been battling with the flash arrangements. There are several inter-related issues.

I want to use small apertures to get large dof, and I want to use a low ISO to retain maximum detail. Using flash as the dominant light source I thought this would be fine. It hasn't turned out that way. Even with two flash units (Metz 58 AF2 and Canon 430exii) I've been having trouble getting enough light on the scenes. The 430exii in particular is struggling. And that since that good day when everything seemed to work nicely I've been getting nasty flash highlights that I don't like the look of. I've been trying various forms of diffusion but the better the diffusion the worse the problem of providing enough light, and in any case even the best arrangements didn't really solve the flash highlights problem either. And handling the 70D with a pair of flashes on brackets attached to the focus rail is hard work, and awkward, what with the weight and given that several of the key connections can't be locked into completely reliable immobility and therefore suffer from slippage. Reversing the column on the tripod for example (which I need to do quite often, and quickly) without dismounting the camera and flashes etc (which is impractical), is pretty hair-raising and a little stressful. And working hand-held is quite tiring. But never mind I thought, this is the price I have to pay for the superior quality I can get now. You don't get anything for nothing. And I'll just have to post process out the nasty highlights.

Thinking all this over, I looked back at some G3 and FZ200 flash images of a similar kind to what I've been doing with the 55-250. They didn't seem too bad in regard to flash highlights, and I didn't recall having problems with getting enough light on the subject. On reflection, I wasn't thinking clearly about the flash highlights - I was looking at images that had been processed, and nasty ones would have either been thrown out or doctored in PP. The lack of a problem getting enough light onto the scene isn't difficult to explain with the FZ200, as it was operating three to four stops faster than I had been using the 55-250 (f/8 versus f/22-32), and therefore needing only 1/8 to 1/16 of the amount of light. Why the G3 hadn't given me problems though is more difficult to explain, as I had typically used f/22 with the G3, similar to the f/22 to f/32 on the 55-250. Also, I had only ever used a single Metz 58-AF2 with the G3, rather than having the additional light the 55-250 had from the 430exii. I decided to take the G3 out for a test run, photographing the same things I had recently with the 55-250, to see if I could work out what was going on.

I started with the G3 and its Metz 58-AF2 attached, with a diffuser bowl attached to the flash unit, but no diffusion material across the bowl. This is because I had been taking diffusion materials on and off the diffusers and, because of the difficulty in delivering enough light for the 55-250, I had ended up trying just the bowls with no diffusion material attached. I thought I would try the same thing with the G3.

Unfortunately I couldn't find what I was really looking for, more drone flies or other flies so I could have something of a like for like comparison. In fact, as far as invertebrates went (which was what I was concerned about, rather than flowers), it was difficult to find anything much to photograph. The only things I saw were much smaller. I used the Raynox 150 and 250 stacked for these shots.

I managed to get four shots of (I think) a midge (feathery antennae), but none of them worked nicely. This wasn't entirely surprising as there was a strong, gusty breeze in front of the oncoming rain. Then I saw springtails of the type I've photographed recently with the 55-250. I took fiftyish shots, of which five turned out to be be not too bad I thought, especially given the breeze and given the fact the little ones were continually on the move. Here are a couple of them (processed, but uncropped).

(To see an 1100 pixel high version click on an image and then right click on the image at flickr and choose "Original")


Panasonic G3+45-175+Raynox 150+250 Example 1 P1820315-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


Panasonic G3+45-175+Raynox 150+250 Example 2 P1820325-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I then found this. This is one of only three shots I had before it flew off.


Panasonic G3+45-175+Raynox 150+250 Example 3 P1820341-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I got rained off at that point, but went out again later, this time having put a polystyrene bowl into the diffuser. There was nothing to be seen. Except a tiny dot or two that I thought I saw move. I pointed the camera at one of them and it turned out to be a globular springtail. These really are rather small, from my calculations the ones I photographed were about 1mm long, body and head. I have been admiring Tim's shots of globular springtails for quite a while now. I have only ever tried to photograph one a couple of times, with no success. I put the Raynox MSN-202 on to the G3 and gave it a go. I took a couple of hundred shots. These were the best three (they are crops).


Panasonic G3+45-175+Raynox MSN-202 Example 1 P1820400-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


Panasonic G3+45-175+Raynox MSN-202 Example 2 P1820402-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


Panasonic G3+45-175+Raynox MSN-202 Example 3 P1820530-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There is nothing to be learnt here about the flash highlights problems, because I didn't get any of that with small subjects with the 55-250 - the light source is large in relation to the subjects. However, regarding the delivery of enough light to the scene, these all used f/22 and despite the use of a polystyrene bowl, which cuts down the light level significantly, and the use of one rather than two flashes, there was enough light on the scene. Even though the G3's base ISO is 160 rather than the 70D's 100, and my using slightly smaller apertures on the 70D (less than one stop), I find this puzzling.

What was a real eye opener was the usability of the G3. With the 45-175, which is a small lens, and just one flash, the rig was very light compared to the 70D, 55-250, two flashes and focus rail. Having the flash attached firmly to the camera made things easier compared to the less reliable bracket mountings with the 55-250. And the biggest difference was the 45-175, which doesn't extend. It made high magnification work much, much easier. I could go to wide angle, locate the subject, put it in the middle of the frame, and with a single, one-fingered movement of the zoom ring I could increase the magnification to the required magnitude. And when I lost the subject I could simply zoom back out, find and centre the subject and move straight back in again. This was hugely easier than with the 55-250, which extends/contracts between max and min zoom by more than twice the working distance, which makes finding the subject, getting the magnification right and re-finding the subject when you lose it much more difficult, frustrating and time consuming.

I am going to experiment some more with the G3, especially when I find some larger subjects to photograph. I want to find out how much less detail and dof I get with it compared to the 55-250, and whether there really is any difference regarding flash highlights (which I doubt).

 

[GardenersHelper]

Just realised actually that you're talking about smaller subjects than I'm thinking of
I used an extention tube with my 70-200 for large butterflies and dragonflies so would have had a good distance from the subject
If a scene width of 75mm is too large then you are thinking of smaller subjects
Have to excuse me I'm on nights at the moment so brain isn't working!

There's no problem here Pete. I really appreciate all input with this stuff. Whether directly relevant or not, it all helps me think through the issues and sort out what's what.

 

[LCPete]

It does sound like a real headache
I can't add much advice as I've not used flash very much
A thought tho I know we covered this before and you do like shots with a large depth of field but it may be worth trying wider apertures
If you were at say F11 for example you would be able to use one flash gun
I try to use a large an aperture as I can get away with
If the subject is cooperative and not going to fly off I take time to get exactly parallel and use F4
Most of the time for active insects I use F 7.1 and accept that some of the time not all of the insect is going to be in focus but am happy as long as the eyes are
If I get lucky I manage enough frames to focus stack to get a bit more depth of field
Also with the 70D you should be able to use ISO 400 with no problems
On my 7D for nature reserve shooting I'm normally on ISO 400 and the 70 is a bit better for noise than the 7D

 

[GardenersHelper]

It does sound like a real headache
I can't add much advice as I've not used flash very much
A thought tho I know we covered this before and you do like shots with a large depth of field but it may be worth trying wider apertures
If you were at say F11 for example you would be able to use one flash gun
I try to use a large an aperture as I can get away with
If the subject is cooperative and not going to fly off I take time to get exactly parallel and use F4
Most of the time for active insects I use F 7.1 and accept that some of the time not all of the insect is going to be in focus but am happy as long as the eyes are
If I get lucky I manage enough frames to focus stack to get a bit more depth of field

In the past I have generally raised ISO rather than increasing the aperture and losing dof. But I think I may be loosening up a bit on the dof front, so increasing aperture will be something I need to explore. Stacking is something that's on my agenda for using more this season. Thanks for the ongoing input Pete.

 

[TimmyG]

So does this mean you might give up on the 70D now? My goodness! Well with results like these I could totally understand if you did.

Anyway, more to the point I'm loving those Springtails (as you could well predict). That globby is a particularly nice find and I'd love to stumble across it myself one day. What type of plant did you find it on? Looks like one of the Katiannidae (the springtail, not the plant).

