Yesterday in the garden - more Corizus hyoscyami

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
 
petert said:
Shows what a smaller sensor and the person behind it can do, nice
Click to expand...

Thanks. The whole smaller vs larger sensor issue is a long-running thing for me. I've been documenting it in this thread for the past year (which reminds me, it's time I did an update). I'm currently using a small sensor for flash-based invertebrate shots like these, and a larger sensor for botanical shots (which are pretty much all natural light). I use small or larger for natural light shots of invertebrates depending on the circumstances and my mood.
 
What a great collection of images, you are obviously very accomplished at this type of photography.
Thanks for sharing the photos.

cheers
Tony
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks. The whole smaller vs larger sensor issue is a long-running thing for me. I've been documenting it in this thread for the past year (which reminds me, it's time I did an update). I'm currently using a small sensor for flash-based invertebrate shots like these, and a larger sensor for botanical shots (which are pretty much all natural light). I use small or larger for natural light shots of invertebrates depending on the circumstances and my mood.
Click to expand...
It shows is.sensor size important? I think you've provided some evidence that maybe it's not
 
petert said:
It shows is.sensor size important? I think you've provided some evidence that maybe it's not
Click to expand...
Actually the smaller the sensor the greater the apparent depth of field/focus so in these type of images a smaller sensor can actually be very helpful!
 
petert said:
It shows is.sensor size important? I think you've provided some evidence that maybe it's not
Click to expand...

For the sort of thing I do sensor size doesn't seem to be key issue, which was a big surprise to me, and to some other people too I think.

flavio said:
Actually the smaller the sensor the greater the apparent depth of field/focus so in these type of images a smaller sensor can actually be very helpful!
Click to expand...

A smaller sensor gives greater depth of field for a given aperture. However, cameras with larger sensors typically have smaller minimum apertures than cameras with smaller sensors. For example, f/8 is usually the minimum aperture for cameras with 1/2.3" sensors like the FZ200, f/22 is usually the minimum aperture for micro four thirds camera lenses, and f/22 or sometimes a bit smaller for APS-C camera lenses. I can get pretty much the same depth of field with my fz200 at f/8, my Panasonic G3 at f/22 and my Canon 70D at f/22-32 (the minimum aperture varies with focal length with the 55-250 lens I use on the 70D). These apertures, on these three sensor sizes, are approximately "equivalent", both in terms of depth of field and in terms of loss of detail/sharpness from diffraction, which increases as aperture decreases.

There is a complication. With fixed lens cameras like the FZ200 you have to use close-up lenses to get beyond the magnification the camera's macro mode can provide. You can use close-up lenses with interchangeable lens cameras, but you can of course also use macro lenses, extension tubes and/or teleconverters. If using a macro lens, extension tube or teleconverter the effective aperture varies depending on the magnification.

Effective aperture = nominal aperture (what you set on the camera) * ( 1 + magnification)

So for example if you use f/22 on a macro lens and capture an image at 1:1 magnification then the effective aperture is 22 * (1 + 1) = f/44. At a magnification of 2:1 the effective aperture is 22 * (1+2) = f/66.

With close-up lenses on the other hand, the effective aperture is the same as the nominal aperture - it is not affected by magnification.

This means that cameras with interchangeable lenses (and larger sensors than small sensor bridge cameras) can reach a smaller aperture than the equivalent minimum apertures described above, and can therefore have greater depth of field than the smaller sensor cameras. But of course along with this greater depth of field they will also have greater loss of detail/sharpness from diffraction.
 
GardenersHelper said:
For the sort of thing I do sensor size doesn't seem to be key issue, which was a big surprise to me, and to some other people too I think.



A smaller sensor gives greater depth of field for a given aperture. However, cameras with larger sensors typically have smaller minimum apertures than cameras with smaller sensors. For example, f/8 is usually the minimum aperture for cameras with 1/2.3" sensors like the FZ200, f/22 is usually the minimum aperture for micro four thirds camera lenses, and f/22 or sometimes a bit smaller for APS-C camera lenses. I can get pretty much the same depth of field with my fz200 at f/8, my Panasonic G3 at f/22 and my Canon 70D at f/22-32 (the minimum aperture varies with focal length with the 55-250 lens I use on the 70D). These apertures, on these three sensor sizes, are approximately "equivalent", both in terms of depth of field and in terms of loss of detail/sharpness from diffraction, which increases as aperture decreases.

There is a complication. With fixed lens cameras like the FZ200 you have to use close-up lenses to get beyond the magnification the camera's macro mode can provide. You can use close-up lenses with interchangeable lens cameras, but you can of course also use macro lenses, extension tubes and/or teleconverters. If using a macro lens, extension tube or teleconverter the effective aperture varies depending on the magnification.

Effective aperture = nominal aperture (what you set on the camera) * ( 1 + magnification)

So for example if you use f/22 on a macro lens and capture an image at 1:1 magnification then the effective aperture is 22 * (1 + 1) = f/44. At a magnification of 2:1 the effective aperture is 22 * (1+2) = f/66.

