Wasps in flight

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
These were captured in our garden yesterday using a Raynox 150 on a Panasonic FZ330 bridge camera with Venus Optics KX800 twin flash. Processing used DXO PhotoLab, Silkypix and Lightroom. There are 1400 pixel high versions in this album at Flickr.

If anyone is interested I will describe the process of capturing and post processing these images.

#1

1358 01 2018_08_13 P1490475_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1358 02 2018_08_13 P1490507_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1358 03 2018_08_13 P1490474_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1358 04 2018_08_13 P1490632_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1358 05 2018_08_13 P1490645_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1358 06 2018_08_13 P1490648_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1358 07 2018_08_13 P1490761_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1358 08 2018_08_13 P1490878_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



Continued in next post ......
 
Blimey Nick, They are really hairy, more so than I thought.
No 5 captures my eye, not sure why though :confused:
 
Nick, i cant believe you havent had many more comments on these Wasp images??!!
Its a great set of in-flight images of a tricky subject...Super set mate, well done.
I take it, these Wasps are entering an exiting a nest?

Thanks Paul. I'm not a naturalist, but I assume there was a nest in there. Like the previous times two times that I have done this, I had to work with wasps continuously buzzing around my head. Still, they weren't aggressive so they presumably didn't see me as a threat to whatever it is they were doing, even though I was getting in their way, especially because of the relatively large diffuser arrangement that I use.
 
Last edited:
Stunning work Nick these seem to be better than last time as far as I remember.
 
Wow, what an amazing set, stunning detail and colour and using Raynox 150 on a Panasonic FZ330....which I must admit didn't think you could achieve that kind of quality from - how wrong was I.........nice.
 
I was looking at the first image thinking great shot but shame it's facing away. Then I scrolled down and what do you know..........an amazing set. Well done !
 
An amazing set Nick

Wow! Fabulous shots best I have ever seen of a wasp.

These are excellent Nick, very impressive.

Paul.

I was looking at the first image thinking great shot but shame it's facing away. Then I scrolled down and what do you know..........an amazing set. Well done !

Fantastic set. By far the best I have ever seen.

Thank you all so much for your very kind and encouraging responses.
 
Stunning work Nick these seem to be better than last time as far as I remember.

Thanks Alf.

I just looked back at the previous ones from August 2015 (albums at Flickr listed below for anyone interested). I think there is greater variety in those and also some interesting behavioural stuff which I haven't got any of in the current lot. However, in terms of image quality, on the basis of a very quick look at some of the older ones, I do have the impression that this new lot are better in terms of sharpness/detail/clarity. I wondered if this was to do with processing so I took one each of the 2015 raw files from the 70D, G5 and FZ200 and reprocessed them with my current processing. I don't think that was it though.

Perhaps it is better lighting? I suspect I was using a single hot shoe mounted flash for the 2015 shots rather than the KX800, so could that be the difference perhaps? Don't know. I tried some today with the G80 and 60mm macro but they didn't look good at all - none that I would want to use. I've also done some with the G5 and 45-175 and Raynox 150, and a few with a G80, 14-140 and 500D. Haven't looked at any of them yet. May try some more tomorrow to see if I can work out what works and what doesn't.

I didn't like the look of the G80 shots today, but I did notice that the wasps are carrying mud again, I think on the outward journey. Perhaps they are digging out a nest. Perhaps I can capture some more of that tomorrow.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous attempts, with 2015 post processing.

Wasps in flight G5, 10 August 2015
Wasps nest building, 70D, 11 August 2015
Wasps flying and building, FZ200, 11 August 2015
More from the August wasp's nest
FZ200 wasps 15 August 2015
 
Wow, what an amazing set, stunning detail and colour

Thank you. :)

and using Raynox 150 on a Panasonic FZ330....which I must admit didn't think you could achieve that kind of quality from - how wrong was I.........nice.

:D My apologies to longer term forum members. They have heard of all of this before, but ......

For invertebrates like insects, spiders and snails I almost always use very small apertures in order to get as much depth of field as I can. I use minimum apertures, which are f/8 for my 1/2.3" sensor bridge cameras like the FZ330 and before that the FZ200 and Canon SX10, f/22 for my micro four thirds cameras like the G80 and G5 and before that the G3, and f/22 to f/32 for my Canon 70D APS-C camera.