 

[GardenersHelper]

So does this mean you might give up on the 70D now? My goodness! Well with results like these I could totally understand if you did.

It's too early to say. Given that I'm using achromats, the G3 certainly seems better for very small things. My next move is to try larger subjects (invertebrates) using flash. Then invertebrates in natural light. Then flowers. I could stop off anywhere along the way and use:

G3 small invertebrates (always uses flash), 70D the rest
G3 small invertebrates, and larger invertebrates using flash, 70D the rest
G3 most invertebrates, 70D butterflies etc, flowers and landscape
G3 invertebrates, 70D flowers and landscape
G3 invertebrates and flowers, 70D landscape
G3 everything.

In some of these options there might be a role for the FZ200, for example for butterflies etc, to get extra reach and/or to be able to pick it up quickly when something unexpected turns up and may quickly go away again, and use it without having to disrupt any tripod setup I'm using at the time.

My guess at this stage would be G3 for anything using flash as the dominant light source, 70D for everything else. The 70D has a number of advantages, and although some are marginal I think that collectively they make it a better tool in general. It has a larger sensor (40% larger area and 25% more pixels) and I suspect better high ISO/low light level noise characteristics and dynamic range. It has normal (aka fast) phase detect focusing when using the viewfinder (the live view focusing uses phase detect too, but isn't nearly as fast). The 55-250 has slightly more reach than the 45-175. I don't have any G3 equivalent of the Sigma 10-20, and certainly wouldn't pay Panasonic prices to get one (almost £900!!!).

I can envisage various combinations of kit. For example I might use the G3 and FZ200 out at the nature reserves and the G3 and 70D in the garden. For sunsets on the estuary I might use a 3-camera approach with the 70D+Sigma 10-20, G3+14-42 and FZ200 (especially where I need the reach for ships/tugs/yachts etc, which can fit very well into skyscapes/sunsets). The 70D+55-250 would be the natural choice for invertebrates in flight, possibly with the 500D attached, probably with a single flash attached if dominant flash lighting is needed, coupled possibly with higher ISOs to get round the light delivery issue, or alternatively in bright enough light (and/or using higher ISOs) using available light and using the onboard flash for fill if needed. In either case invertebrates in flight would be hand-held. FZ200 and/or SX240 on the rare occasions we go out somewhere and any photography would be a side issue (snaps and grabs).

Anyway, more to the point I'm loving those Springtails (as you could well predict).

An easy call that would be!

That globby is a particularly nice find and I'd love to stumble across it myself one day. What type of plant did you find it on?

Choisya.

Looks like one of the Katiannidae (the springtail, not the plant).

The first two are the same individual. I don't think the third one is. Do you think the third one is the same species? It may be because the near side is OOF in the first two, but I get the impression that where there are spots on the second individual (third shot) right up the side to the band across the back, the upper part of that area in the first individual looks plainer.

 

[TimmyG]

The first two are the same individual. I don't think the third one is. Do you think the third one is the same species? It may be because the near side is OOF in the first two, but I get the impression that where there are spots on the second individual (third shot) right up the side to the band across the back, the upper part of that area in the first individual looks plainer.

Same species, different gender I believe. The first with darker pigmentation looks like the male and the second, spottier form looks like a female:

http://www.collembola.org/taxa/katiidae.htm

I would tentatively say this is Katiannidae Genus nov.1 sp. nov. which basically means nobody is really sure of the species, but it is believed to be either an Australian or New Zealand import (you get a fair few "exotic" species that crop up on plant imports to Botanical Gardens and Garden centres).

 

[GardenersHelper]

Same species, different gender I believe. The first with darker pigmentation looks like the male and the second, spottier form looks like a female:

http://www.collembola.org/taxa/katiidae.htm

What a fabulous site! Only dipped into it as yet - lots more to look at and read. Thanks so much for that Tim.

I would tentatively say this is Katiannidae Genus nov.1 sp. nov. which basically means nobody is really sure of the species, but it is believed to be either an Australian or New Zealand import (you get a fair few "exotic" species that crop up on plant imports to Botanical Gardens and Garden centres).

We have a fair number of non-native plant species in our garden. I wonder if I can find more of these little things, native and not. I shall certainly be looking much more carefully now.

 

[Testudo Man]

This is indeed an epic thread, which requires me to read over thoroughly...what a great journey though...Im just wondering, that will this journey of yours...travel full circle?!

 

[GardenersHelper]

This is indeed an epic thread, which requires me to read over thoroughly...what a great journey though...Im just wondering, that will this journey of yours...travel full circle?!

It's possible. I might end up back using a bridge camera again. That's where I started seven years ago. I used two bridge cameras for two years each, then a micro four thirds camera for two years, and then bridge camera again, for a year.

I'm currently doing comparisons, mainly at the moment between the G3 and 70D, although as far as invertebrates are concerned there isn't much by way of subject matter yet, which is holding things up a bit.

With the comparisons I have managed to do thus far it is proving frustratingly difficult to come to any definitive conclusions about whether the G3 or the 70D would be most fit for my purposes. I have been attempting to photograph the same (or very similar) scenes with both. I have done a little indoor photographing of test scenes (and even there, under pretty controlled conditions, no clear conclusions have leapt out at me). But I have been working mainly out of doors because what matters to me is results in the real world, with all its vagaries of breeze, changing light and transient subjects etc. But it has been pretty breezy and at least as far as invertebrates are concerned, there isn't much around by way of subject matter, and I keep getting rained off. I have done a number of comparisons now, using various apertures and ISOs, but the results are proving pretty difficult to interpret.

The major question for me is what image quality each system is capable of achieving, in my hands, in real world conditions, for the sort of images I want to capture. There are obviously factors involving the characteristics, capabilities and limitations of the cameras in terms of things like resolution, dynamic range, focusing speed and accuracy, depth of focus, colour rendition and noise. But there are usability issues that interact with these, things like how fast can I deploy the system to start taking photos of a new scene I come across, how easily/quickly can I change the magnification and/or composition and continue capturing, how well/reliably does the metering work, how well does the system work with flash, how much physical effort does it need to use the system (which matters for example for 4-6 hour sessions out on the nature reserves), can I see what is on the LCD screen in various ambient lighting conditions, how easy/difficult/fast to use/prone to error are the camera buttons, menus etc. And then of course there are issues around how much time, effort and ingenuity will I have to put into image selection and post processing to get good results.

I'm finding it complicated and time-consuming to get my head, hands and eyes around all of this.

One thing that is in the back of my mind is an exercise I did a while ago, taking two invertebrate images that I particularly liked from each of the four cameras I have used over the past seven years: Canon S3 and Canon SX10 bridge cameras, Panasonic G3 micro four thirds and Panasonic FZ200 bridge camera. I went back to the originals in each case and reprocessed them to a common standard using my current post processing techniques. I did the same for flower images from five cameras, the previous four plus a recently acquired point and shoot (Canon SX240). The processed invertebrate images are here, and the flower images are here. Thus far, only one person has claimed to be able to tell which images came from which camera without looking at the Exif data, and when I asked him what had given the game away I got no answer unfortunately. It seems that for all practical purposes there is nothing much to choose between them.

My intention in investing in a dSLR and top quality prime macro lenses was to make a significant improvement on what I had previously produced. The prime lenses are no longer in the equation so, for the most part, it's a case of dSLR vs MFT vs bridge with achromats. Given that the G3 was one of the cameras in the mix for both sets of images, and that I'm having a difficult time convincing myself that I will be able to get consistently, or frequently, higher quality results from the 70D than the G3, then perhaps I've reached somewhat of a plateau quality-wise, given my preferences, habits, skillsets, physical capabilities and limitations, subject matter and image style. It's too early to be sure - I suspect the 70D can produce better results than my other cameras, in a lot of real world circumstances of the type I deal with - but I can't prove it yet. But if the difference does turn out to be marginal, I shall be very tempted to go back to a system which is lighter, easier and quicker to use. One of the things I have been able to convince myself of thus far is that both the G3 and the FZ200 would be lighter, easier and quicker to use than the 70D, and might also give me a higher "hit ratio".

