Small fly blows large bubble

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Captured on a Choisya bush in my next door neighbour's garden a couple of days ago using a Raynox 250 or 150 on my FZ200 bridge camera, with external flash. Although the fly was not as tiny as a fruit fly, it was quite small, and so these probably used the Raynox 250.

(Click on images to see versions over at flickr that don't have the nasty halos that these do. They are best viewed as the 1100 pixel high "Original" versions at flickr.)







 
Great shots Nick :clap:
 
Nick as always with your work I am most impressed especially as you still keep getting absolute stunners with a bridge camera :)
 
Excellent Nick really good lighting
Can't see any halos but im at work viewing on my phone:)
 
Love these Nick, they really pop and the detail is terrific. 3 and 4 for me, obviously ;)
 
Thank you all for the very positive comments.

DayDreamer said:
Nick as always with your work I am most impressed especially as you still keep getting absolute stunners with a bridge camera :)
Click to expand...

The question of how kit relates to image quality has fascinated me for a while now. It is sometimes said that "It's the photographer not the camera", and while there is a great deal of truth in that, it surely can't be the whole story. I know from experience that kit can make a difference, sometimes a big difference, but not always, it seems to me, in the "obvious" ways. As you may know from this thread I'm currently going through a journey of exploration to work out whether I can get best results from my bridge, MFT or dSLR for particular types of images, and which lenses are best (for me) for my interchangeable lens cameras. Thus far, especially concerning lenses, some of my conclusions have gone against the received wisdom.

As things stand at the moment (and it's all subject to change over time of course) I have come to the conclusion that my bridge camera is actually the best (for me) option for closeups like that which use flash as the dominant light source. I'm still deep in the experimentation and analysis phase for natural light closeups, and I'm also comparing flash with the bridge camera versus high ISO with the dSLR. In contrast to all the complicated trade-offs for closeups, the choice (for me) for landscapes - mainly sunsets and skyscapes in my case - seems like a no-brainer.

LCPete said:
Can't see any halos but im at work viewing on my phone:)
Click to expand...

Interesting about the halos. For me they are rather prominent along some of the hairs on the top of the thorax and on the rear near side leg (when viewed in the post on this site).

TimmyG said:
3 and 4 for me, obviously ;)
Click to expand...

Obviously. :D

I'm sure you can work out which one(s) I would like best if forced to make a choice. :)
 
Nick - I have no experience in Macro & not a lot more in photography generally.

However I have been an avid reader of everything you write so thank you for taking the time to be so open & so 'all embracing' on the subject matter :)
 
Wonderful shots, are you stacking your raynox lenses?
 
DayDreamer said:
Nick - I have no experience in Macro & not a lot more in photography generally.

However I have been an avid reader of everything you write so thank you for taking the time to be so open & so 'all embracing' on the subject matter :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the encouragement John. It's nice to have found somewhere I feel sufficiently "at home" to ramble through my thoughts in some detail. It's very helpful for me actually, because trying to explain things helps me to think things through and dig deeper into areas that I realise I don't really understand, or have got wrong. And when other people provide corrections and suggestions, that is great too.

Ajophotog said:
Wonderful shots, are you stacking your raynox lenses?
Click to expand...

Thanks. I do sometimes stack the Raynox 150 and 250, but not for these. It depends on the size of the scene. In terms of scene sizes the 150 and 250 stacked fits nicely between the 250 and my most powerful achromat, the Raynox MSN-202. I have two 150s and two 250s, and I keep one pair permanently connected together to avoid delays when using the combination. I don't stack any achromats other than the 150 and 250.

These graphs illustrate the scene widths covered by my achromats when used on the FZ200 and the 70D. (Click through to flickr for larger versions)





mattd85 said:
Great capture, !
Click to expand...

Thanks Matt.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks for the encouragement John. It's nice to have found somewhere I feel sufficiently "at home" to ramble through my thoughts in some detail. It's very helpful for me actually, because trying to explain things helps me to think things through and dig deeper into areas that I realise I don't really understand, or have got wrong. And when other people provide corrections and suggestions, that is great too.
Click to expand...