Using small apertures causes considerable loss of sharpness/detail because of diffraction. In fact with the apertures I use (which are all equivalent in terms of depth of field and diffraction to around f/45 on full frame) the diffraction dominates the image quality in terms of fine detail, bringing all of the setups down to a common level of not very sharpness. A lot of people know about the effects of diffraction and therefore wouldn't dream of using such small apertures.

However, suitable post processing can reverse (or perhaps hide) some of the effects of diffraction. And as long as you don't look too closely at the images they can be, in my opinion, sharp enough for my purposes, like displaying them here. In fact we have an advisory maximum of 1024 pixels on the longest side here. My images are prepared for best viewing, unresized (on a calibrated screen, in subdued lighting) at the size they are posted at Flickr, which these days is 1400 pixels high (it was 1300 when I processed my previous wasps in flight images in 2015 referred to in my response above to Alf (alfbranch).

Given suitable post processing (from raw, in my case, although there are differences of opinion about whether that is necessary or, especially with small sensor cameras, even useful) it seem to me that at 1400 pixels high you can't see much by way of the softness from diffraction while you do get a relative large depth of field.

Another interesting side effect is that because all of the lenses are brought to a similar level of not very sharpness by the very small apertures, I don't think you can tell (at least I can't) what sized sensor was used for a particular photo. For example, here are eight images from seven different cameras, including at least one 1/2.3" sensor bridge camera, at least one micro four thirds camera and at least one APS-C dSLR. (the oldest of these cameras btw is a 10 mpix camera from 2008). Can you tell which images used which sensor size? (And another little quiz - can you tell which of them used a macro lens and which of them used close-up lenses?)

There are 1300 pixel high versions of these in this album at Flickr.

#1

1316 1
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1316 2
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1316 3
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1316 4
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1316 5
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1316 6
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1316 8
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1316 9
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

It is, for me at least, different for botanical subjects - flowers, buds, seed pods etc. I don't use minimum apertures for these - I use the whole range of apertures available to me depending on what kit I'm using and how much depth of field seems to suit a particular subject. I use a larger sensor camera for botanical subjects (currently micro four thirds, but I'm considering full frame) and a macro lens. At these more normal apertures I believe larger sensors and sharp lenses do make a difference, for example to subtle variations of colour and texture, which for my taste matters a lot for botanical subjects.

Oh, I forgot to mention this. Why do I prefer to use a small sensor bridge camera to photograph invertebrates? Well, since I use such small apertures and keep down the size of my outputs I don't think it matters in terms of image quality which of my setups I use. So I use the one that I feel most comfortable with, the one that, for me, handles best. And at the moment that is my FZ330.

And final note. That is for mid-sized invertebrates. I tend to use different cameras for very small subjects and for larger invertebrates. But that is another story. :)
 
Last edited:
I for one would be very interested to know the set up and process.

Here we go Mark, the capture phase in this post, post processing in the next.

I may skate over some details. If you questions about Why? How? What about ... etc please do say.

The wasp nest (I assume it was a nest) was in a wall at the back of the house.


1361 1 P1010587_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Here is the hole the wasps were flying in and out of. There was a lot of traffic; not completely continuous but rarely more than a 10 second or so gap, often much shorter, and quite often several wasps buzzing around. The wasps came quite close to me, inevitably so as I was fairly close to the hole, but they only touched me a couple of times. (One got caught in my hair a couple of days later, but after I made a quick exit shaking my head it had gone.)


1361 3 P1010594_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

In this case I used a tripod. This was optional. A couple of days later I did a session hand-held.


1361 4 P1010596_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1361 5 P1010597_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I used a Panasonic FZ330 small sensor bridge camera with a Raynox 150 close-up lens. There was nothing special about this particular setup. A couple of days later I had three sessions using micro four thirds cameras, one with a Raynox 150, one with a less powerful Canon 500D close-up lens and one with an Olympus 60mm macro lens. When I last did this, in 2015, I used an ASP-C dSLR as well as micro four thirds and small sensor bridge cameras.