So yes, I might yet travel full circle.

 

[LCPete]

Very interesting Nick the way your journey is going
I do think that you shouldn't give up on the DSLR though
I think that part of the reason that you aren't seeing differences between systems is that you are shooting with narrow apertures and slight diffraction effects may be masking any differences between the systems
With a crop dslr and macro lens the optimum sharpness is roughly between F7.1 to 13
When you go to F22 or so the DSLR isn't at it's optimum sharpness but still good though

 

[LCPete]

But your results are showing that maybe it doesn't matter what you use you're certainly getting excellent shots even at high mag

 

[GardenersHelper]

Very interesting Nick the way your journey is going
I do think that you shouldn't give up on the DSLR though
I think that part of the reason that you aren't seeing differences between systems is that you are shooting with narrow apertures and slight diffraction effects may be masking any differences between the systems
With a crop dslr and macro lens the optimum sharpness is roughly between F7.1 to 13
When you go to F22 or so the DSLR isn't at it's optimum sharpness but still good though

I think you may be right about diffraction caused by narrow apertures tending to "equalise" systems; that is something I have often wondered about. The thing is though Pete, for me, as long as an image is "sharp enough" (to my eye) I'm much more interested in having more DOF than more sharpness.

But your results are showing that maybe it doesn't matter what you use you're certainly getting excellent shots even at high mag

I got up early this morning and the air was fairly still. I rushed out to take advantage of the conditions to do a set of mainly "classic tripod" shots (let the camera settle and use a remote release), with the G3 and 70D, all flowers, not using any achromats, just the 55-250 on the 70D and the 45-175 on the G3; I wanted to investigate the cameras' basic sharpness and dof characteristics. At the end of the session I did a set of hand held shots running the exposure down to really slow speeds; I wanted to see if there was any significant difference in the cameras' image stabilisation.

Then this afternoon, thinking about the "full circle" possibility, I did a set of three way flower shots, using the FZ200 and the 70D and G3 with the same lenses as in the morning. (It really drains the creative juices plodding through these comparison exercises. Very tedious. And so is grinding through the images to try to establish some patterns in what is going on.)

Late afternoon I decided to do some closeups with all three cameras using one of my more powerful achromats. But as soon as I tried the 70D I remembered why I had already decided, at least provisionally, not to use it for closeups. It is horrible to use with powerful achromats because of the extending lens barrel (this was exactly what made the powerful closeup lenses unusable on the Canon SX10 bridge camera). I then tried the G3, with the 45-175, which doesn't extend, but got into a real mess with the flash; it had been ok previously, but today it was proving very difficult to get it to throw enough light on to some scenes from a single flash unit. I ended up using high ISOs and still getting inconsistent results, including quite a lot of unusable results.I was not a happy bunny. It was meant to be simple and straightforward - nice new, high quality kit - nice photos. Simple. I wish. I didn't seem to be getting anywhere. Grumpy old bloke with wet knees was where I was at.

Then I tried flash on the FZ200. It worked fine - absolutely no problem providing enough light, through a relatively dense polystyrene plate fixed to the diffuser bowl, and at base ISO too. That must be the effect of using an aperture of f/8 which is three stops faster than the aperture of f/22 that I'm using on the G3 (and 70D). (Actually, the numbers don't quite add up - I'm wondering if there is something else going on, but I can't imagine what it might be.)

The first thing I found was a rather small insect, quite possibly a Chalcid wasp of a type I have photographed with the other two cameras in the past few days. It was on a (quite short, perhaps 1" or so long) blade of grass. I used the Raynox 150 and 250 stacked, and had no trouble setting the shots up. I took lots, including for example a series of 6 shots at different magnifications in 24 seconds without moving the camera, all decently focused (using autofocus), of which these are the first and last.

(There are 1100 pixel high versions of these over at flickr, and clicking on one of these images will take you to flickr, but it's all change at flickr, again, and I haven't yet found an easy way to get to the different size versions.)





Then I found some springtails. Although they are the same sort as I have photographed with the G3 and 70D (or they look like they are to me at least), it's not really a fair comparison because these were on a solid surface rather than on leaves blowing around in a breeze, and that made things very much easier. All the same, the springtails were scuttling about a lot, but here too I had no trouble acquiring the subject and gaining focus (using autofocus) - the FZ200 is even better than the G3 in this respect. Not only does it hold the add on lens in a fixed position (in the case of the FZ200, on a tube, with the lens extending and contracting inside the tube), but the zooming is done with the index finger of the right hand, using a zoom lever around the outside of the shutter button. In this respect it is at the other end of the spectrum from the MPE-65, which you have to get a strong grip on and turn and turn to get between min and max magnification. Anyway, here are three of the springtail shots. (Three from only 36 that I captured, and there were other usable ones, so I had, by my standards, quite a high hit ratio.)







I then noticed a berry I had photographed with the other cameras, so I put a less powerful achromat on the FZ200 (the Raynox 250 I suspect), and tried various apertures and magnifications, this time using natural light. Here is an example.



Then I noticed a pretty (to my eye) sky over the garden fence, so I took off the achromat and pointed the FZ200 at the sun and took a few shots.



I was getting pretty cold and hungry by this point, but the creative juices had started flowing and just before packing up for the day I put on one of the achromats and rushed a few shots of a little something I noticed earlier with the intention of trying a stack. I didn't do it carefully enough, so the stack didn't work properly, but as a proof of concept as to whether the FZ200 could be used for this sort of thing, I think it worked well enough.



I think that 80-minute session with the bridge camera has given me something to reflect on, around the relative importance of image quality (which is always going to be a bit limited with a small sensor camera) and usability, hit ratios, flexibility, being enjoyable rather than hard work to use and encouraging creativity. For me, today, the FZ200 seemed to score quite well on those aspects. Now I have to go back to the tedium of working my way through the images I captured earlier in the day to try to work out how significant the image quality differences are when seen from the perspective of real world capture sessions and post processing implications.

 

[TimmyG]

Well I certainly can't knock the springtail images, and that sounds like a great hit rate (knowing how fast these guys can move). The lighting is particularly nice on these.

(It really drains the creative juices plodding through these comparison exercises. Very tedious. And so is grinding through the images to try to establish some patterns in what is going on.)

Ha ha! That's why we are letting you do all the hard work. Thanks for sharing your results

 

[GardenersHelper]

Well I certainly can't knock the springtail images, and that sounds like a great hit rate (knowing how fast these guys can move). The lighting is particularly nice on these.

Yes, I was pleased with the hit rate. I don't know why the lighting came out like it did (not that I'm complaining, but not knowing how it worked I don't know if I'll be able to reproduce it). I was using just one flash, mounted on the camera (so much easier and more solid to handle than the rickety bracket arrangements I had with two flashes with the 70D), with the main flash angled sideways, and probably using the front facing subsidiary flash.

This set me thinking, and I just did a little test, using the 150 this time. You can see the results here. It shows the setup with the main flash angled sideways, and then some results for:

Main flash on the left with FEC -2/3, and subsidiary flash full, half, quarter and off.
As previous, but with FEC -1/3.
Main flash pointing forwards, subsidiary flash off.
Main flash on the right with FEC -2/3, and subsidiary flash full, half, quarter and off.

It looks like turning off the subsidiary flash might be a good idea, and illuminating more or less from the front/above, or perhaps just a little to the side, but not as much as in these examples. I think I may do a few more of these experiments to try to get a better feel for the variations.

Ha ha! That's why we are letting you do all the hard work. Thanks for sharing your results

Well I don't mind the tedium really I suppose, at least this time round, because I'm coming to some conclusions about what equipment to use for quite a lot of what I do. Not all of it - I need some larger invertebrate subjects in order to tie the whole thing up. I'll write up the progress and decisions thus far later on tonight hopefully.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I [did] a set of mainly "classic tripod" shots (let the camera settle and use a remote release), with the G3 and 70D, all flowers, not using any achromats, just the 55-250 on the 70D and the 45-175 on the G3; I wanted to investigate the cameras' basic sharpness and dof characteristics. At the end of the session I did a set of hand held shots running the exposure down to really slow speeds; I wanted to see if there was any significant difference in the cameras' image stabilisation.

