Some small things

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Captured last night with the G5 with 45-175 and (I think) the Raynox MSN-202, but perhaps two Raynox 250's stacked. I had to revert to the pie tin diffuser as the replacement KX800 hadn't arrived. The first two were stationary. The last one was scuttling about at quite a speed and autofocus proved very useful indeed.


0775 03 P1070847 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0775 04 P1070842 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0775 13 P1070947 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0775 14 P1070959 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0775 28 P1080061 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0775 29 P1080062 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0775 30 P1080064 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Excellent work Nick, and I too am amazed you could get AF to work on that springtail. I think the last one is my favourite as you can see the characteristic curling of the third antennal segment, typical of this species (Tomocerus longicornis) - apparently you can blow on them to encourage this behaviour too, although I've never tried it. You can see the need to do this though, their antenna are longer than the rest of their body length and the left side antenna looks to be damaged; I believe it will regenerate with the next moult. Springtails, unlike insects, continue to moult throughout their adult lives.

Lovely images on the whole, some cute looking micro-bugs, great detail, nice textures and of course the lighting is perfect!
 
A very nice set there, No. 2 & 3 are the nicest for me and what the hell is it?
Lighting does look spot on.
 
All, thanks for your positive comments. I'm very interested in your comments about the lighting, as this is, I thought while capturing these images, my second level lighting arrangement - the pie tin diffuser, the latest version of which uses 160 gram frosted plastic as the diffusion material. This uses a single source of light from a fixed position, being attached to a flash unit in the hot shoe, with the only positional adjustment being a slight rotation to left or right. I have only used the KX800 a few times as yet, but it gives much greater flexibility, in terms of balancing (and unbalancing) the light on the subject from the two sources, varying the directions and distances from which the illumination comes and illuminating backgrounds.

However, I've had a bit of a rethink on the subject of very small subjects, and the pie tin diffuser may become my favourite light source for these. It is written up in this post in my journey thread.

As to autofocus, that is one of the advantages of not using a "proper" macro rig. With a suitable achromat on a suitable lens (see here for an example of an achromat that is unsuitable, at least with my cameras), autofocusing works much the same as normal. Being contrast detect auto focusing (CDAF) on my cameras (including the 70D the way I use it), the autofocusing is not as fast as OVF phase detect focusing is (under suitable circumstances), so no BIF (birds or bees) with CDAF. However, it is pretty fast (fast enough for ambulating invertebrates a lot of the time) and it doesn't suffer from the hunting that I've experienced and I understand is quite common with autofocus at close quarters with macro lenses. And of course that is generally only down to 1:1 anyway with macro lenses.

Autofocus is almost always fine with the Raynox 150 on the FZ200, which gets down to about 1.5:1 in APS-C terms. It is usually ok with the Raynox 250 on the FZ200, which goes down to about 2.4:1. Success rates decrease as magnification increases. I have used it successfully down to 5:1 in APS-C terms with the MSN-202 on the G5, but it can be slow and difficult to get it engage at high magnifications, especially when working hand-held, which I am all the time at the moment. The springtail was actually quite large, about 3mm I think, and the magnification was quite low, about 1.5:1. So I'm not at all surprised that autofocusing worked quite nippily.

With both the FZ200 and the G5 you can use a very small area to focus on, which makes very accurate focus placement possible, and if you want (and you have time to alter it) you can place the focusing area anywhere except at the edges of the screen rather than using focus and recompose with a central focus area.

CDAF also has the great advantage of being reliably accurate. There are no issues of front/back focusing.

You used autofocus on a springtail :jawdrop: Think the forth one is the best of this lot, though the last is close - esp if a slight crop was done on it. Others are a bit central for me.

Thanks Chris. I didn't take as much care as I might have with the cropping. Are you thinking of something off of the top and right for the last one, something like this perhaps?


0775 30a P1080064 LR
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Excellent work Nick, and I too am amazed you could get AF to work on that springtail. I think the last one is my favourite as you can see the characteristic curling of the third antennal segment, typical of this species (Tomocerus longicornis) - apparently you can blow on them to encourage this behaviour too, although I've never tried it. You can see the need to do this though, their antenna are longer than the rest of their body length and the left side antenna looks to be damaged; I believe it will regenerate with the next moult. Springtails, unlike insects, continue to moult throughout their adult lives.

Great information Tim. Thanks.

Some more finely detailed images with excellent lighting Nick.

A very nice set there, No. 2 & 3 are the nicest for me and what the hell is it?
Lighting does look spot on.

Barkfly nymph Graham!

Thanks for the ID Tim. I did wonder what it was.
 
Stunning set you fill me with envy and create something to aspire to thank you for sharing
 
Excellent work Nick amazing detail on such tiny little things
the first one is my favourite stands out nicely from the background
 
Thanks Barrie, Pete, Paul

the first one is my favourite stands out nicely from the background
The separation in #1 and #2 is excellent mate.

Fascinating as always to find out how we see things differently (or value different aspects of what we see). What struck me most was the lack of DOF coverage in #1 (almost binned it because of that). And I wasn't all that keen on the straight top down view of the second one, but thought "oh well, at least it's got a bit better DOF coverage." (Incidentally, on the subject of DOF coverage, I was initially going to bin the last one because the front near side of the body was soft/OOF. It was the twisty antenna that saved it. Lucky it did, because Chris liked it, especially if cropped more, and Tim had very interesting info about it.)
 
Back
Top