1361 6 P1010600_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I used a Venus Optics KX800 twin flash with home made diffusers. There was nothing special about this particular flash setup. In my August 2015 wasp nest sessions I think at least some of the sessions used a single flash unit, something like this.


0739 1 P1020615 600h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I think August 2015 was when I first got a KX800 so if I did use it for some of the 2015 sessions it would have been with early version diffusers that were less effective than the current arrangement which has several layers of diffusion (one of polystyrene and a couple of some sort of “plastic paper”) for each flash head, and a large single concave diffuser (also made from plastic paper) hanging in front of the head diffusers.


1361 7 P1010605_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The KX800 is a manual flash. That is fine with me as the flash power levels are easy to control with separate up and down buttons for each flash head on the back of the control unit, and I find I get more consistent illumination with manual control. There again, I might have used TTL flash for some of the 2015 sessions.

As with the rest of my cameras, I used the LCD, with an LCD hood, rather than the viewfinder (which I pretty much only use for birds in flight).


1361 8 P1010606_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

So as far as the equipment goes, what I happened to use for this session is not important. You could do this sort of capturing with all manner of equipment.

As to technique, that was much less open-ended. I almost always use autofocus for close-up/macro. In this case though that was entirely impractical. The problem is that these wasps move fast – very fast. I found in 2015 that even when using phase detect focusing it was not fast enough. By and large (at least for me, perhaps it would be different for people with extremely fast reactions), if I could see a subject in the right place in the viewfinder I had left it too late – by the time the image was captured the wasp would have disappeared. I suppose the phase detect focusing might have been fast enough, but my reactions certainly were not. And apart from my dSLR all my cameras have slower contrast detect focusing (as does my dSLR when used in live view mode using the LCD, which is how I prefer to use it). Autofocus, for me, was impractical.

So, I had to use manual focus. There is obviously not enough time to manually adjust the focus for individual shots so I had to fix the focus at a suitable distance and try to capture wasps while they were around the plane of focus. Here too the wasps moved so fast (and additionally there was lag on the LCD screen) that for the most part waiting until a wasp was in the frame and then shooting did not work. Much more often than not the image would have nothing in it, and for most of the rest the wasp was either not suitably or even at all in all in focus and/or partly out of the frame. (Some of the odd compositions in the final images arose from captures where the subject was very close to the edge of the frame.)

With wasps emerging from the hole I could see them coming out to the entrance, not yet in flight. Even so it was unpredictable as to exactly when they would take flight, and if I waited until they took off I would have missed the shot. Timing the shots was therefore largely guesswork. And even more so for incoming wasps, which arrived on the scene with no warning. I had some periods when I just gave up trying to catch the action and just kept pressing the shutter button as fast as the flash recyle time would let me. As an indication of just how fast the wasps were moving there were plenty of occasions when I pressed the shutter button with an empty scene and ended up with a wasp, or two, or three, in the scene (occasionally with one of them actually in focus).

One of the things that obviously matters in these circumstances is the depth of field. The wider it is the more likely you are to catch a subject within it. For invertebrates I normally use the smallest available apertures in order to maximise the depth of field, so my normal use of very small apertures fitted well with this sort of scene. There are downsides with using very small apertures, and implications for post processing. These issues are discussed in this post above.

As a result of the randomness and very high failure rate of the capture process I ended up capturing a lot of images; for this session around 1700 over the course of two sessions totalling about an hour. So this was about one capture every two seconds on average. Of those 1700 I kept 16, so the success rate was something under 1%. These numbers can obviously vary. Two days later I had another session, with different equipment, working hand-held, and in 35 minutes I captured around 700 images, about one every three seconds. In that case I made less use of entirely random shooting and, possibly as a consequence of that, and possibly not, I had a higher success rate with 27 kept (posted in this album at Flickr) out of the 700, a success rate of approaching 4%. On the other hand, the poses and combinations of wasps I captured were not as appealing to my eye as some of those in the top post of this thread. Partly this is because, even after cropping, the wasps were smaller in the frame for the second session, and the hairs less clearly defined. On the other hand the lesser magnification may have contributed to the increased success rate. I don't know – there are a lot of variables by way of equipment and technique combined with a huge amount of randomness involved in what is in the frame at the instant an image is captured.