Then this afternoon, thinking about the "full circle" possibility, I did a set of three way flower shots, using the FZ200 and the 70D and G3 with the same lenses as in the morning......Now I have to go back to the tedium of working my way through the images I captured earlier in the day to try to work out how significant the image quality differences are when seen from the perspective of real world capture sessions and post processing implications.

Having spent some time comparing quite a lot of these images and processing a few of them, I'm now convinced that of my three cameras, FZ200, G3 and 70D, the 70D generally produces the images that I would most like to work with; better detail and cropability, more subtle handling of textures and colours, better noise characteristics. The 70D images (RAW images, that's all I use these days except in special circumstances) I have processed so far seem to require far less adjustment in post processing than images from the other two cameras, and sometimes hardly any at all. Indeed, I'm having to train myself to change my post processing habits so as to avoid fiddling with them unnecessarily and spoiling them.

However, the differences between the 70D images and the others are generally not huge, especially when looking at a complete image rather than pixel peeping. The other two cameras produce images which are perfectly usable, although with more post processing. The "not huge" difference is particularly the case when using natural light and lowish light levels (which I work in a lot) require ISO to be increased to obtain a tolerable shutter speed and the DOF I am looking for. In these circumstances the 70D (like the G3) has to operate at three stops or so higher ISO than the FZ200 in order to maintain the same shutter speed (because they need to operate at three stops smaller aperture to get the same DOF as the FZ200), and this increase in ISO negates much of the advantages of the larger sensors. [Edit: Until very recently I believed there was a three stop difference in DOF between bridge cameras and APS-C/MFT. A few days ago I discovered that the Cambridge in Colour DOF calculator seemed to indicate a two stop difference. On that understanding, many of these latest test shots were taken two stops apart, typically with f/22 on the 70D and G3 and f/5.6 on the FZ200. In all of these shots the FZ200 seems to me to have significantly more DOF, so I have gone back to a three stop assumption.]

The 70D (like the G3) doesn't perform well for me with flash. The only way I can get enough light on to the scene is by deploying two flashes, in a configuration that is awkward, unstable (things slip), heavy and tiring to use, and can't be used at all in portrait mode or at steep angles in landscape mode. An alternative is to use high ISOs with a single flash, but I had difficulty getting that approach to work consistently. In contrast the FZ200 is (thus far) fine with flash, and works nicely, in landscape and portrait mode, including pointing straight downwards, at base ISO, with a single flash firmly attached to the camera's hot shoe, and a simple diffuser that can be adjusted to illuminate from the left, right, or straight on.

The 70D is extremely difficult to use with my most powerful achromats, the Raynox 150 and 250 stacked, and the MSN-202. The FZ200 works really well with those achromats and the rest of my achromats, and is pretty easy to use with all of them. With all my achromats I can respond faster and get well framed and well focused images more reliably than with the 70D.

The FZ200 gives me very fine control over placement of the centre of focus when using autofocus, which is a great benefit with invertebrates. The 70D only provides crude control over placing the centre of focus. I find manual focus unusable on the FZ200 and very good on the 70D. I find manual focus especially useful for flowers (by which I mean flowers, buds, berries, foliage etc, fungi and lichen).

I may change my mind later in the light of experience, but for the moment I plan on only using the 70D with natural light, apart from fill flash, for which I plan on using the on board flash, quite possibly not diffused, or diffused if I can find a very small, easy to deploy diffuser. I plan on using the FZ200 for everything for which flash is the dominant light source.

I am reckoning on using the 70D as my "flower camera" - I almost never use flash for these subjects and thus far I'm liking the 70D's rendering of flower scenes. I only have small sample to go on as yet. I'll see how it pans out in practice with a wider variety of subjects and circumstances.

I envisage using the FZ200 for the smallest invertebrates such as springtails and fruit flies that need my more powerful achromats (and flash), whilst using the 70D (without and with achromats) for the largest invertebrates such as dragonflies and butterflies. I plan on experimenting with the 70D and FZ200 with mid-sized invertebrates to see whether in practice the ease of use of the FZ200 pleases me more than the better image quality that may be possible with the 70D.

If and when I try insects in flight, I shall use the 70D, which will require good light and/or very high ISOs as I don't plan using flash as the dominant light source with the 70D.

When I go out specifically to capture sunsets or other skyscapes, I may take all three cameras with me - the 70D with the Sigma 10-20, the G3 with the 14-42 and the FZ200 for telephoto shots.

When I go out photographing in the garden I will take the 70D with the 55-250 STM and the FZ200, a Metz 58-AF2 for use with the FZ200, and my achromats. When I go out to a nature reserve I may add my point and shoot, Canon SX240, for any site environment/context/landscape type shots.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Change of plan. Again.

I've been playing with the flash tonight and it seems that, contrary to what I wrote yesterday, I can use a single flash mounted on the camera (a much more stable arrangement that the bracket arrangement, which can be used in both portrait and landscape mode), with both the 70D and the G3, for the most part at base ISO, with all my achromats (the 500D may need an increase in ISO more often than the others because of the much larger distance to the subject). I need to test this out in the field, but if it pans out then it will change my equipment mix, back to 70D+55-250, G3+45-175, and a Metz flash for each of them.

I haven't thought this through yet, and it will be subject to trial and error anyway, but I imagine it means using the 70D for flowers and large invertebrates and the G3 for the smallest invertebrates. Which of them gets used for middle sized invertebrates is a much more open question as yet.

 

[RedRobin]

I may change my mind later in the light of experience, but for the moment I plan on only using the 70D with natural light, apart from fill flash, for which I plan on using the on board flash, quite possibly not diffused, or diffused if I can find a very small, easy to deploy diffuser. I plan on using the FZ200 for everything for which flash is the dominant light source.

....Might this diffuser by Gary Fong work for you?:

http://www.garyfongestore.com/featured-products/puffer-plus-pop-up-flash-diffuser-657.html

I have the Canon 70D and I bought a secondhand Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro from TP Classifieds but haven't used this lens much yet. This thread is extremely informative

I also have the Canon 70-200mm f4L IS + 1.4x Extender and the Canon 400mm f5.6L. I bought the 100mm Macro particularly for Dragonflies (which haven't started emerging yet) and have been extensively using the 400mm for birds. But I tried out the 400mm on a Bumble Bee recently and was very pleasantly surprised. The IQ isn't as good as many of your images as it's handheld and just natural light (the way I prefer to shoot). I shot a Comma Butterfly on the 400mm today too but haven't uploaded to my Mac yet. Butterflies are fairly abundant but very skitty and difficult to approach at the moment.



^ Canon 70D, 400mm f5.6L, handheld at approx 12ft minimum focal distance.

 

[GardenersHelper]

....Might this diffuser by Gary Fong work for you?:

http://www.garyfongestore.com/featured-products/puffer-plus-pop-up-flash-diffuser-657.html

Thanks. Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of.

I have the Canon 70D and I bought a secondhand Canon 100mm f2.8L IS Macro from TP Classifieds but haven't used this lens much yet. This thread is extremely informative

You'll know my story with the 100L then.

I bought the 100mm Macro particularly for Dragonflies (which haven't started emerging yet) and have been extensively using the 400mm for birds. But I tried out the 400mm on a Bumble Bee recently and was very pleasantly surprised.

Yes, that worked well.

The IQ isn't as good as many of your images as it's handheld and just natural light (the way I prefer to shoot).

Oh, I much prefer natural light too. The reason I keep going on about flash is that I have had horrible problems getting it to work, even in a basic way, let alone dealing with the intrinsic problems of flash highlights and dark backgrounds. Mind you, handheld for that shot is a bit interesting as I believe the 400 5.6 doesn't have IS. Presumably the shutter speed was quite fast; the clear blue sky suggests the light level might have been quite good.

