Moose,
I am interested.
So you used a macro lens, 90/2.8 and then you cropped the images.
It sounds like what you are saying, is get a better lens. The 90 mm allows
for shooting a 1:1 at a further distance away so that more light is allowed
in. The greater distance gives a better DOF too.
When I get real close, I may only get 10-20% of the frame in focus, yet I
need that detail but of the whole object. With the Pixie cups, the lighting
was terrible and when I did have sun it was reflective. The pics that got
posted were from far away, the ones where I was just getting the cup itself
in the picture only gave me a portion of the circle in focus.
I used a tri pod but looking though the view finder is really a challenge,
the viewfinder with my glasses is already hard enough to use, but at some
non comfortable angle, I can only see the center easily, to see the settings
I have to move in such a way I can see the settings but then can't really
see what I am shooting. Hence my desire to get back to having a LCD to
compose with, but we are discussing Macro's.
I'm not quite understanding this paragraph, let me know if my interpretation
is correct;
Moose wrote:
"Absent a change of camera and knowing that you have an EX-25 on the way,
I really think you would serve your goal well by saving up some pennies
for the DZ 50/2 macro. The 35/3.5 macro is cheaper and doesn't need the
EX-25 to go to 1:1, but the 2 stops more speed will make a big
difference in manual focus ease and accuracy. It will also have better
stand-off distance from the subjects and probably a better lens overall."
I can use the 35/3.5 macro but the DZ 50/2 is 2 stops faster for more light.
The 35/3.5 does 1:1 on it's own (does the DZ 50/2?)
Can I use the tube to get the image larger even though they are already
Macro's, or is it just allowing me to get closer to the subject.
Let me rephrase that as this is a question of it's own.
The EX 25 lets me focus closer in, allowing me to get closer to the subject,
allowing the tiny image I want to capture to be as large on the frame as
possible, yes?
Does it make a difference if I use a Macro lens or not when I have the EX
25, assuming they were, say for instance, both 50 mm lens?
In regards to my tiny 1/10th of an inch flower, shame on me, I didn't state
it's name, Trail Plant (if you step on a leaf it turns over, making passage
though them easy to follow)
Here is what it looks like just as it is about to finish setting seed.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1506749&uid=695857
technically it is 5 male flowers and 5 female flowers in that 1/10th of an
inch cluster.
So you now see little flowers too! Now start looking at the bugs that make
the flower world go round, and with this new equipment on the E-500 I have
started noticing pollen on the 2 mm wide fruiting bodies. Darn near, at some
point, I feel like I'll disappear into something looking at what it is made
up of (remembering the needle head that was shared yesterday) I try to get
easily recognized objects into much of my smaller photography, it all
started out looking for a flower in a book that was white and 2 inches
across, turned out that in the field it is 3/4 ths of an inch across and
usually purple, by the time we had found one, we had passed thousands of
them.
I know you and others put a lot of time into helping me understand what I am
trying to do, and just the plain ole basics, I really appreciate it. All the
kidding around is fun too. <no smiley face... OK?>
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Moose
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:41 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
Scott Peden wrote:
> Moose,
>
> Nice Pics. I get approximately that size when I have the Macro Lens on the
> 14-45 at 45 mm. It is smaller than that, like where you have this Orchid
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/BlakeHouse0703/pages/_MG_0865fps.htm
> but only one orchid. If that is a full sized pic, I could live with that
as
> it does have field of depth.
>
Not an orchid, a climbing vine with grape vine shaped leaves. The next
two images are of the same plant, a seed pod, with the dead flower at
the bottom right, and of a climbing tendril. The individual flowers are
about 1/4 inch across, so the posted image is much greater than life size.
> Here is the page of Super Macros I posted to the <apparently> much
disliked
> Flickr (though no one liked the free Kodak site at all and you can't blow
> much of anything up on my paid www.picturetrail.com/bigbasin site)
> Lichens;
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/55838750@N00/sets/72157594514189976/
>
> The tooth pic is the ruler, it is 2 mm across.
> Note the loss of field of depth with the red lichens, though portions are
> very crisp.
>
I don't know if I am not clearly communicating my ideas or if you just
aren't interested. The common things about the Blake House images I
posted are:
1. One camera body, one lens. No bellows, tubes, reversing rings. add on
close-up lenses.
2. Hand held. I didn't realize you sometimes use a tripod. That would
have improved some of my images.
3. All are crops, sometimes considerable crops, not frames filled with
the subject.
4. Taken with a full frame sensor camera, so I had less DOF available
than you do with 4/3.
5. 90/2.8 macro lens that focuses directly to 1:1
I've taken the liberty of doing some work on your lichen series from
Flickr <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Peden/Macros/>.
They aren't as good as working with the originals would be, but I think
they show some things:
1. E-500 images will stand up to considerable cropping.
2. Most of the limitations of the images seem to be due to issues of
lens quality in a use for which it wasn't designed, focus accuracy, DOF
and/or motion blur issues.
3. Getting higher magnification is going to make the issues in #2 worse,
not better. DOF gets worse, viewfinder gets dimmer, focus get more
difficult.
Thus I suggest that you will get greater improvement in your results by
dealing with the issues in #2 than by further efforts to increase the
size of the images on the sensor.
Absent a change of camera and knowing that you have an EX-25 on the way,
I really think you would serve your goal well by saving up some pennies
for the DZ 50/2 macro. The 35/3.5 macro is cheaper and doesn't need the
EX-25 to go to 1:1, but the 2 stops more speed will make a big
difference in manual focus ease and accuracy. It will also have better
stand-off distance from the subjects and probably a better lens overall.
E-500, EX-25, 50/2 macro and perhaps a ring light like just discussed
and/or light tripod and you are all set to take great pics of your tiny
flowers, lichen. etc. No fussing with all that other gear. Simple AF
with many subjects. So the time to get each image goes down and you
ability to get them without holding up your walks goes up.
Then when you upgrade to an E-510 next year, you get better resolution,
anti shake to allow longer shutter speeds and easier focusing with live
view.
> Many of the flowers I deal with are 1/2 an inch, 1/4th is pretty common,
> most people don't even notice them.
>
Only a couple of the images I posted are of flowers over 1". Several are
less than 1/2" and one 1/4" or less.
> When this one blooms, I want a much closer better shot than I got some
years
> ago
> http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1506749&uid=695857
> this one is 1/10th of an inch.
>
Looks familiar. Is the head sometimes bigger and made of more individual
blooms?
> Boy is this site out of date, this is a small leaved Montia. This one is
> 1/4th of an inch
> http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1363577&uid=695857
>
Well, not really, a white azalea appears......
> Again, thanks for sharing your page, and thinking of me when you posted
your
> very nice pics!
Hey, you inspired me to do the little flowers.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|