I really really like this shot, excellent DoF there. How is the noise in the full size image? ISO 800 isn't exactly preferable but at least the resized image looks great :up:
Printable View
If for portraits, a small DOF is what you're looking for, for macro photography - due to the short working distance = very shallow DOF - it becomes a problem, because you have to step down your lens ---> less light on the sensor ---> the need for using a high(er) ISO.
ISO 800 is more than OK on the 20D and even ISO 3200 should be OK for printing up to A4 format if the exposure was right an you had enough ambient light.
Quick freehand snapshot of one of my eight-legged pets.
Attachment 77953
YUCK!!! :shivers down my spine:
Oh come on, don't deep dark eyes just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
:p:
Got more coming. The bigger bugger has just molded so it's hungry, angry and moves so quick it's hard to take a good pic of it.
:D
Do you have any black widows? We had a pretty big jumping spider for a while. Just throw in flys and watch from a distance. I prefer snakes.
My spiders are all captured from nature so no black widows as we don't have them here.
I'm a gonna have to get me a SLR + macro lens combo...
The above pics were with a 55-200VR + the kit lens (18-55). I have no tripod so when you try to focus that close you tend to be pretty shakey. I could zoom out more but you run into vignetting BAD. I would like to get some manual lenses for that. I need to find the right combo or get a reversing ring. I may make my own macro lighting.
Do you want me to send you a Black Widow from a natural inviroment? There are a couple of young ones under my truck right now. :D
These were taken with my new 55-200 VR. Can I get some feedback?
Attachment 78010
Attachment 78011
Those appear to be out of focus slightly, or something is causing them to just not be very sharp. It certainly isn't movement as your shutter speed is plenty fast enough to stop everything.
It appears you are using ISO1600 - is this intentional? Bring your ISO down to 100-200 when outdoors for the highest quality images.
Yea its hard to stay still when you are squatting down. I am going to go to Fry's today to see what they have for tripods.
I didn't check the ISO before I took the shot. I will have to look and see what they were. I don't think the ISO on the D40 goes to 100. 200 is the lowest.
Are these better? ISO 200.
Attachment 78254
Attachment 78255
Attachment 78256
Attachment 78257
Better, but still something is off. Are those cropped? That just doesn't seem to be showing what the D40 is capable of, like there isn't a lot of resolution. It doesn't look like camera shake...are you pre-focusing?
They are resized in paint. It is on P with some changes ( sharpness, hue, etc.) I think the res is on high but I change it often so I'll have to check.
Edit: The res was on basic. Man you're good. I'll take some with the res turned up this weekend. Thanks.
Testing out the reverse lens adapter:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2011/...577283d2_o.jpg
There ya go, that looks good. You guys gotta have a macro lens or reverse your primes to post here otherwise your just taking close ups...
I'm gonna have to agree and say from now on, we really only want true macros only. This means 1:1 or larger please :)
Not sure about the scale on this one, but that bug was less than 2mm in length :P
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/...fb7cd229_o.jpg
How do you do the math for 1:1?
If you use 2 lenses do you take the front one and devide it into the back one.
Sorry for the 1:1 question that was stupid.
So if I have the front lens set to 55mm and the back one set to 200mm that would be 3.63:1 or 27:1 or .27:1?
Here ya go
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
okay. the zener diode was 3.6:1 and the green dots were 11:1 and I think the dime was 3.6:1.
nice, mine were 1.1:1 lol