paulo_bizarro1

Just a small contribution to this discussion, from an EOS 1n user's

perspective.

1. Thumbs up for Canon for resisting the tentation of introducing a

flagship camera overloaded with geezwhiz tech spec that would prove

either redundant or useless.

2. You have to admire them to maintain the development philosophy

started with the EOS 1 in 1989. Test new technology in the second in

line body, and then only transfer the truly useful advances, based on

input from a broad base of professional photographers.

3. It is ridiculous to say that they are not innovative. 100 %

electronic lens mount, USM, IS, autofocus up to f/8. IMO, much more

important than color matrix metering.

4. Thumbs down for the weight of the camera, the 1N is tough enough

already.

Hi,

For flowers your 50 mm lens and a 25 extension tube will be ok. You might try also one close-up lens with your zooms. For insects, you will need a greater working distance, which means a longer focal lenght macro. Just try the above combinations and save for the 100 mm Canon macro lens, you won't regret it.

Do not forget a good tripod that goes flat to the ground, and John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature". There is also a good "how to" book published by Canon: "Workshop on macro photography", you can order it from Eos Magazine (they have a web site). A reflector to position opposite your light source for fill in shadows is also quite useful.

Otherwise, just spend lots of film...

Actually, for EOS users, a cheaper alternative would be a discontinued EOS RT body. The only drawback would be the lack of a 100% viewfinder, but then, you either have the bread or the butter in photography...

Hon,

 

Nothing wrong. Personally, I have used thus far all three EF macro lenses: 50, 100, and 180. All excellent performers, and I am sure Nikkors equivalents are excellent performers too. I have started with the 50, soon traded in for the 100, and the latter finally made way to the 180, due to a successful association with a biologist friend of mine.

 

The 50 macro is as good as the 50 1.4 which I also used; the same applies to the 100 macro compared to the 135 f/2. The 180 macro is as sharp as sharpness can be in 35mm.

 

You will not lose quality, but you will have lighter pockets... If you have the money, why not, go for it.

 

Andrew,

 

I don't know if the macro Nikkors have focusing range limiter switches, but the EF 100 and 180 macro have them. So AF is plenty fast. The 180 macro is ring-USM, which makes it also virtually silent.

I am afraid that without proper camera support, you will not make the most of the available photo spots. At least carry a minitripod of some sorts, the Cullman Minimagic comes to mind (it is around 20cm minimum and goes up to about 50cm when extended, and folds flat).

 

This is a similar question to the one about Ireland, so I will give the same answer. Read before travelling and get some maps for planning.

To Paul above,

 

I have a friend of mine who specialises in aviation photography, and has sold lots of photographs for several magazines, taken with the 75-300 IS lens.

 

The MTFs are not very impressive? Sure not, but do you make a living photographing graph paper or brick walls?

Lloyd,

 

I have found out that I get more keepers if I get the part of the subject I want focused to be in focus in the first place. I might be wasting some DOF as you say, but at least I am sure that the focus is where I want it to be.

 

I usually shoot flowers at f/3.5, f/8, and f/16, with the 180 macro. At f/3.5, I focus on the stamen (spelling?), and let the petals go out of focus. I like this for red poppies, because the out of focus petals give a pastel like effect.

 

At f/16, the background usually starts to get distracting, and I have to compose more carefully to place the other elements in a pleasing way. Nevertheless, I still place the focus on the stamen.

Here's what I do, especially with flowers (3D objects). I focus where I want the subject to be in focus, and then take several shots at different apertures, up to the aperture where the background gets distracting. This means usually f/11; the background does not need to be sharp to become distracting. Up to f/11 or f/16, DOF preview works fine.

 

With two objects far apart, to get them both in focus is virtually impossible, so you have to choose which one gets the leading role and which one gets the supporting role.

They are doing fine, thanks. Especially in southern Portugal.

Your problem, as you have found out, is that you are not alone in this business, and whether you like it or not, there are people with more experience than you that know what the agencies require.

 

Have you investigated what they want? It takes a lot of effort and perseverance to be successful, just sending in the work blindly does not work.

 

I contribute regularly to a magazine's picture library, and tipically they pick 1 or 2 out of 10-15 submissions.

 

If you slides are soft, and you don't believe it, just go and check the rest of the agency's keepers and see for yourself. Have you used a good 8x or 10x loupe? That's what they use to check for sharpness.

Tomas,

 

The 20-35 zoom is not more expensive. Just think about it, you would need 20, 24, 28, and 35 prime lenses to cover the same range.

 

Really, if you are not sure, the zoom will be the best. Canon even spoils photographers with the 20-35 non-L and L, and the 17-35 L, just pick one.

In the Netherlands, Texel island is a good place. Dunes, wind, the North Sea, and birds. And sheep too!

 

Also, it is an excellent chance to visit very nice fishermen villages, if you are not 100% nature photographer.

I use a Gitzo 1376 ball head with quick release plates. The heaviest set up I mount is the 1N+booster+180 macro+2X converter, which means a tad over 3kg.

 

The ball head is easy to adjust, is smooth in operation, and rock solid. You can point the camera anywhere you want and it won't move.

Embracing photography only as a hobby, albiet serious, and having a 5 year old son and a wife busy finishing a Ph.D., I too find it difficult to capture spring time efficiently on film.

 

However, I do have a couple of tricks. First, I explore the park where my son likes to play; while he is enjoying himself in the palyground, I photograph the beautiful flowers of the gardens. So we both have a great time.

 

Second, I belong to a group of photo nuts that carries out one day photo outings on a regular basis, usually visiting interesting sites. I live in Portugal, so basically in one day it is possible to cover a lot of ground.

 

Basically, a little organisation can get you a long way.