[sleeping]

Single element closeup filters are cheap, but are generally not that great for your image quality (and this tends to get worse as the magnification increases), especially at the edges. However, if you want to get close without spending a lot, a relatively low power diopter (+1 to +3 or so) will probably give you decent results stopped down to F11 or so especially if you don’t need corner to corner sharpness.

Also, they tend to work better on teles than wide angles (the effect of a given diopter increases with focal length so you can use a lower diopter power and still get pretty close).

You can also get two element achromatic close up lenses. These have much better image quality, but are much thicker (mine is about 3/4″ thick), heavier and more expensive. Canon makes them in a few sizes:

canon close up lenses at B&H

[sleeping]

I think part of the problem is that you’ve got to stop down a bit to get anything resembling decent quality unless the lens you’re using is incredibly good. When you’ve got a F4 or 5.6 zoom that loses 2 more stops to the converter, you need a lot of light to stop down a couple of stops to get decent results.

[sleeping]

Or get a camera with automatic loading! F100s are cheap…

[sleeping]

I wouldn’t recommend buying a zoom for macro purposes. There are a handful of rare and expensive exceptions to this, but in general they don’t provide much magnification or very good image quality focused close.

If insects are a significant concern in your decision, the Sigma 105mm should probably be your first choice. It’s got a minimum focus distance of 12.3″ at 1x magnification. The olympus 50mm has a min focus of 9.5″ at 1/2x magnification. Given that the sigma is physically longer, that means the effective working distance is probably about the same, but the sigma is giving you twice the magnification of the olympus.

Also, to get to 1x magnification with the olympus you need an extension tube, which is going to reduce the minimum focus distance quite a lot and isn’t very convenient if you’re switching between close and distant subjects.

[sleeping]

Cheap tele zooms that go to 300mm+ are almost always pretty mediocre (or worse) at the long end of the zoom range. The best low cost tele option for Nikon is the 55-200mm VR, IMO – if you can get past the plasticky construction it’s optics are extremely good.

[sleeping]

If you want an actual book, I highly recommend Understanding Exposure by Brian Peterson.

[sleeping]

That or drill a hole in the camera itself, yeah. Not sure if that one is wood under the leather or something else, though?

[sleeping]

I don’t know about home depot, but any half decent camera store should have a reducing bushing, or they’re like 2$ at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/503797-REG/General_Brand_NPTRB_3_8_to_1_4_20_Tripod.html

The only thing is you’d probably need a deeper hole than the bushing to accomodate the tripod screw, as they are pretty short.

[sleeping]

I decided that in all of upstate new york, which is ripe with rivers and lakes, there had to be a good photogenic dam within respectable driving distance.

I don’t know where you are in NY, but this one is pretty spectacular (not my photo): http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamtomlinson/71340351/

[sleeping]

I assume you’re looking at the Efke 25 speed? I would check with your lab about it, I’ve heard it comes out with extremely high contrast with most standard developers.

Yeah, you’ll see antique tripods with a platform sometimes. You probably don’t need a tripod unless you’re using bulb, though. With the relatively large mass of the camera plus the lack of a reflex mirror you shouldn’t have a problem handholding it even though the shutter speed is quite low. A 3/8 to 1/4″ reducing bushing is a good cheap way of getting a threaded tripod socket if you want to build a platform.

[sleeping]

Old box cameras are mostly so simple that the shutter etc are probably working unless they’re badly corroded. The finders can be pretty hazy too, but they were never exactly precise to begin with….

One thing to consider about this sort of camera is that they were usually designed for the pretty slow film they had at the time. The shutter speed/aperture might be about 1/30 and F/11 (a decent daylight exposure for ISO 25). If you put, say, 100 speed film in it, you’ll want to shoot in the shade or overcast.

[sleeping]

Most web browsers are not color space aware, so usually this problem happens if you’re saving the image in a color space other than SRGB. To fix this in Photoshop CS3: Edit > Convert to profile > Select SRGB.

[sleeping]

mmmm….. must get some….

[sleeping]

You probably won’t need any underexposure unless you’re looking for a very dark effect. Take a look at an 18% grey card – it’s about the tonality of heavy overcast. You may actually need to dial in a bit of positive exposure compensation if you want shadow detail.

This is snow not rain, but a low power flash pop can get you an interesting effect:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awrose/3121719628/

That probably won’t work in a full-fledged downpour though…

[sleeping]

i’m really used to getting in super close with my point and shoot and while i know i have to make a lot of adjustments going to the DSLR i feel like the distance i’d have to get for the longer lenses would throw me for a loop.

Getting close to the subject isn’t neccessarily the same thing as macro photograpy, even if it’s often labelled “macro” mode on cameras. A lot of point and shoots focus closest at the wide end, and actually don’t provide much real magnification. This gives you quite a bit of depth of field, and the impression of getting very close, but you can’t actually fill the frame with a very small subject.

A real macro lens is a different thing altogether, and it will probably reuqire a little bit of practice to get used to it, but once you do, it will be worth it, I should think 🙂

If you do want a similar effect to the “macro” mode on a compact camera, which can be useful for certain things (like this) you’d want a short extesion tube and a wide angle lens, not a macro lens.

[Author]

Posts