Beginner Raynox DCR-250 - first attempts

Forkbeard

Forkbeard

Messages
475
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I got my DCR250 this morning and have been having a play :). It took me a good few attempts and a bit of reading on macro to get used to it, but I'm really happy with the results I'm getting. I don't have a tripod as yet, so the ISO is a bit higher than I'd like but other than that...so far so good! I have a few question about macro though:
1) how can I get closer
2) what about flash? I can't get any satisfactory results with the built in one on my G3 - it's too harsh on shiny objects.
3) What sort of focal length/lens would I need to photograph insects etc? (Which is what I'd really want to do) from a decent distance without scaring them off?


pen1 by James Howard, on Flickr

Rosemary by Jim Howard, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Looks pretty decent, I never knew this type of thing was available, I was under the impression it was dedicated 1:1 macro lens or nothing lol, nice shots and thanks for sharing.
 
Forkbeard said:
I got my DCR250 this morning and have been having a play :). It took me a good few attempts and a bit of reading on macro to get used to it, but I'm really happy with the results I'm getting. I don't have a tripod as yet, so the ISO is a bit higher than I'd like but other than that...so far so good! I have a few question about macro though:
1) how can I get closer
Click to expand...
By using the Raynox on a shorter focal length, but if you don't really mean "closer", but mean "greater magnification", then you may find that the long end of your standard zoom plus the Raynox does that. It all depends on which of the focal lengths available to you give the nearest approach to macro without the Raynox.
2) what about flash? I can't get any satisfactory results with the built in one on my G3 - it's too harsh on shiny objects.
Click to expand...

You must either use other lighting, or change the way your built-in flash illuminates the tiny thing. One way of doing that is to place a big white thing, such as a sheet of A4 white card, beside the subject, but out of image, and use your flash to light that and not the subject, which probably just means positioning and angling the white card to catch the flash, plus using something to shade the subject from the direct rays of the flash, which might even be your hand.
3) What sort of focal length/lens would I need to photograph insects etc? (Which is what I'd really want to do) from a decent distance without scaring them off?
Click to expand...

Depends how skittery the insects are. lots of people find a 90mm macro lens. especially on a smaller sensor such as crop, works well. But the longer macro lenses get the more expensive. If you're thinking of a lens to put your Raynox on, then you want a lens with the best combination of long focal and nearest approach to macro size. That's a trade off strongly influenced by how much macro magnification you want, which you probably don't know yet.

I've got two macro lens, a 30mm and a 90mm. I've also got a Raynox. I thought when I got the macro lenses the Raynox would become redundant and I'd sell it. But I find it's very useful as a tiny extra thing to carry when I'm just carrying my camera around with one general purpose zoom with no particular purpose in mind, just in case something turns up that I'd like to photograph. Deals with those annoying moments when I would have said "Bother! If only I'd brought a macro lens!". I don't even have to change a lens to do a macro shot, I just clomp the Rayox on the end.
 
Thanks for the comment Tamar. And thanks everybody else for the info. To simplify things a little bit in my mind regarding focal length magnification etc. At the moment I'm using my kit lens at 45mm (90 in m4/3 speak) and can get the above level magnification at abou t 5 inches away. Would say, using a 90/180mm lens with the same raynox give me a greater working distance than 5 inches but have a similar or greater times magnification?
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
Thanks for the comment Tamar. And thanks everybody else for the info. To simplify things a little bit in my mind regarding focal length magnification etc. At the moment I'm using my kit lens at 45mm (90 in m4/3 speak) and can get the above level magnification at abou t 5 inches away. Would say, using a 90/180mm lens with the same raynox give me a greater working distance than 5 inches but have a similar or greater times magnification?
Click to expand...
Nobody can tell without knowing the specific closest focusing distance of the specific lens in question. The Raynox is like reading specs which decreases the closest focusing distance of your eyes, hence increasing the apparent magnification. The amount of magnification you get can't be decided without knowing the maximum amount of magnification the lens can deliver. That's decided by a combination of focal length and closest focusing distance.
 
chris malcolm said:
I've got two macro lens, a 30mm and a 90mm. I've also got a Raynox. I thought when I got the macro lenses the Raynox would become redundant and I'd sell it. But I find it's very useful as a tiny extra thing to carry when I'm just carrying my camera around with one general purpose zoom with no particular purpose in mind, just in case something turns up that I'd like to photograph. Deals with those annoying moments when I would have said "Bother! If only I'd brought a macro lens!". I don't even have to change a lens to do a macro shot, I just clomp the Rayox on the end.
Click to expand...