The FZ330, like the FZ200, has a leaf shutter (or so it seems, Panasonic have never confirmed this) which means that ordinary (non FP/HSS) flash can be used with fast shutter speeds. This time with the FZ330 I used 1/1000 sec (and 1/800 by accident for some of them). Where flash is the dominant light source the shutter speed isn't relevant because the effective shutter speed is the length of the flash pulse, which with ordinary flash will be faster than 1/1000 sec (unlike with HSS/FP flash where the flash pulse lasts as long as the exposure). However, if the flash light is not entirely dominant then shutter speed can matter, with a slower exposure softening up an image because of the natural light component acting over a longer period, which would be especially relevant for fast moving subjects like these wasps. I do wonder whether that might be one reason for the apparent (to my eye at least) greater sharpness of the FZ330 images compared to the second session's images which were captured at the Panasonic G5's maximum flash sync speed of 1/160 sec.

I used ISO 100 and 200 with the FZ330. I prefer to keep the ISO to 100 because the FZ330's small sensor is quite noisy, even at base ISO of 100, especially if you are raising shadows, which I often do. However in this case I raised the ISO to 200 after a while so as to lower the flash level by a stop so as to get faster flash recycling. With micro four thirds cameras like the G5 the minimum aperture is f/22, three stops smaller than the minimum aperture of f/8 on the FZ330. In order to get the same flash recycling speed as for ISO 100 with the FZ330 I used ISO 800 with the G5, which has noise characteristics very similar to ISO 100 on the FZ330.

Next post – post processing
 
Post processing

I shot raw as I believe this gives usefully greater dynamic range and flexibility with post processing compared to JPEG, even with small sensor cameras. (This is disputed.) One difference that definitely matters to me is that you can only use DXO's very good Prime noise reduction with raw, not JPEG. (It seems to me that with my small sensor cameras, when shooting raw and applying Prime noise processing it is as if the camera has had a bit of a sensor upgrade.)

First I loaded the raw files on to my PC using Faststone Image Viewer. Using Windows Explorer I backed them up to a separate hard drive (which is only connected when receiving files, otherwise disconnected as a safeguard against lightning strikes).

I used Fast Picture Viewer to go through the raw files and mark up those I wanted to include in an initial long list. This can be done very fast as Fast Picture Viewer uses the embedded JPEGs rather than the raw files. I usually work at a rate of around 1 image per second – it is simply a question of whether I can immediately see a reason for excluding the image, like the subject being out of focus or too near an edge. If in doubt, I include it. I don't go back and reconsider. I don't care if I get a whole string of very similar images; I make no effort at this stage to choose between them. In this case, because so few of the images were even remotely usable with no subject at all in many of them I was able to work faster, with bursts of perhaps 2 images per second or so at times.

Having gone through all the images I ended up with around 150 of the 1700 files marked up for inclusion in the long list. I then ran a macro in Fast Picture Viewer which creates folder for ISO 100 (actually 100, 125 and 160), ISO 200 etc, depending on what ISOs were used, and moves the marked up files into the appropriate folder. This is very quick (compared to copying them for example).

I then used DXO PhotoLab. I use this for its Prime noise reduction and also use some of its other functions including its microcontrast enhancement and its camera/lens specific “lens sharpness” enhancement which I suspect may use deconvolution sharpening to partially reverse some of the softening effects of using small apertures. I have a set of ISO-specific presets for my small sensor cameras (and another set for my micro four thirds and APS-C cameras) For each of the ISO folders I selected all of the files and applied the appropriate preset. Having done that for each of the ISO folders I set the processing going and went and did something else for a while. On my PC, when Prime noise reduction is being used PhotoLab takes between 40 and 60 seconds per file depending on files size. Photolab is well behaved so I can use the PC for other things while the lengthy processing is going on. Processing the 150 files in the longlist therefore took a couple of hours or so.

The Photolab presets produced DNG files. I moved all the DNG files to a single folder and opened that folder in Silkypix Developer Pro. I then applied a Silkypix preset (it is the same preset for all combinations of cameras and ISOs) and processed all the DNG files. This preset applies further sharpening of a type which I find helps bring out fine detail. It also pulls down highlights, at which I think Silkypix is particularly good, helping to retain colours in bright areas.