I work hand held a lot too, especially with flowers.

Much of the time I use a "tripod-assisted" approach, with my hands on the camera but the tripod damping down vibrations (so I can use quite slow exposures, down to about 1/5 sec) and keeping the framing steady for capturing multiple shots of a scene. I also find some steadying pretty much essential when capturing tiny subjects, like springtails, not to steady the camera when the shot is taken - I almost invariably use flash for very small subjects - but to facilitate framing and focus control.

I shot a Comma Butterfly on the 400mm today too but haven't uploaded to my Mac yet. Butterflies are fairly abundant but very skitty and difficult to approach at the moment.

One of the ongoing strands in my photo story is finding a good way of dealing with butterflies. I can get them large enough in the frame (I prefer to compose in the camera rather than by major cropping) but I have to use the 500D for that and with a working distance of at most 50cm I have to get too close for some of them, and off they go before I get a shot in. Or I can shoot from further away (about 1m minimum for most of my cameras) without an achromat and crop. That may be what I end up doing with the 70D, although with a minimum working distance of around 63cm for a scene width of about 75mm it isn't ideal for my preferences.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Corrections and consequences.

it seems that, contrary to what I wrote yesterday, I can use a single flash mounted on the camera (a much more stable arrangement that the bracket arrangement, which can be used in both portrait and landscape mode), with both the 70D and the G3, for the most part at base ISO, with all my achromats (the 500D may need an increase in ISO more often than the others because of the much larger distance to the subject). I need to test this out in the field.

It failed the field test. I got this wrong. I can use a single flash all right, but not at base ISO on the G3 or 70D. It appears to need ISO 800 for the G3 and ISO 1600 for the 70D to allow me to use f/22. How I managed to get this so wrong I can't imagine, especially as my calculations clearly indicated that it would need ISO 800 or so.

I haven't thought this through yet, and it will be subject to trial and error anyway, but I imagine it means using the 70D for flowers and large invertebrates and the G3 for the smallest invertebrates. Which of them gets used for middle sized invertebrates is a much more open question as yet.

The second camera could now be the G3 or the FZ200. (I don't want to carry all three when I'm also carrying flash equipment.) I've had a detailed look at a test scene comparing ISO 100 on the FZ200 with ISO 800 on the G3 but some aspects of the comparison pointed one way and other aspects the other. I think usability tips the balance in favour of the FZ200. It's still an open question, and a subject for experimentation, as to whether the 70D or FZ200 gets used for middle sized invertebrates.

I find manual focus unusable on the FZ200

Not so. I must have been thinking of my other bridge cameras. Manual focus on the FZ200 is usable, using a slider on the base of the camera lens housing (left hand thumb operation for me, alternatively index finger depending on how you hold the camera). Works fairly well actually.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I can use a single flash all right, but not at base ISO on the G3 or 70D. It appears to need ISO 800 for the G3 and ISO 1600 for the 70D to allow me to use f/22.

I tried two flashes again, a 58 AF-2 and 430ex. I rearranged the mounting, one flash unit on the camera and the other flash unit on a bracket attached to the camera. This arrangement can be used off the tripod, or for tripod use the bracket gets attached to the focus rail. That part of it works fine now. I put some pipe insulation around the bracket to stop it cutting into my wrist, and bought a wrist guard to help with that too. So, all set up, and plenty of power.

Oh dear. Still not enough power for f/22 at base ISO (well, maybe, sometimes, with scenes that are light in colour). I took off the polystyrene plates I was using as diffusers and replaced them with paper kitchen towel, which lets more light through. Still need ISO 200 or 400 for darker scenes.

And then the straw that broke the camel's back. TTL shows every sign of not working. Turn up the ISO a bit and as you would expect it works fine. Turn it up some more and the highlights blow!!!!!&*??? (This is in ambient light which is well below what is needed to capture the image without flash, so it's not that the flash is pushing an already well exposed image over the top.)

That's it. I've had enough. I'm definitively giving up on flash with the 70D. I know the 70D can capture images with wonderful IQ, using flash - I've had some that have impressed me. But, for me, what I'm doing, how I'm using it, I don't know why, but it is so hit and miss, and so frustrating and annoying - trying to get this to work is destroying my enjoyment of photography. I should be out there calmly capturing photos, not getting more and more wound up with a continuous struggle with the technology. Every time I pick up the FZ200 I realise in contrast what a a joy it is to use. I can clearly see what I'm doing on the LCD (I can't on the 70D), again on the LCD, which is where I work and want to work almost all the time, I can reliably set the centre of focus exactly where I want it, (I can't on the 70D, because of the too big focus box), the FZ200 gains focus almost immediately and handles subjects that are moving about in the wind quite well (the 70D doesn't, and doesn't). I can use the the FZ200 one handed, including changing magnification (I can't with the 70D), I don't have to move the camera to change magnification (I do with the 70D), it is light (the 70D isn't, even with an EF-S lens). Oh, and the FZ200 works pretty well with flash - not many surprises or annoyances - and at base ISO almost all the time, even with a polystyrene plate diffuser on a single flash unit. And being lighter, and with only one flash unit, it is much more nimble and flexible in use, including getting into awkward corners and positions that require the camera to be held in a difficult, stressful position.

So the FZ200 is light, fast and responsive in use, flexible and reliable. The problem? Image quality, of course. It can't match the 70D (when the 70D gets it right). Well, I never used the FZ200 much because soon after I got it I suffered from a loss of inspiration, but here are some of the flash shots I captured with it before that happened, and as I look at them again I realise, yes, I can live with the reduced image quality. These are good enough for my purposes; I'll use the FZ200 for flash.











And natural light? I'll try to put my annoyance and frustration behind me and make friends with the 70D again, and get it to sing and dance for me, for flowers, hand held and with tripod, for early morning, dew-covered invertebrates in still air, and more generally for invertebrates in natural light, for sunsets and skyscapes, and the occasional bird and mammal.

 

[damianmkv]

Can I ask where you got your msn-202 from ? Does it have the same clip attachment as the DCR-250 ie 52-67mm lenses ?

Looking at the previous page, I guess it's not easy to use ?

EDIT - I see it has the same attachment

 

[GardenersHelper]

Can I ask where you got your msn-202 from ? Does it have the same clip attachment as the DCR-250 ie 52-67mm lenses ?

Looking at the previous page, I guess it's not easy to use ?

EDIT - I see it has the same attachment

I got it from Amazon.

No, it's not easy to use. In fact, it's rather difficult. That said, depending on what camera you use, it may not be as difficult as the MPE-65, and it provides about the same magnification.

It's like anything else I suppose, the more you practice the easier it gets. Until getting inspired by what Tim is doing with the MPE-65 I hadn't used the MSN-202 much. However, Tim got me interested in the small things and I've been practising, and it is getting easier now.

It makes a huge difference if you can use it on a lens that doesn't extend. I first tried it on a camera with an extending lens and found it almost impossible to use. The problem is that you need to get to about 30mm from the subject, +/- about 1.5mm (i.e. about 3mm tolerance in total). If the lens barrel extends, then when you change the magnification by zooming the lens you change the distance to the subject (perhaps bumping into it as you zoom in). You have to simultaneously zoom in and pull the camera back to compensate, and vice versa when you decrease the magnification. It is extremely easy to lose the subject while you are doing this. And the subject is really difficult to find in the first place, and finding it again is just as difficult. It's not as if you are looking around an in-focus area to find it - everything is a complete blur until you are at almost exactly the right distance. And the lens barrels typically move by far more than the 30mm working distance. It is a bit of a nightmare. Users of the MPE-65 face similar problems of course with the huge extension of the lens as it moves from 1x to 5x. And the MPE-65 is much, much heavier than the MSN-202, which is tiny and weighs almost nothing.

The magic with the MSN-202 on a lens that doesn't extend is that you can zoom right out, get the distance right, and locate the subject. Keeping the camera lined up on the subject, you can then zoom in to the required magnification and take the shot. (This is particularly easy on the FZ200 as you zoom using your index finger on a little lever outside of the shutter button.) And if you do lose the subject, either through operator error/movement or subject movement, then you can very easily zoom out, relocate it, re-centre on it, and zoom back in.