Without overly gushing your praise you are a real asset to this forum & we all are so lucky you do feel 'at home' enough to ramble on. Long may it continue :)
 
:agree: but John got there fast, I'm always pointing people to your journey post as people see some of us with 1:1 lenses and think that is the way forward but you showly clearly it may not.

Your input is greatly appreciated.
 
Very sharp image. Impressive from the bridge camera.
Is it picture progressively closer or are they crops of the first one?

I've struggled to get anything that sharp withe my dslr and a sigma 105mm macro.
I assume you still use a tripod for these?
 
Ajf350d said:
Very sharp image. Impressive from the bridge camera.
Is it picture progressively closer or are they crops of the first one?
Click to expand...

Progressively closer. You can't crop small sensor images much and still get nice details showing.

Ajf350d said:
I've struggled to get anything that sharp withe my dslr and a sigma 105mm macro.
I assume you still use a tripod for these?
Click to expand...

I don't recall - I do work hand held but not often with subjects that size. When I use a tripod I rarely use it in the "normal" way, setting up a shot, taking my hands away and using a remote release to take the shot. I do do this sometimes, but most of the time I use a "tripod assisted" approach. I use the tripod like some people use a pole, stick or monopod. I keep my hands on the camera. The tripod may have three, two or only one leg on the ground. The tripod steadies the camera so if I am using natural light I can use slower shutter speeds (down to 1/5 sec or so for example for larger subjects such as snails). I leave the image stabilisation on when using the tripod like this.

If I am using flash, like for the images in this post, or if I am using natural light, steadying the camera with the tripod makes it easier to take multiple shots, either at the same or different magnifications. (One of the advantages of my setup is that I can take a series of pictures like these, at different magnifications, without moving the camera.) Whether using natural light or flash, I'll sometimes be photographing a subject for several minutes. For example, the images in the series from which these four are taken were captured over a period of at least seven minutes. Trying to hand-hold the camera in the same position for periods like that is not practical (not for me at least).

The sharpness isn't only to do with the camera, lens and capture technique - post processing plays a significant role too. In my experience (some of which is documented in this thread) the lens has not proved to be the most important element in producing nice looking close-ups/macros; in fact, I sent back the two macro lenses that I purchased - a Canon 100L Macro and an MPE-65. When using an interchangeable lens camera (I used a Panasonic G3 micro four thirds camera for two years, and now use a Canon 70D dSLR as well as the bridge camera) I use zoom lenses, not prime macro lenses. These zoom lenses are not as sharp as macro lenses, but there is an issue of "How sharp is sharp enough", and the zoom lenses, used with my achromats, are sharp enough for my purposes, and I find them (like I find a bridge camera) easier to use to get results I like with the sort of subjects that I typically tackle and the sort of conditions that I typically shoot in.
 
What a hairy beast:nailbiting: No wonder I always swat them in the house. Think I may have to learn how to shoot instead. Seriously, superb images.
 
Excellent shots Nick. Superb lighting and detail.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks for the encouragement John. It's nice to have found somewhere I feel sufficiently "at home" to ramble through my thoughts in some detail. It's very helpful for me actually, because trying to explain things helps me to think things through and dig deeper into areas that I realise I don't really understand, or have got wrong. And when other people provide corrections and suggestions, that is great too.



Thanks. I do sometimes stack the Raynox 150 and 250, but not for these. It depends on the size of the scene. In terms of scene sizes the 150 and 250 stacked fits nicely between the 250 and my most powerful achromat, the Raynox MSN-202. I have two 150s and two 250s, and I keep one pair permanently connected together to avoid delays when using the combination. I don't stack any achromats other than the 150 and 250.

These graphs illustrate the scene widths covered by my achromats when used on the FZ200 and the 70D. (Click through to flickr for larger versions)







Thanks Matt.
Click to expand...
Great set of lenses are the Raynox I have been using the 3 for many years now and have always championed them.
 