With close-up lenses on the other hand, the effective aperture is the same as the nominal aperture - it is not affected by magnification.

This means that cameras with interchangeable lenses (and larger sensors than small sensor bridge cameras) can reach a smaller aperture than the equivalent minimum apertures described above, and can therefore have greater depth of field than the smaller sensor cameras. But of course along with this greater depth of field they will also have greater loss of detail/sharpness from diffraction.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course there is no free lunch!
Smaller sensors do have a slight advantage re depth of field in close-up work, using my d800e at f22 would yield results that would be somewhat lacking.
Bridge cameras with small sensors can be used very effectively for close up work as you demonstrated perfectly with your excellent series of images which were the topic of this thread.
cheers
Tony
 
#4 is the clear winner for me :D

compositionally I would have framed it further up the frame and had a little more at bottom but flowers on lhs fit the image as it has somewhere to go :D
 
flavio said:
Yeah of course there is no free lunch!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. :)

flavio said:
Smaller sensors do have a slight advantage re depth of field in close-up work, using my d800e at f22 would yield results that would be somewhat lacking.
Click to expand...

Are you thinking of diffraction? Assuming you are using a macro lens, extension tubes an/or a teleconverter, at 1:1 your 800E at f/22 would be using an effective aperture of f/45, which gives the same depth of field (and diffraction) as my FZ200 at f/8 using a close-up lens (which doesn't alter the effective aperture).


Cambridge in Colour FZ200 vs 800E DOF comparison by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I lose lots of sharpness/detail by using small apertures, like f/8 on my FZ200, exactly as would be the case if you used f/22 at around 1:1. The issue as I see it is "How good is good enough"? For me, the loss of sharpness/detail is more than compensated for by the increase in depth of field, which doubles for every 2 stop decrease in aperture. But, to say the least, not everyone sees it this way.

flavio said:
Bridge cameras with small sensors can be used very effectively for close up work
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I use the FZ200 by choice for photographing invertebrates when using flash. But that is not to do with the depth of field or sharpness/detail that I can get, which from my experiments seems to be much the same whatever kit I use, but for my way of working the FZ200 has much better handling characteristics and lets me get shots that I would miss with any of the other setups I have tried.

On the other hand, I use my 70D for botanical subjects as it seems (difficult to prove definitively) to produce noticeably better rendition of colours, textures and out of focus areas, and also has better handling characteristics than my other rigs for my way of working with this type of subject. In fact, I'm minded to try a full frame camera for this type of subject because I love the rendition I see from some full frame images, but I'm waiting for one to arrive with a fully articulated screen and decent live view focusing like the 70D.
 
Tintin124 said:
#4 is the clear winner for me :D

compositionally I would have framed it further up the frame and had a little more at bottom but flowers on lhs fit the image as it has somewhere to go :D
Click to expand...

Thanks Bryn. That raises several interesting issues. First off, here are some alternative crops. (Feel free to add your own of course if I have missed the point with all of these. :)


0730 32a 2015_05_30 P1800110_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0730 32b 2015_05_30 P1800110_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0730 32c 2015_05_30 P1800110_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The thing is that they are all constrained by the bottom edge. There is nothing more available at the bottom. By the usual criteria for subject positioning (which I subscribe to by and large) that means I composed it wrongly at capture time.

This framing may have been influenced by the fact I was working hand-held and it was breezy, both of which bring a random element into the composition - especially the breeze. Of the images captured from this angle three were usable (31, 32 and 33 in the album), and all had a similar bottom edge. I cropped 31 first, and was I think much influenced by the lilac background behind the insect (which I was working with at capture time btw because I thought it looked nice). I didn't really want to cut straight across the top of the lilac area, but rather wanted to leave it more or less complete.


0730 31 2015_05_30 P1800104_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Coupled with the lack of distance beneath the subject, this kept the subject a long way below the "preferred" position. Then when I came to do 32 and 33 I kept the subject in a similar position to avoid jarring when moving from one image to the next. And this pushed the subject even further down in 32 and 33. But in terms of the album as a whole all three seemed ok to me. To be honest, I don't think I even registered the preferred position issue at the time, only now that you have raised it. As mentioned before, pulling an image out of a series can make it less satisfactory when viewed by itself, out of the context of the series, and I think there is an element of that here.

One of the big differences I'm finding working hand-held at the moment is the loss of fine control over composition because of hand shake, increasingly so as magnification increases. However, I can react far quicker to opportunities as they arise, and which of course may be fleeting and missed when using the tripod. I can also get to more awkwardly positioned opportunities when working hand-held.

The Raynox 150 on the FZ200 gets me down to about 1.5:1 in APS-C terms and I find I can work hand-held fairly comfortably at that magnification even when the subject positioning is awkward and I can't brace myself (including, at a push, stretched out arm, camera at an odd angle, one-handed). The composition does get increasingly randomised though as the magnification gets towards 1.5:1 and/or the positioning gets more awkward.