When I used the MSN-202 on a lens that doesn't extend it was an eye-opener. It became usable (very, very difficult, but usable). I can't remember if this was on the Panasonic G3 with 45-175 (a very special lens for me, as it doesn't extend) or on the Panasonic FZ200 (the lens extends, but I mount my achromats on a tube which fits over the lens and hold the achromat in a fixed position while the lens moves in and out behind it).

I would advise anyone who want to use the MSN-202 to get thoroughly comfortable with the Raynox 250 first, and possibly get some practice with the 250 and 150 stacked before moving on to the MSN-202.

 

[LCPete]

Hi Nick to be honest Im puzzled why you are not getting enough power from your flashes
I went out today and was using the pop up flash as fill light on a large butterfly with a flower and was using - 2 flash exposure compensation and the lighting was spot on
this was using F2.8 and 4 so in theory a smaller aperture with 2 flash guns should work

I messed up the focus on the shots but that's another story!

have you tried using F16 that should give you a good depth of field and the flash should be good
just thinking out loud
next time im out I will try some shots at smaller apetures just to see how it works

 

[GardenersHelper]

Hi Nick to be honest Im puzzled why you are not getting enough power from your flashes

Not as puzzled as me Pete! I've been tearing my hair out over it, and getting increasingly moody and upset. (Hopefully that is past now - more about that later.)

I went out today and was using the pop up flash as fill light on a large butterfly with a flower and was using - 2 flash exposure compensation and the lighting was spot on
this was using F2.8 and 4 so in theory a smaller aperture with 2 flash guns should work

I messed up the focus on the shots but that's another story!

have you tried using F16 that should give you a good depth of field and the flash should be good
just thinking out loud
next time im out I will try some shots at smaller apetures just to see how it works

Fill flash is a lot different Pete - the scene is already getting plenty of light. My problems have been with providing almost all the light with flash. With the 70D I've been attempting to use 1/250 sec, f/22 to f/32 (depending on focal length) at ISO 100. With the G3 I've been attempting to use 1/160 sec (max sync speed for the G3) and f/22 (minimum aperture) [EDIT at ISO 160, minimum ISO for G3]. I only have a single flash for the G3, but the symptoms in terms of (not) delivering enough light are similar. With two flashes on the 70D, and one flash on the G3, it seems that things max out at around the settings I'm trying to use. There is only just enough light for a scene with light colours, like our Choisya bush - and I can't overexpose by turning up the flash, because turning up the flash makes no difference. But if the scene is dark, there is not enough power and the image is underexposed. If I increase the aperture or increase the ISO then I can illuminate dark coloured scenes.

I don't want to use smaller apertures. As far as I can tell from the Cambridge in Colour DOF calculator, each stop you increase the aperture by causes the DOF to decrease by a factor of 1.4-sh (square root of 2), so increasing the aperture by two stops (e.g. f/32 to f/16) halves the DOF. The alternative is to increase the ISO. I could live with that - after all in the two years I used the G3 ISO 800 was in practical terms my base ISO much of the time. What made me give up though was the fact that TTL flash simply appeared to be not working on the 70D. I really shouldn't have been able to overexpose a shot by increasing the ISO (unless the ambient light level was at or close to the level required for proper exposure of the shot, which it wasn't). On top of all the other hassles with the 70D and flash (heavy, cumbersome) and the 70D and autofocusing (focus box too large for the precision I need), it was too much.

I've obviously wondered by the way whether these problems arose from faulty kit, but given the similarity as between the 70D and G3 I rather doubt it. But if it isn't that, what is the cause? Why is no one else having these problems?

Anyway, I've made my decision as to what kit to use, and having had 24 hours doing other things I'm calmer and happier now. I've just got back in from several hours in my next door neighbour's garden using the 70D with natural light for flowers and the FZ200 with flash for invertebrates. It went fine. I haven't looked at the results yet, and sometimes what I find isn't as good as I thought it looked at capture time. But I know both pieces of kit can give me nice results, and the important thing for me today was that the ergonomics/usability was fine. Very good in fact. I can live with the 70D as my natural light camera and the FZ200 as my flash camera.

I'll be very interested to see how you get on if you try my target settings in ambient light that is several stops below what is required to give a good exposure for those settings.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I'll use the FZ200 for flash.

And natural light? I'll try to put my annoyance and frustration behind me and make friends with the 70D again, and get it to sing and dance for me, for flowers, hand held and with tripod, for early morning, dew-covered invertebrates in still air, and more generally for invertebrates in natural light, for sunsets and skyscapes, and the occasional bird and mammal.

It was Tuesday when I wrote that. Today is Saturday. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday I tried out the combination of FZ200 for flash work and 70D for as much of the natural light work as made sense. I captured images of flowers and invertebrates in our garden, in our next door neighbour's rather different garden, and at a nature reserve (a fairly short session). The invertebrates ranged in size from fruit flies to a (just one so far) butterfly. The flowers were almost all captured with the 70D, both hand held and using a tripod with a wired remote shutter release, all using natural light. The invertebrates were captured mainly using flash, but quite a few using natural light, with a mixture of hand held and tripod-assisted (even at dawn on the nature reserve the air and the subjects were not still enough to use the tripod with remote shutter release for invertebrates).

I captured about 3,500 images in those three days, and I have only looked at one set of images, about 700 from my next door neighbour's garden, which I have just finished processing, with about 70 "keepers" (a decent keeper rate by my standards as it happens, but my keeper rate is very variable and subject to factors which have nothing to do with the choice of equipment so I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions from the keeper rate.). However, using the new combination of kit to capture that number of images has given me a much clearer idea of what works and what doesn't, and I suspect the 700 I have sifted through and 70 or so processed have given me a fairly clear indication about image quality.

As far as image quality goes there is nothing new really. The image quality from the 70D seems to me to be very good, but I think the image quality from the FZ200 is adequate for my purposes despite not being in the same league as the 70D. The 70D images need only a very light touch by way of post processing. In contrast the FZ200 images, even at base ISO, need significantly more time and effort expended on them.

In terms of ergonomics/operations, the 70D seems to be fine for flowers, and going by how it handled, using the bare 55-250, when photographing the butterfly - which was settling briefly then coming back to settle in different places each time - I think it will be fine for larger invertebrates photographed at a distance, typically hand held.

I already knew that the expanding lens makes the 70D problematic for very small invertebrate subjects. I now know that it is problematic for medium sized invertebrates. This came home to me out on the nature reserve where the 70D gave me great difficulty in photographing a rather easy subject, a smallish but very slow moving slug. It was the same two problems as before: the large focus box makes precise focus placement impossible, introducing a very unwelcome random element to where the focus will fall; and having to adjust the distance from the subject when the magnification changes destroys the flow of my working, and means I miss shots. I will try some more, perhaps it will improve with practice, but it looks like the 70D's role for me in photographing invertebrates is going to be very limited. By the same token, the FZ200 will get more use than I envisaged for natural light invertebrate shots. An advantage of this in terms of the speed at which I can respond to changing circumstances is that it makes it much faster to switch between using flash and not; I can just turn it on and off rather than having to switch cameras, which can be quite time-consuming, especially if the tripod or an achromat is involved.

In terms of carrying the kit it looks like two bags and a tripod, although the bags are quite light and not difficult to manage. In one of the bags I'll carry the 70D, with 55-250 attached, and the FZ200 and its flash unit. The bag is arranged so I can carry the FZ200 with the flash unit attached if I want, which is very convenient, so to use it I just have to pop on the diffuser, which I've now got arranged so I can put it on and off really quickly.

It is possible that things will settle down now, and I'll just get on with using this combination of kit. If so, this thread may have served its purpose. So rather than posting examples here, I'm going to start posting in separate threads in the forum like everyone else (with occasional contributions to the Flower Power thread, which seems to be going along very nicely).