The Silkypix presets produced TIFF files which I then imported into Lightroom. This is a “virtual import”, the files remain in place and their details and location are entered into Lightroom's catalogue. (Incidentally, I only use Lightroom for processing. I don't use it for managing files/images. I use the Windows file system for that, along with some naming conventions for “keeper” files (JPEGS and the raw originals) and sequence numbers for the folders they are in, with the sequence numbers and folder names added to a list in a spreadsheet.)

Lightroom applied its “Auto settings” processing during the import. This gave me images that were good enough to refine the selection. I used several passes through the images, using a different colour marking on each pass to identify which images to keep for the next pass. I ended up with 24 images; my shortlist from the original 1700.

At that point I applied some adjustments in Lightroom. (I'm simplifying slightly here as the process becomes rather interative at this stage) I altered some parameters (such as Clarity, Sharpening, Black point) for one of the files and then applied the same adjustments to all the other files. Cropping was, obviously, image-specific, and in many cases I did about as much of it as I thought I could do without the image falling apart. I applied a small amount of additional noise reduction to help cover up some of the underlying mess. (My images are often “on the edge” - hopefully not too often over it – for the output size that I produce.)

I then got Lightroom to produce 1400 pixel high versions of the 24 shortlisted images which I then looked at carefully in XnView. I use FastStone Image Viewer a lot and would like to use it for this stage but unfortunately it does not handle some colours correctly on my system (for some years there have been periodic debates on line about Faststone's colour management and whether it works properly or not). I then engaged in some back and forth between Lightroom and XnView, making adjustments, sometimes to individual images, sometimes to all of them, and rechecking in XnView. Six more images dropped out at this stage, leaving me with 16 to keep.

I then used Faststone to arrange the final 16 images in the order that I wanted them to display and adjusted their names accordingly. I then used Faststone, Windows Explorer and Chrome to make local and cloud backup copies of the spreadsheet and the 16 JPEGs and their raw originals and upload the JPEGs into a new album at Flickr.

Finally I marked the working folders as “P&UL” (“Processed and Uploaded”) on both local drives so I would know I could safely delete them in one of my periodic disk clearing episodes.

That's it. It probably sounds rather complicated but it is actually quite a quick way of dealing with large datasets while keeping control of the data management aspects. The elapsed time can be lengthy for the DXO stage, but that doesn't involve much of my time.
 
Last edited:
I was pleased with my efforts until I saw yours, Nick!

However, I don't even use flash nor go to quite so much effort as you do. Your pictures are absolutely stunning!

I'll post a link to mine on Flickr rather than hijack your thread with my poor-by-comparison best efforts :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/42146403900/in/datetaken/
 
I was pleased with my efforts until I saw yours, Nick!

However, I don't even use flash nor go to quite so much effort as you do. Your pictures are absolutely stunning!

I'll post a link to mine on Flickr rather than hijack your thread with my poor-by-comparison best efforts :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/42146403900/in/datetaken/

You are much, much too modest Robin. Fabulous birds and dragonflies. The tonality and clarity of the 1D shots seem especially wonderful to me.
 
That made excellent reading, thank you for taking the time to do that. Your processing method is very process driven, I commend you for that. I thought my success rate was low for my macro work, at least I now know that some of the excellent images I see aren't just lucky shots, a hell of a lot of time and effort goes into them. My only surprise I guess is the use of live view, was that specifically for this shoot as you were 'stabbing in the dark' with the focusing or is this something you use a lot. If so, what's the reason/advantage?

Thanks again.
 
That made excellent reading, thank you for taking the time to do that.

Thanks. I'm glad it was ok. Sometimes people complain that my stuff is too long and detailed.

Your processing method is very process driven, I commend you for that. I thought my success rate was low for my macro work, at least I now know that some of the excellent images I see aren't just lucky shots, a hell of a lot of time and effort goes into them.

My only surprise I guess is the use of live view, was that specifically for this shoot as you were 'stabbing in the dark' with the focusing or is this something you use a lot. If so, what's the reason/advantage?