Thanks for your reply Nick.
Some helpful and interesting points. I am having a look into the achromat type lenses you use on the bridge and dslr.
Flash is also something I hadn't really considered as I thought I would need a ring flash but it seems a decent off camera flash is also useful?
This wasn't something I had thought about before.
I've been tempted with the MPE-65 so am curious what you found against it?
I know it is a very specialist lens and can be a pain to use though.
 
Ajophotog said:
Great set of lenses are the Raynox I have been using the 3 for many years now and have always championed them.
Click to expand...

So you are using the MSN-202 too Alby? It's nice to come across someone else who uses it. What camera/lens do you use it on? Does the lens extend? Do you use it out in the wild? Oh, lots more questions ... those will do for now!
 
Ajf350d said:
Flash is also something I hadn't really considered as I thought I would need a ring flash but it seems a decent off camera flash is also useful?
Click to expand...

I use a flash unit in the camera hot shoe. There is a picture of my current arrangement here. At the moment I'm only using flash with the FZ200. Have a look at this thread to see the great variety of flash arrangements people here use for closeups/macros (and also the variety of cameras and lenses that they use).

Ajf350d said:
I've been tempted with the MPE-65 so am curious what you found against it?
I know it is a very specialist lens and can be a pain to use though.
Click to expand...

I can get somewhat similar results using the Raynox MSN-202 which is just as powerful as the MPE-65, very much smaller, very much lighter, very much less expensive and, with the right camera or lens, very much easier to use. There is more detail about all that, and the 100L Macro, using flash, achromats and much else in this thread.
 
GardenersHelper said:
So you are using the MSN-202 too Alby? It's nice to come across someone else who uses it. What camera/lens do you use it on? Does the lens extend? Do you use it out in the wild? Oh, lots more questions ... those will do for now!
Click to expand...
Yes been using Raynox since about 2008ish, I used the 202 on a number of cameras and lenses but mainly on my panasonic fz8 which is in need of updating to the fz200. They are really versatile little add ons. I'll post up a couple of my shots from it when I get back from work.
 
Ajophotog said:
Yes been using Raynox since about 2008ish, I used the 202 on a number of cameras and lenses but mainly on my panasonic fz8 which is in need of updating to the fz200. They are really versatile little add ons.
Click to expand...

They certainly are. And they all work well on the FZ200.

Do you have a tube for the FZ8? I find that makes a big difference with the 202 on the FZ200.

As to any image quality improvements with the FZ200 as against the FZ8, I'll be interested to see what you think if you do get an FZ200. A while ago I did a comparison exercise between pairs of my favourite invertebrate images captured with the Canon S3is (2006 vintage), Canon SX10is (2008), Panasonic G3 (larger sensor of course, 2011) and FZ200, and between flower images captured with these cameras and a Canon SX240is P&S. The results are here and here. At the sizes shown there (1100 pixels high), and with them all reprocessed to a common standard, there isn't really much, if anything, to choose between them, irrespective of camera vintage or sensor size. I'm not saying it doesn't make any difference using a more up to date camera - by and large each of those four was better than the previous camera, for example in terms of flexibility, ergonomics and responsiveness and accuracy of focusing etc, but in terms of image quality for screen viewing or moderate sized prints of images captured in good shooting conditions and given only minor cropping then there wasn't any difference I could pin down.

Ajophotog said:
I'll post up a couple of my shots from it when I get back from work.
Click to expand...

I'll look forward to that. :)
 
Cracking shots Nick. Can I just ask what you use to stack your Raynox lenses, also have you ever tried to 202 on a dslr + macro lens? Cheers
 
milster said:
Cracking shots Nick. Can I just ask what you use to stack your Raynox lenses,
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary.

The FZ200 has a tube with a 55-52mm step down ring permanently attached.

IMG_4076 Edit Export 800w by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 52mm is for historical reasons - all my achromats and cameras are set up to work to a 52mm connection between camera and achromats. That way the achromats are interchangeable between cameras without having to add or remove rings for one combination or another. For the same reason of convenience and speed of operation, I keep a 150 and 250 permanently stacked and carry that combination as well as an individual 150 and 250.

The 150 + 250 stack is constructed using additional step rings.