I presumed that the Raynox would just be a stop gap until I could get a dedicated macro lens, but with the cost involved with that + how impressed I am with the Raynox, I'm going to hold onto it. In fact, I'm confused and don't want to spend anything lens-wise until I know what I'm doing! I might try and solve my lighting issue though and get an external flash or possibly some extension tubes. I believe though that they would decrease my working distance from the subject? I don't even know if I want to commit to m4/3s though (I have got serious information overload).

Eventually with some kind of setup I would like to be able to achieve this sort of magnification, but without having to crop as much:

ant5
 
Last edited:
I had this lens, could never get the hang of it... Kudos to all that take shots like this with it
 
Forkbeard said:
Eventually with some kind of setup I would like to be able to achieve this sort of magnification, but without having to crop as much:

ant5
Click to expand...
A useful exercise would be to calculate the magnification ratio that you're trying to achieve. This is defined as the size of the sensor divided by the size of an object that fills the frame. ('Size' here refers to a linear dimension - pick either the width or the height, whichever suits, but be consistent.)

If you know what magnification ratio you want, that helps identify what sort of equipment can get you there.
 
Raynox is a excellent bit of kit, you just need to read up on what's best, there's a guy on here that does macro with a bridge camera, stonking results. Look him up, gardenersassistant or gardenershelper, he does lots of write-ups. Keep at it and keep posting your pics in the macro section, you will get great help there.
 
StewartR said:
A useful exercise would be to calculate the magnification ratio that you're trying to achieve. This is defined as the size of the sensor divided by the size of an object that fills the frame. ('Size' here refers to a linear dimension - pick either the width or the height, whichever suits, but be consistent.)

If you know what magnification ratio you want, that helps identify what sort of equipment can get you there.
Click to expand...


Right, so let me get this straight; if the hypothetical object is in focus and measures 44mm(more or less filling the screen), then divide that by 17.3 (sensor size) gives 2.54x(ish)?

The Raynox website says the DCR250 is 8 diopter which equals 3x magnification so that sounds about right. What I don't get is how to figure out the same measurements for 1:1 macro. Does it mean that something closer to 17.3mm would fill the frame/sensor, hence giving more mag than the Raynox?
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
Right, so let me get this straight; if the hypothetical object is in focus and measures 44mm(more or less filling the screen), then divide that by 17.3 (sensor size) gives 2.54x(ish)?
Click to expand...
No. You divide the size of the senor by the size of the object. So in this case you'd get a magnification of about 17.3/44 = 0.39x.
Forkbeard said:
The Raynox website says the DCR250 is 8 diopter which equals 3x magnification so that sounds about right.
Click to expand...
No, I think that means 3x whatever your lens is capable of without the adapter. The EXIF data says that your pen photo was taken with a Panasonic 14-45mm, and so far as I can tell that delivers a maximum magnification of 0.17x; so with the Raynox it should do about 0.5x. Probably. I think.
Forkbeard said:
What I don't get is how to figure out the same measurements for 1:1 macro. Does it mean that something closer to 17.3mm would fill the frame/sensor, hence giving more mag than the Raynox?
Click to expand...
Yes. As noted above your lens can't achieve 1x, even with the Raynox.
 
StewartR said:
No. You divide the size of the senor by the size of the object. So in this case you'd get a magnification of about 17.3/44 = 0.39x.

No, I think that means 3x whatever your lens is capable of without the adapter. The EXIF data says that your pen photo was taken with a Panasonic 14-45mm, and so far as I can tell that delivers a maximum magnification of 0.17x; so with the Raynox it should do about 0.5x. Probably. I think.

Yes. As noted above your lens can't achieve 1x, even with the Raynox.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks. My mistake on the division - I actually tried it both ways round and this way makes more sense; the 1:1 bit being double the Raynox at around 0.5.

I'm trying to fiure out how much more magnification the 45mm/2.8 Lumix macro would give me, and it sounds like it's what I want.
 
Forkbeard said:
I'm trying to fiure out how much more magnification the 45mm/2.8 Lumix macro would give me, and it sounds like it's what I want.
Click to expand...
You could just read the specifications. Panasonic says it's 1:1. So stick your Raynox on it and you'll get 3:1. That sounds like a LOT more than you said earlier you want.
 
markgodley said:
lovely macro shots. I have one of these but never really got round to using it. Am i right in thinking that it only works with manual focus?
Click to expand...

It will work with autofocus, but will end up being more trouble than it's worth. At least that's what i found. Each to their own though I guess. I suppose if your eyesight isn't the best AF might be handy.
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
Has anyone tried an extension tube with the Raynox?
Click to expand...
Yeah I have, various lengths, each to their own but I find it fun trying different things. I use a tokina 100mm with tubes most of the time and then if I need to get in closer, on goes the Raynox. Try it, it's fun and good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top