I use the rear screen almost all the time. Bear in mind that with most mirrorless cameras (including all of those that I use) there isn't a specific live view mode; what you see on the rear screen is essentially the same as you see in the viewfinder, so you are permanently using live view whether you use the screen or the EVF. Also the focusing (on all my mirrorless cameras) is contrast detect, which is quite fast these days, and very accurate with no front/rear focusing issues, which is very good for close-up/macro where precise placement of the centre of focus is very important. And the focusing works just the same when using the rear screen as when using the EVF, unlike for example with my Canon 70D where with the OVF you get normal dSLR off-sensor phase detect focusing whereas with the rear screen you get dual pixel phase detect or contrast detect focusing, neither of which has anything like the speed of the OVF focusing.

The reason I use the screen is that, being articulated, it lets me get at odd angles that I couldn't use with the viewfinder, and some of my shots are from odd angles, more so perhaps with flowers where I may be reaching out, over/around/through branches/foliage etc, shooting one-handed when necessary, or shooting from or looking up from ground level. Also, with the screen I use both of my eyes (and I wear glasses btw) and I find that much more relaxing than squinting through one eye with the other either closed, which I find gets tiring and stressful quite quickly or, if open, confusing the issue. Working with relaxed eyes working in their normal way is good, especially when I'm using the kit for hours at a time.

The only times I don't use the screen are:
  • When the light is so bright that I simply can't see enough with the viewfinder. I use LCD hoods and that reduces the problem a lot. Also, I use autofocus almost all the time, for invertebrates and flowers, and that means I don't need to see as much detail as people using manual focus who need to see fine detail in order to get the focusing right. All I need is to be able to see enough shapes so I can get the composition roughly how I want it and so I can see where I want to place the (very small) single focusing area. Sometimes if I can't see enough on the screen I even use a bit of guesswork for the composition, capture, chimp and try again as necessary to get what I want.
  • For birds in flight with my Canon 70D. (I'm not a birder but I do enjoy photographing ordinary birds flying around. This sort of thing, nothing special, but it amuses me), for which I use the OVF and phase detect focusing. None of my mirrorless cameras can touch the 70D for these subjects, especially when there is a busy background like in the last of these). And none of the EVF's on my cameras is a patch on the 70D's OVF, to the extent of seriously reducing my success rate (which is, to my ongoing surprise, rather high with the 70D).

1333 17 2018_06_26 IMG_0596_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1330 069 2018_06_21 IMG_8882_DxO RAW LR6 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1333 20 2018_06_26 IMG_0601_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1333 23 2018_06_26 IMG_0626_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1333 29 2018_06_26 IMG_0682_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1340 01 2018_07_11 IMG_1050_DxO RAW LR7 1400h
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Phase Detection, is that AI Servo on my 80D?

Don't worry, if it's a subject I'm interested in I love a bit of detail. Also love a spreadsheet (which you referred to earlier)! I 'Excel' in spreadsheets :LOL:
 
Truly brilliant Nick. You've just sold me a new camera :)

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! Please don't.

Thinks...............perhaps it was a joke? I'm not very good at jokes. But just in case ....

So as far as the equipment goes, what I happened to use for this session is not important. You could do this sort of capturing with all manner of equipment.
 
Phase Detection, is that AI Servo on my 80D?

Don't think so. Have a look at this for example.

I expect that AI Servo uses phase detect focusing, but so do other focusing modes. Phase detect focusing is the sort of focusing you get when you use the 80D viewfinder (assuming it works the same way as the 70D).

Don't worry, if it's a subject I'm interested in I love a bit of detail. Also love a spreadsheet (which you referred to earlier)! I 'Excel' in spreadsheets :LOL:

I don't Excel at anything these days. And I'm Wordless now. Being an Open-minded sort of a chap I Write and Calc instead. Well, I used to be Open-minded, but I've moved to a related tribe and now I'm Libre.
 