The Raynox 250 on the FZ200 gets me down to about 2.4:1 and unless I can brace myself I'm finding that borderline hand-held, both in terms of composition and focus positioning (I'm using autofocus), with a quite large random element and increased failure rate. The 250 is also much less tolerant about working distance, and that adds to the difficulty/randomness/failure rate. Actually, I'm finding I'm using the Raynox 150 most of the time for invertebrates these days, and for the rest using the 500D much more than the 250, which I haven't been using much recently. That may change when the breeze/wind calms down, but I may start using the tripod again or some other support when I go beyond Raynox 150 magnifications. (Yesterday, even though it was breezy and the subject was slightly awkwardly placed, I tried one small subject with the 150 and 250 stacked, which maxes out at around 4.5:1. This was hand-held and as far as I recall without being able to brace myself much or at all, so I'm expecting a 100% failure rate on that one.)
 
Some really good images again Nick, and some interesting reading. #5, & #7, would be my favs'.(y)

George.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks Bryn. That raises several interesting issues. First off, here are some alternative crops. (Feel free to add your own of course if I have missed the point with all of these. :)


0730 32a 2015_05_30 P1800110_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0730 32b 2015_05_30 P1800110_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0730 32c 2015_05_30 P1800110_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The thing is that they are all constrained by the bottom edge. There is nothing more available at the bottom. By the usual criteria for subject positioning (which I subscribe to by and large) that means I composed it wrongly at capture time.

This framing may have been influenced by the fact I was working hand-held and it was breezy, both of which bring a random element into the composition - especially the breeze. Of the images captured from this angle three were usable (31, 32 and 33 in the album), and all had a similar bottom edge. I cropped 31 first, and was I think much influenced by the lilac background behind the insect (which I was working with at capture time btw because I thought it looked nice). I didn't really want to cut straight across the top of the lilac area, but rather wanted to leave it more or less complete.


0730 31 2015_05_30 P1800104_DxO DXO LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Coupled with the lack of distance beneath the subject, this kept the subject a long way below the "preferred" position. Then when I came to do 32 and 33 I kept the subject in a similar position to avoid jarring when moving from one image to the next. And this pushed the subject even further down in 32 and 33. But in terms of the album as a whole all three seemed ok to me. To be honest, I don't think I even registered the preferred position issue at the time, only now that you have raised it. As mentioned before, pulling an image out of a series can make it less satisfactory when viewed by itself, out of the context of the series, and I think there is an element of that here.

One of the big differences I'm finding working hand-held at the moment is the loss of fine control over composition because of hand shake, increasingly so as magnification increases. However, I can react far quicker to opportunities as they arise, and which of course may be fleeting and missed when using the tripod. I can also get to more awkwardly positioned opportunities when working hand-held.

The Raynox 150 on the FZ200 gets me down to about 1.5:1 in APS-C terms and I find I can work hand-held fairly comfortably at that magnification even when the subject positioning is awkward and I can't brace myself (including, at a push, stretched out arm, camera at an odd angle, one-handed). The composition does get increasingly randomised though as the magnification gets towards 1.5:1 and/or the positioning gets more awkward.

The Raynox 250 on the FZ200 gets me down to about 2.4:1 and unless I can brace myself I'm finding that borderline hand-held, both in terms of composition and focus positioning (I'm using autofocus), with a quite large random element and increased failure rate. The 250 is also much less tolerant about working distance, and that adds to the difficulty/randomness/failure rate. Actually, I'm finding I'm using the Raynox 150 most of the time for invertebrates these days, and for the rest using the 500D much more than the 250, which I haven't been using much recently. That may change when the breeze/wind calms down, but I may start using the tripod again or some other support when I go beyond Raynox 150 magnifications. (Yesterday, even though it was breezy and the subject was slightly awkwardly placed, I tried one small subject with the 150 and 250 stacked, which maxes out at around 4.5:1. This was hand-held and as far as I recall without being able to brace myself much or at all, so I'm expecting a 100% failure rate on that one.)
Click to expand...

#2 was more like I was referring but is the last one the full framed shot 0% cropping? I would need the full shot to attempt any cropping to achieve what I would do :D
 
Tintin124 said:
#2 was more like I was referring but is the last one the full framed shot 0% cropping? I would need the full shot to attempt any cropping to achieve what I would do :D
Click to expand...

The last one (0730 31, in post #11) is a different image. It turns out that the one I posted originally (Number 4 in the OP, 0730 32) is uncropped, so that's the one to use.

Here's a strange thing though. I just noticed that the version that came through DXO (the one I posted) has a little more showing along the sides and bottom than the JPEG in the raw file when seen in Faststone, which is the same as what I see when importing the raw file directly into Lightroom rather than via DXO. (I can't tell about the top as there are no details to compare.) Both Lightroom and DXO do geometry adjustments for FZ200 images, so presumably they are applying slightly different adjustments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top