harold_gough

<p>I can't comment from experience about your chosen habitat but I shoot macro in dimly lit situations, such as temperate woods.<br>

On m4/3 I use a Kiron 105mm for genera telephotography down to (with crop factor) 2:1 (FOV 17.5mm). With it, for macro, I use two off-camera (on brackets) TTL flash with diffusion, both RC controlled by a master flash on the hot shoe set to not contribute light to the image.<br>

The Kiron is available in various mounts for which adapters are widely available. Beware of the FD version, on which the stop-down ring is easily rotated when detaching the lens, leaving it open wide when reattached.<br>

The lens was designed to shoot macro at f16 and has the performance to support that. It is excellent at f11, my default for medium-sized insects.</p>

<p>It is on its natural food plant and eating it. I find you remarks ludicrous. You should stick to studio photography.</p>

<p>Maybe slightly wider framing at the bottom and clone out the disembodied twig on the bottom right. Other images in the series were framed and/or orientated differently. Images posted for transient viewing on a forum website don't justify exhibition print treatment (a view shared by at least some fellow specialists) nor would they be reduced in size for such a purpose. Some tiny, unwanted highlights have been cloned out.<br>

This set just happened to be my first use of a new lens and they were outdoor shots. Composition and angles of view cut out background clutter, including a solid fence.</p>

<p>I meant that I got there five years ahead of your suggestion. I have been posting images +/- daily in first one macro forum and currently two others, daily. Anyone who does this knows that you will get advice and critique, whether you ask for it or not. These days, I give advice more often than I ask for it.</p>

<p>A bit late with your suggestion. Five years late! :)</p>

<p>I shot film macro for 30 years.<br /> The shot I posted here was of a 6mm FOV and was just the first I could grab to demonstrate a point.<br /> This one is a little more representative of my digital work:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/76/1189776.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="661" /><br /> or this one (FOV 17mm):<br /> <img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/70/1189770.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="890" /></p>

 

<p>Thanks, Mary.<br>

I don't why I missed the link.<br>

Yes, lovely images. However, there are a number of macro specialists in the macro forums who post images of such high quality. Some are even in stereo.</p>

<p>Edward,<br>

Yes, you say "generally" but I think there is largely a myth that lenses for larger formats were used for +/- contact prints and did not need so much resolution as for e.g. 35mm. I have not done extensive research but, for macro, the large format Leitz Wetzlar Summar 12cmm 4.5 and the 105mm and 150mm Printing Nikkors, have outstanding performance.<br>

Also, for macro, I find that there is no visible loss of detail through a high quality TC, such as a my Kiron Matchmate x1.5. In the case of the Nikkors, their minimum aperture can be effectively made f22, giving valuable additional DOF.</p>

<p>With my EP-2, with macro, I got double images (slight displacement along one axis) with macro on a tripod. The problem also affects images with bean bag support and with firmly supported hand-held e.g. on a table top.<br>

Flash exposures are not affected by any of this.</p>

<p>I do a lot of macro and the idea of carry large camera bodies around does not appeal. The smaller your hardware, the more insects you will be able to get close enough to photograph them. I use some large format lenses for macro but on an m4/3 body.</p>

<p>The A7R arrived yesterday and I attached the OM 24mm shift today. I used the brick wall of our house, at 90 degrees and at about 45 degrees, the latter with full shift, as the subject, and in-camera review of the images is very encouraging.</p>

<p>So where do we find the work of Maria Zorn?</p>

<p>This website tries to avoid recommending rare and expensive equipment.<br>

<a href="http://extreme-macro.co.uk/">http://extreme-macro.co.uk/</a></p>

<p>Actually, the purpose of bellows is to give you total flexibility as to the amount of extension/magnification, compared with the steps obtained from extension rings. I would not use bellows without a tripod but because of the risk of damaging the bellows and causing light leaks.<br>

I have a Benbo tripod with a ball head. It is quite good for flowers but the clumsy handling makes approach to insects almost impossible and the adjustment of angle, height, distance, etc. take a long time and your subject will not be waiting patiently. When you suggest a small tripod, even if it was usable, it would probably not have the height to reach most spiders and insects.<br>

Apart from the photography of dead insects and detached flowers, most of the images in specialist macro forums are taken hand-held and the majority of those with flash as the dominant illumination.<br>

The point about small apertures is correct. You might get away with f8 at below 1:1, but above that you will usually need f11, 13 or 16. That is on cropped sensors where you gain DOF over full frame.</p>

<p>You did very well with price on that one. Caldwell supports on Ebay are a horrific price but you can get all you need for photographic use for £10 -15.</p>

<p>Sanjay,<br>

It is m4/3 (crop factor 2) and it may have been cropped a bit more for composition.<br>

The lens is an enlarger lens. Schneider have various grades of lens and it is the very best, HM grade, 40mm. It is reversed (front element vulnerable) for better performance and was probably set at f16. This is one of the very best performers at around 2:1 to 5:1.<br>

This lens has a +/- flat front surface which causes internal reflections between it and the sensor when reversed. To overcome this I put a teleconverter, with a convex rear element, between the lens and the camera. I use a x 1.5 Kiron, which is high quality.</p>

<p>I was trying to snag an A7 on Ebay when an A7R got in my way. I put in a bid which I expected to be left well behind but the camera will be in my hands next week.<br>

Although not my prime purpose, I want the capability to do some macro, when the need arises, and would welcome and info on TTL RC flash, to be used off the hot shoe. (I currently use 2 or 3 with my EM-1). I am also enquiring in specialist blogs.</p>

<p>I use large format film lenses for macro on m4/3 and plan to use them on full frame digital. Yes the extension needs to be about 220mm from the camera flange. My 105mm printing Nikkor, at about 350g, is quite manageable. The 150mm, at over 1kg, is very hard work but the performance is higher at minimum aperture and is excellent at a wider range of magnifications.</p>

<p>Just dropping in to say thanks for the further contributions.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/12/1242712.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" />This is an example of an image with a field of view about 6mm wide. Using a tripod would have been impossible for a moving subject. This was shot hand-held with TTL flash. Not my best image of a woodlouse but it gives some idea.</p>

 

<p>I disagree with the first comment about the need for a focusing rail. I shoot macro daily, at 1:1 or higher magnification, and have used my rail only for stacking of immobile subjects. I use hand-held camera and flash for almost everything else.<br>

No rail or tripod is likely to help much with a spider in its web as the web invariably moves with the slightest air movement. You need either multiple shots to get one in focus or to use flash, which will not be successful all the time either. You need to learn anticipation e.g. to shoot when the web briefly pauses before changing direction.<br>

A tripod, more often a monopod, is most useful for taking the weight off your arms.</p>

<p>Wide angle and diffuser: both consumers of power. I would also be aware of flash and daylight exposure possibly being similar, with double exposure possibilities.<br>

The other concern with dark, shiny (wet) subjects, is flash gun reflections.<br>

I would suggest at least taking some daylight exposures as back-up.</p>

<p>Unless you are very close, the flash may not have enough power anyway. Also, you would need exposure compensation for black.</p>

<p>What is this "look of natural light"? Most macro specialists would reject sunlight as too harsh. The light is best on a bright overcast day. For flash, the light is best directed downwards from above, to avoid light fall-off. Too avoid too many shadows, it should not be directly downwards but from a little in front. Ideally, use a second flash for fill.<br>

The typical aperture used for a bee or a fly in macro is f13 (between f11 and f16 on a film lens).</p>

<p>I have seen it elsewhere that a 210mm lens is adequate for safari use. That was based on experience.</p>

<p> </p>