Thanks for such excellent studies Nick.
If anyone wants to give back to Nick’s admittedly uncooperative models the annual Big Wasp Survey is starting next week and will only cost a little time and effort to take part. I did it last year and to my astonishment and dismay caught none. I notice the few wasps we’ve had this year have all been small ones :( . See:
http://www.bigwaspsurvey.org/
 
I don't Excel at anything these days. And I'm Wordless now. Being an Open-minded sort of a chap I Write and Calc instead. Well, I used to be Open-minded, but I've moved to a related tribe and now I'm Libre.

Excel at work, Libre at home. I'm with you.
 
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! Please don't.

Thinks...............perhaps it was a joke? I'm not very good at jokes. But just in case ....

No not a joke, i just got back from 2 weeks photography in Spain lugging a ton of equipment around with me. I have been considering something like the FZ 330 as an all rounder i can carry without all accessories.. I aint getting any younger :)
 
Thanks for such excellent studies Nick.
If anyone wants to give back to Nick’s admittedly uncooperative models the annual Big Wasp Survey is starting next week and will only cost a little time and effort to take part. I did it last year and to my astonishment and dismay caught none. I notice the few wasps we’ve had this year have all been small ones :( . See:
http://www.bigwaspsurvey.org/

Thanks for the link Richard. btw I think my models are being very cooperative! Mind you, I did think they looked a bit on the small side. Knowing nothing about wasp species I just assumed it was a smaller species than I've seen before. But perhaps they are what I've seen before but smaller for some reason. Don't like the sound of that. Mind you, I've had so much trouble finding invertebrates this year I've just about given up trying to photograph them; I've been concentrating on trying to make pretty pictures of flowers instead. That's one reason I haven't posted much here this year.

Thinking back over the 12 years we have been here, I think there has been a longer term decline going on in both in the numbers and the varies of invertebrates here, and in the local nature reserves that I visit from time to time. And I don't like the implications of that either. :(
 
Thanks for the link Richard. btw I think my models are being very cooperative! Mind you, I did think they looked a bit on the small side. Knowing nothing about wasp species I just assumed it was a smaller species than I've seen before. But perhaps they are what I've seen before but smaller for some reason. Don't like the sound of that. Mind you, I've had so much trouble finding invertebrates this year I've just about given up trying to photograph them; I've been concentrating on trying to make pretty pictures of flowers instead. That's one reason I haven't posted much here this year.

Thinking back over the 12 years we have been here, I think there has been a longer term decline going on in both in the numbers and the varies of invertebrates here, and in the local nature reserves that I visit from time to time. And I don't like the implications of that either. :(
I’ve seen very few bumble bees this year and we used to have masses. It may be why my runner beans have a very poor set :( . The second brood of Common wasps are said to be smaller due to lower queen fertility and less food. You probably know there are alarming declines in insects in general. No decline in mosquitoes here unfortunately but then they are not feeding on creatures/plants that have been sprayed :( .
 
No not a joke, i just got back from 2 weeks photography in Spain lugging a ton of equipment around with me. I have been considering something like the FZ 330 as an all rounder i can carry without all accessories.. I aint getting any younger :)

It might be just the thing, but there are downsides to small sensors, and alternatives to the FZ330 like the 1" sensor FZ1000 and Sony RX10iv, bigger, much more expensive but with the RX10iv the same amount of zoom as the FZ330 and better image quality (brilliant lens apparently, but mind you the FZ330 Leica lens is no slouch). And on the other hand there are tiny marvels like the various travel cameras. Very small and light, loads of zoom (24-720mm equivalent for my Panasonic TZ90) and quite surprising what you can get out of them, especially (IMO, but this is disputed) if you shoot raw and post process (same, IMO, and equally disputed, for the FZ330).

But I expect you have been looking into all the alternatives. and perhaps this isn't the place to discuss it. Not that I mind you understand, it's just that somewhere like the (very friendly) dpreview Panasonic Compact Camera Talk forum has a lot of people experience with small sensor cameras, and very open about both their benefits and their shortcomings, and the alternatives, both from Panasonic and other manufacturers.
 
I’ve seen very few bumble bees this year and we used to have masses. It may be why my runner beans have a very poor set :( . The second brood of Common wasps are said to be smaller due to lower queen fertility and less food. You probably know there are alarming declines in insects in general.

Yes, unfortunately. :(
 
Back
Top