IMG_4075 Edit Export 800w by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The tube holds the achromat in a fixed position and so magnification can change without the camera moving. This is increasingly beneficial as magnification increases and so is very useful for using the 150 + 250 stack.

milster said:
also have you ever tried to 202 on a dslr + macro lens?
Click to expand...

Not on a macro lens. I only had the 100L and MPE-65 for a very short time before deciding to send them back, and having made that decision I lost interest in doing other experiments with them.

I have used the 202 on the 55-250 on my 70D. Because the lens expands, the 202 is really difficult to use; much more difficult than I could be bothered with. It was the same with my SX10 bridge camera. In contrast the 202 is entirely usable with my FZ200 with the tube, and my G3 with the 45-175 lens which doesn't extend.

I don't know that I'd want to use an achromat on a prime lens of any sort, because the range of magnifications must be quite limited, especially as magnification increases. (If it isn't obvious I'll happily explain why I suspect that would be the case.)
 
Thanks for the detailed response Nick. Not sure it would be much good for me at the moment then as my tamron zooms in and out. I havent really got any internally focusing lenses either other than my 70-200 but ot won't fit on there. Also the older tamron has a deep recess to the glass as well so working distance will be ridiculously close even it it could focus at all.
 
milster said:
Thanks for the detailed response Nick. Not sure it would be much good for me at the moment then as my tamron zooms in and out. I havent really got any internally focusing lenses either other than my 70-200 but ot won't fit on there. Also the older tamron has a deep recess to the glass as well so working distance will be ridiculously close even it it could focus at all.
Click to expand...

I think it would be ok Gary. I may have misled you by going on about extending lenses.

Brian Valentine (LordV) has described how he uses the MPE-65 (which extends - a huge amount - when you change the magnification). He sets a magnification first and then moves the camera to about the right working distance and then rocks back and forth to focus. He doesn't touch the focus ring. You can use the 202 in the same way. The lens extension, for zooming doesn't matter, nor does any extension that autofocus causes. (I think pretty much everyone uses the rocking technique for focusing high magnification shots. Even me, and I use autofocus whenever I can, which is most of the time, but even I use rocking focus for higher magnifications.)

I don't think the recess on the older tamron would matter either. The working distance is from the front of the 202 to the subject. So for example the working distance of the 202 is the same whether I have it attached directly to the camera lens or (for the FZ200) attached to the tube. In effect, the FZ200 camera lens is recessed within the tube, and what is more the amount of the recess is variable, from hardly any to lots - much more than the recess on your Tamron I'm sure.

Not that any of that would make the 202 easy to use - it is difficult to use. High magnification is difficult, when done out in the field, irrespective of the kit you use. But it's a real buzz when it works.

So why do I keep going on about extending lenses? Because I often change the magnification, back and forth, back and forth, when shooting a subject, because I like to create series of images of my subjects with different framing/magnification. Trying to do this with an extending lens is (for me at least) so difficult, time-consuming and frustrating as to not be worth the bother. With a non-extending lens I can do this easily, and importantly, quickly (so I can make series of a subject that doesn't stick around long), and without any danger of losing the subject. (And if I do lose the subject, for example because it moves, I can zoom out, find it, and zoom back in again to the magnification I want to use. A related benefit of having a non-extending lens is that once you have the rig at the right distance from the subject you can increase the magnification without any risk of scaring off the subject by getting too close to it, or hitting it or more likely what it is standing on.

For single shots though, the extending lens business may be pretty much irrelevant.
 
Thanks Nick, I pretty much exclusively use the rocking back and forth technique anyway. Just to clarify the recess is very deep, it's like a built on hood....I've just measured it and it's around 40mm, how deep is your tube? Cheers
 
milster said:
Thanks Nick, I pretty much exclusively use the rocking back and forth technique anyway. Just to clarify the recess is very deep, it's like a built on hood....I've just measured it and it's around 40mm, how deep is your tube? Cheers
Click to expand...

When the lens is fully retracted, it is about 65mm from the lens to the front of the tube where the 202 is attached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top