 

[LCPete]

Looks like you've settled with kit you're happy with
Thats very important more so than any slight differences in image quality
Hopefully you will see a few dragonflies at the reserves the 70D and 55-250 should be perfect for those
Im getting exited now not long until our butterflies emerge am hoping to start seeing green hairstreaks at whixall moss soon

 

[GardenersHelper]

Looks like you've settled with kit you're happy with
Thats very important more so than any slight differences in image quality

I think the FZ200 and 70D is the right combination at the moment, but that said I'm still adjusting my ideas about which camera to use for what type of capture. I was looking last night at some ISO 1600 and 3200 images of a snail I captured with the 70D earlier in the week, and reflecting on how very noisy the FZ200 images are in comparison. Even the ISO 100 images of a small fly blowing a big bubble that I posted yesterday had horribly noisy backgrounds if sharpened without noise reduction being applied to the backgrounds first.

It struck me that if I used the same background noise reduction technique then ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 70D images would be usable, and possibly even ISO 6400. And if the snail image was anything to go by, even very high ISO 70D images might be better than low ISO FZ200 shots. If this were to be the case, then the only remaining problem with 70D as far as natural light shots goes would be the usability issues - the need to move the camera when changing magnification and the too large focus box.

These musing set me wondering as to whether the 70D usability issues were really as bad as I thought they were. And in any case perhaps they might become less significant if I got more experience with the 70D. So I went out to another of the local nature reserves this morning at dawn, one where I was sure there would be plenty of snails and slugs clambering around. I took a chance on the weather. It started raining soon after I got up and a rainy day had been forecast. But I decided that I would go over to the reserve anyway and sit in the car waiting for a little gap in the rain to take a few shots.

I didn't need to sit in the car. The rain stopped by the time I got to the reserve and it was hunger not rain that eventually sent me home at about midday, having captured about 1,400 images, mainly slugs and snails, with a handful of flies and one spider. I used mainly ISO 1600 and 3200, with some ISO 6400, and then later in the morning when the light levels were higher I used ISO 800 and ISO 400 for some shots. The high ISOs were not (just) experimental - For several hours I needed to use them to get even remotely sensible shutter speeds because of the low light levels, and on top of that it was fairly breezy. (You might think breeze wouldn't matter with snails and slugs, but for the most part they were on twigs and blades of grass blowing around in the breeze.)

I was expecting that I would get frustrated with the 70D and turn to the FZ200, possibly quite quickly. I used the Canon 500D, Raynox 150 and Raynox 250, so I was using a wide range of magnifications, down to about 1.5:1 for a few shots of some small flies, but as I was packing up to go home I realised that I hadn't even considered using the FZ200. As long as those 1,400 images aren't a complete washout in terms of usable results, then I think I'm going to be using the 70D more than I thought I would. I'm keen to find out, so I'm going to tackle today's images next rather than the set I was going to work on.

More on this in a day or three when I've gone through them and done the selection and processing, and can draw conclusions about image quality to go with my revised opinion about the 70D's usability for natural light shooting.

Hopefully you will see a few dragonflies at the reserves the 70D and 55-250 should be perfect for those

I think you are right about the 70D and 55-250. I would like to see some dragonflies, but I don't often see them unfortunately. I tend to see more damselflies, but I think the 70D and 55-250 should be fine for them too.

Im getting exited now not long until our butterflies emerge am hoping to start seeing green hairstreaks at whixall moss soon

Fingers crossed. It's great when you find the subjects you most enjoy photographing.

 

[Tintin124]

Mods can we make this a Sticky please... it is very helpful and gives insight into how to get into macro without the necessity of buy 1:1 lenses.

Gives beginners a chance to see what their options are. Sure Nick can add his findings on Close up filters.

 

[LCPete]

It's great that you're going to be using the 70D more than you thought
I agree the 70D and 55-250 should be a great combination
I often go up to ISO 800 for macro on my 7D and still get good details with very little noise I do ETTR tho and as you're finding the 70D is even better
Damselflies make great subjects one of my favourites some of them are really colourful

 

[GardenersHelper]

It's great that you're going to be using the 70D more than you thought
I agree the 70D and 55-250 should be a great combination

It's still clarifying as to exactly what works for what subjects and light conditions. I'll write up my current thinking after I've finished going through the 1,400 images from that session. (I need to concentrate on and work right through complete sessions, including the after-processing bureaucracy, so as to keep control of the rather large numbers of images I'm dealing with. That can make me a bit slow to respond about new things I've come across.)

One thing I am noticing with the 55-250, and am rather surprised about, is chromatic aberration, which I'm seeing more of than I have ever noticed with my other cameras and lenses. It's not terrible, like with macro filters, but I have noticed it faintly even on (a few) uncropped images, so it's definitely not a trivial, pixel-peeping-only pseudo problem. I've set up Lightroom to automatically deal with it on importing 70D images, so it shouldn't be a problem in practice. But I do find it a bit surprising.

I often go up to ISO 800 for macro on my 7D and still get good details with very little noise I do ETTR tho and as you're finding the 70D is even better
Damselflies make great subjects one of my favourites some of them are really colourful

Looks like I'll be using up to 3200 on current evidence. I'm working backwards through the 1,400 set at the moment, from better light later in the session when I was using lower ISOs (down to 400 as the minimum I think) to poorer and poorer light back towards dawn, when I was using 6400 and possibly even 12800. I suspect that neither of them is going to prove usable, but we'll see. One of the things that has (pleasantly) surprised me is that even when images are noisy (and the processing I do makes the noise worse), there is a lot of detail beneath the noise that can to a surprising (to me) extent be made visible. I'm currently using the technique I developed for my other cameras of hitting backgrounds very hard with noise reductions, giving mid grounds none or "half power"(ish) noise reduction and not applying any noise reductions to subjects, except in the most noisy of cases (and that is what will prevent ISO 6400 and higher being useful I suspect).

 

[LCPete]

Shame about the chromatic aberration didn't know that lens had that but as you said you can deal with it in post processing
Interesting about the noise reduction you do on just the background
I used to do that all the time I used neat image on the background when I was at iso 1600 which was a lot for zoo animals with my 100-400 lens now I've got a faster lens with better IS (300 2.8) I don't have to go above 800 I don't see noise at 800 or less but do at 1600
I don't normally use noise reduction for macro though as I'm not normally at high iso
The background seems to make a big difference if it's dark I do get some noise but lighter backgrounds are ok
ETTR then darkening in lightroom also gets rid of noise
I haven't found a noise reduction programme that doesn't destroy detail except using a little in lightroom

 

[GardenersHelper]

I haven't found a noise reduction programme that doesn't destroy detail except using a little in lightroom

That is why I treat the background separately. It is where the noise shows up, and there isn't anything much by way of detail (I treat areas that do have some "oof detail/features" as midground, and give them gentler treatment), and so detail loss isn't an issue.

I might have used Lightroom's Adjustment brush to apply this selective noise reduction, but the noise reduction you can use using the Adjustment brush is far less powerful than the total detail zapping you can do with the whole image noise reduction. So I process the image with no noise reduction (except default Chroma noise reduction, which always kills all chroma noise, with all my cameras, and leaves only luminance noise). I then send the processed but noisy image over to Photoshop and go back to Lightroom and do heavy (detail destroying) whole image noise reduction. I then send that version over to Photoshop, layer it with the noisy version on top, then use the Eraser to remove the top, noisy layer for the background. If there is noisy midground, I reduce the Opacity to 50% or so and wipe the midground over with the Eraser. Very occasionally, for a really noisy image, I may reduce the opacity much further and wipe over the subject, but that is very rare.

 

[GardenersHelper]

To recap ...

It struck me that if I used the same background noise reduction technique then ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 70D images would be usable, and possibly even ISO 6400. And if the snail image was anything to go by, even very high ISO 70D images might be better than low ISO FZ200 shots. If this were to be the case, then the only remaining problem with 70D as far as natural light shots goes would be the usability issues - the need to move the camera when changing magnification and the too large focus box.

These musing set me wondering as to whether the 70D usability issues were really as bad as I thought they were. And in any case perhaps they might become less significant if I got more experience with the 70D. So I went out to another of the local nature reserves this morning at dawn, one where I was sure there would be plenty of snails and slugs clambering around.

