[sleeping]

Wow, it went green early this week!

[sleeping]

A reverse coupling ring to do that kind of work more conveniently should only run you a few dollars (like this). You may also need a step up/down ring if you can’t find one with the correct thread sizes, though.

Since I think you shoot Nikon, the final thing you might want is a BR-3 Adapter, that lets you mount 52mm filters/hoods on a reversed Nikon lens. Those are a bit pricier, but I got a used on on Ebay for about $20.

Of course, that setup isn’t nearly as convenient as a macro lens, but it does allow for magnification well beyond 1:1

[sleeping]

When you break 4,000 you get your own lake in Southern California.

Oooh, I only have 77 to go!

[sleeping]

Personally, I think that while diopters and extension tubes are usable, and useful if you don’t want to spend a whole lot or need to travel light, if you want to shoot at magnifications around 1/2x to 1x there’s no substitute in terms of useability for a decent Macro lens with a focal length in at least the 90-105mm range.

Getting to that level of magnification with a non-macro tele tends to require multiple bits of equipment and is not always very stable and tends to take a while to set up. With shorter lenses (dedicated macro or on tubes etc) you have very little working distance between your lens and the subject, which makes lighting difficult and makes it very hard to get photos of skittish critters.

The Tamron 90mm is a very good lens. I actually have two of them, the 90mm f/2.5 Adaptall manual focus version and the older version of the 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro. They’re both plenty sharp enough and have very nice bokeh.

The Adaptall lens (~$100 used) can be used on most 35mm bodies by changing the adapter but it won’t meter on the cheaper Nikon digitals, and it only goes to 1/2x without using a tube or teleconverter (it was designed to be used with the adaptall 2x tele, and that combination makes a 180mm f/5 that goes to 1x magnification with a fairly large working distance).

The AF version is more convenient on my D70 most of the time, and the AF speed isn’t terrible if you use the limiter switch, but there are times when I do want a bit more working distance at full magnification than 90mm gets (about 4″ I believe).

Some 90mm examples:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tamron+90mm&w=74356260%40N00

[sleeping]

Any real advantages to film, though? Any nasty pitfalls?

My take on this:

– Negative film still has way more exposure latitude than any digicam (slides not so much).

– Film retains highlight detail better (the latest generation of dslrs are closing this gap, though)

– The results on film look and feel different than digital. This may be something you prefer or not.

– Shooting film can wean you away from looking at your LCD after every shot, and force you to think more about exposure vs guessing and correcting.

– Film equipment can be had at ridiculously low prices, unless you want a Leica or an F6, etc.

On the other hand:

– With film, unless you process your own, your results are partially dependent on who does your processing. Finding a good lab where you are may be difficult (or not, and there’s always mail order).

– If you’re strictly talking about 35mm film vs. an entry/mid level DSLR, then the DSLR probably wins on pure resoultion/sharpness (except maybe with low speed film and either a very high end scanner or tradiitional optical printing on an enlarger).

– Digital wins out on pure convenience and ongoing costs.

– For color especially, High-ISO performance on even the current entry level DSLRs (never mind a D3 or whatever…) is significantly better than film.

[sleeping]

Film is fun! Personally, I use my DSLR less than half the time since I started shooting film 😯

That does sound like a decent deal, too, although I don’t know what the going rate for things is in Europe. On the other hand, though, I’m not sure an F5 is the best choice for a beginning 35mm camera. I decided to upgrade my old N8008s (AF 35mm SLR) a few weeks ago, and seriously considered an F5, but in the end I bought an F100 instead (for a bit over $200US).

The thing about the F5 is that it’s gigantic and *heavy*. Some of that weight comes from it being built like a tank, but an awful lot if it comes from the fact that the 8 AA battery vertical grip is a permanent fixture on the camera. That’s convenient if you want to be able to shoot 8 frames per second all the time, but isn’t neccesarily all that useful if you don’t.

The F100 is basically 90% of the F5 at 50% of the weight. Aside from the lower frame rate (3-4 fps without the battery grip) it has fewer matrix sensors in its metering system, and won’t focus quite as fast with big/heavy lenses. Also, the F100 has better ergonomics by most accounts (e.g. the handy red indicator on the selected focus sensor that the F5 doesn’t have). So far I am very pleased with mine.

[sleeping]

Interestingly, it looks like a pagination feature is in the works on Fark so people can split up longer threads (there’s a beta option in my profile)

[sleeping]

Tripods aren’t really the place to cheap out.

Thom Hogan agrees with you. And I agree with him.

That’s the ideal solution, certainly. However, if you haven’t spent several hundreds of dollars on a tripod there are still some things you can do to get better images:

1. Most importantly, use a remote release or, if you don’t have one, a self-timer. A really sturdy setup can handle the vibration of pressing the shutter release, but a flimsy one won’t. Set it up, and keep well away from touching any part of the tripod during the exposure

2. Keep everything as low as you can. Particularly you want to avoid extending the center column if this can possibly be avoided as it makes the assembly much less stable.

3. This is not so much of a concern with non-SLR cameras, but the mirror slap from an SLR can cause blurriness, which is especially bad in the vicinity of 1/30 – 1/2 sec. If you can, use a longer or shorter shutter speed.

[edit: I forgot 4]

4. Shoot several exposures. A stray gust of wind or something might mess up one or two, but it probably won’t effect all of them if you shoot 4 or 5

[sleeping]

Can I get some constructive criticism on my entries? I tanked this week, I think I know why but I’d like to hear from others.

Two things IMO:

1. You’re at a bit of a disadvantage posting narrow horizontal images, I think – because you’ve only got 640px of width the total image size is very small, and you haven’t provided a link to a larger version (I’m not saying horizontal images *can’t* do well, mind you, but it definitely doesn’t help)

2. Need more contrast. The first one especially would benefit a good deal by a contrast boost, but they all look a bit flat.

[sleeping]

I know the clock feeling, but in reverse. Woke up at normal time to submit, and the thread had been there for an hour. Did someone change the clocks over in the USA? I’m so confused. 🙁

Yeah, we’re on Daylight Savings now.

[sleeping]

Sturdy, Light, Cheap – Pick 2…

[sleeping]

the pictures just dont look as good without sunlight.stupid clouds.

Do you have woods where you live? It’s generally much easier to photograph in the woods on cloudy days than sunny. Also, the even light can be very useful for macro/closeup work outside….

[sleeping]

I noticed sleeping’s snowflake. I decided to hold off on this one for now. Partly to avoid a duplicate type photo – but primarily because his is better. 😀

Thanks, but I wouldn’t have objected at all if you posted that.

[sleeping]

It’s not out of the question to do macro like this with a compact camera, you’d need to find a fast prime lens from and SLR and work out a means of mounting it in front of your camera (it can be done with gaffer tape etc). I have seen some examples, and I just tried it with my SD-1000, which was definitely workable optically. Supporting the combination with a tiny camera like that is a bit of a problem though, but it’s definitely not impossible.

[sleeping]

Got some more snow today. I really like this one:

[Author]

Posts