(I) captured about 1,400 images, mainly slugs and snails, with a handful of flies and one spider. I used mainly ISO 1600 and 3200, with some ISO 6400, and then later in the morning when the light levels were higher I used ISO 800 and ISO 400 for some shots. The high ISOs were not (just) experimental - For several hours I needed to use them to get even remotely sensible shutter speeds because of the low light levels, and on top of that it was fairly breezy. (You might think breeze wouldn't matter with snails and slugs, but for the most part they were on twigs and blades of grass blowing around in the breeze.)

I was expecting that I would get frustrated with the 70D and turn to the FZ200, possibly quite quickly. I used the Canon 500D, Raynox 150 and Raynox 250, so I was using a wide range of magnifications, down to about 1.5:1 for a few shots of some small flies, but as I was packing up to go home I realised that I hadn't even considered using the FZ200. As long as those 1,400 images aren't a complete washout in terms of usable results, then I think I'm going to be using the 70D more than I thought I would.
More on this in a day or three when I've gone through them and done the selection and processing, and can draw conclusions about image quality to go with my revised opinion about the 70D's usability for natural light shooting.

I've now gone through the 1,400 images, selected and processed about 100 of them, and of those have retained 87 as good enough for my purposes. So I think I will be using the 70D more than I previously thought; for medium sized invertebrates photographed in natural light the 70D seems to handle well enough and let me produce usable results. So that makes the 70D suitable (for me) for natural light captures of medium sized invertebrates and (based on other experiments) large invertebrates. I think the 70D is better for flowers, fungi and the like with its more accurate rendering of colours and subtle rendition of delicate textures and tonal variations. On the other hand the FZ200's handling is far superior for small invertebrates and is more usable with flash (although today I've been running into problems of inconsistent flash exposures on the FZ200, so I'll have to revisit the whole flash issue). This is how it all seems to me, for my purposes, at the moment, and subject as always to revision in the light of further experience.

So those are my general conclusions from the session. Now some particulars and examples from the session in case you are interested.

Getting usable results would have been challenging whatever camera I had used. This made it a very good test of real-world usability because I often work in suboptimal conditions of light and air movement. The conditions for the session were definitely difficult - the light was poor for much of the session and there was an almost continuous gusty breeze. I spent the whole session working along an isolated 5-10m of low hedge that was the only thing I could find to provide a (very imperfect) windbreak. Most of the time everything was moving, despite being behind the little hedge.

To add to the challenge, I used natural light only, and used small apertures to get large DOF. In addition, many of the subjects were moving around, slugs and snails in particular, and although their bodies move slowly as they travel, the antennae can move quite fast. In fact in terms of camera usability the slow continuous body movement matters too, because you have to keep adjusting direction and (less often) distance to the subject.

And all of the subjects were on twigs or leaves that were blowing around in the breeze.

So all this made it a good test for usability, and despite the problems of the extending lens and the overly large focus box, the 70D turned out to be usable for these medium-sized subjects. As to image quality, there are some extra variables that will make interpretation of the examples I'll post here a bit tricky.

I deliberately used high ISOs so see how they turned out in terms of image quality, and in any case the low light levels, small apertures and lack of flash meant that high ISOs were essential a lot of the time in order to get remotely sensible exposure times. And of course high ISOs cause loss of detail and colour degradation. I selected images to process without regard to the ISOs used, just making my decisions on the grounds of whether they looked like they could be made good enough (in terms of IQ, composition, interest etc) to post here and elsewhere, and to provide to the wildlife trust - for whom content is more important than image quality. Of the 87 I kept, 9 are ISO 400, 18 are ISO 800, 42 are ISO 1600, 15 are ISO 3200 and 3 are ISO 6400.

I was unsure whether to post examples here or not. The problem is that of the 87, 46 were shot at 1/15 sec or slower. This means that giving examples from those 87 processed images might be misleading, because you can't tell how far any lack of sharpness/detail is caused by the high ISO used, and how much is from the subject moving or what it is on being blown about in the breeze. Still, I thought anyone determined enough to be still reading this monster thread might like to see some examples, if only as some relief from all these words (and this is a photo forum after all!)

Please bear in mind that most of the processed images (and all but the last two of the examples below) had two-layer noise reduction using the technique I developed for my noisy FZ200 images. For this I use the default Lightroom chroma noise reduction when images are imported into Lightroom. I then select and prepare the images in Lightroom, with no additional noise reduction, and pass this noisy version across to Photoshop CS2. In Lightroom I then apply as much noise reduction as necessary to damp down the noisiest areas in the image to a level I am comfortable with, and then send this noise-reduced version across to CS2. I use the noise-reduced version as the Background layer in CS2, with the noisy version as a layer above it. I then use the Eraser to reveal the noise-reduced background in areas where I want noise reduction applied. I mainly use the Eraser with 100% Opacity to give the area I'm wiping over the fully noise reduced version. If I want some noise reduction on midground areas, but not as strong as on the background, I turn the opacity of the Eraser down for the midground areas.

So, what you are seeing is most definitely not "out of the camera".

I need to test this more carefully, but at this stage my impression is that the 70D images are about three stops "cleaner" than FZ200 images. That is, a processed (and only lightly cropped) ISO 1600 image from the 70D would be broadly similar in terms of noise and visible detail to a processed ISO 200 version of the scene captured with the FZ200. This largely balances out the three stop or so difference in DOF, i.e. DOF for a scene captured using f/22 with the 70D is roughly equivalent to the DOF for the same scene captured at f/8 with the FZ200. This means that when low light levels are the main constraint, there isn't much in it for natural light shooting as between the 70D and the FZ200. At higher light levels when light levels cease being the dominant factor, then the 70D obviously has advantages in terms of image quality. (Example. In low light levels I might be shooting f/8 and 1/10 sec at ISO 200 with the FZ200, and f/22 and 1/10 sec at ISO 1600 with the 70D. However, in better light I might be shooting f/8 and 1/500 sec at ISO 100 with the FZ200 and f/22 and 1/80 sec also with ISO 100 on the 70D. If the 70D shutter speed is fast enough to avoid blur from camera or subject movement, then the 70D image will have similar DOF but better image quality. )(Note: I mentioned previously that the Cambridge in Colour DOF calculator put the difference in DOF between cameras with sensors the sizes of the 70D and FZ200 as two stops, as far as I could work it out. Examining some photos since then of the same shot taken with the two cameras makes me think that in practical terms it does indeed seem to be around three stop, as I previously thought, so that is the amount I am going to reckon on for now.)

Here are a few processed examples from the session. I don't think I'll be using ISO 6400 with the 70D (just as I don't use ISO 800 on the FZ200), and I'll be hesitant to use ISO 3200 (as with ISO 400 on the FZ200). I would rather use ISO 800 than ISO 1600 on the 70D, but can live with ISO 1600 (as with ISO 100 and ISO 200 on the FZ200).

Worst first.

ISO 6400
1/8 sec, f/25

0549 16 2014_04_06 Large Amber Snail (Succinea putris) IMG_1770-Edit-Edit PS1a PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

ISO 3200
1/25 sec, f/5.6

0549 01 2014_04_06 White-lipped Snail (Cepaea (Cepaea) hortensis) IMG_1584-Edit-Edit PS1 PSS3.86 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

0.3 sec, f/29

0549 19 2014_04_06 IMG_1828-Edit-Edit PS1 PSS3.75 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

ISO 1600
1/30 sec, f/25

0549 45 2014_04_06 Long-legged spider (Tetragnatha) IMG_2390-Edit-Edit PS1 PSS3.75 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

1/25 sec, f/32

0549 65 2014_04_06 IMG_2619-Edit-Edit PS1 PSS3.75 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

ISO 800
1/10 sec, f/20

0549 56 2014_04_06 Sawfly (Aglaostigma aucupariae) IMG_2520-Edit-2 PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

ISO 400
0.3 sec, f/32

0549 68 2014_04_06 IMG_2730-Edit PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr