Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Shooting macro with the 105mm and 2xTC


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#41 Divnivn

Divnivn

    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:20 AM

Hi,

Could someone give some advice on where to get diopters to fit an aquatica macro port, which size(?) or number is a good one to start off with. I shoot with the 105mm and 2x Tele a lot but really struggle at night, especially with lighting. I use 2 ds 125 strobes with manual adjustment. Any hints?

Thanks a lot
Ivan B)

#42 yahsemtough

yahsemtough

    Great Canadian Mokarran

  • Senior Moderator
  • 3495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 February 2006 - 12:49 PM

Email Aquatica direct.

What you need is a Woody's wet diotper (Ryan from Reef Photo sells them and he is a site sponsor) and Aquatica have a custom made piece that fits the front of the Aquatica macro port with three set screws to secure it to the port face.

Pm me also if you need further assistance after emailing them.

Todd
Todd Mintz
tmintz.com
all photographs posted Todd C Mintz

#43 Divnivn

Divnivn

    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

Posted 16 February 2006 - 02:04 PM

Thanks a lot, will contact you if there are any other questions

#44 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:01 PM

Herb, I think the initial thrust of the thread has run it's course. And I'd like to see examples of FF sensor camera using the same or similar (I know, Canon has the 100mm vs the Nikon 105mm) set up.

Not as a Canon vs Nikon so much as to actually see the differences in field of view and DOF on similar subjects. It's of interest as I've heard much about the ff sensor covering a larger FOV,

I've no argument with your statements regarding diffraction. You've stated them clearly. But I must ask, since at f25 with the 105mm racked all the way out and with Teleconverter, DOF is almost nil, what are we talking here? 25% 50% better DOF with the FF camera? My point would be, 25% more of nothing is still basically nothing. So are you talking multiples of increase in DOF? 100% or higher?


Rand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I posted the answer to some of your questions here:

http://wetpixel.com/...t=20#entry80286
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#45 Sloss

Sloss

    Lionfish

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2006 - 01:01 AM

Hi,

Great shots from Lembeh, especially the bartender shot. I love the composition! I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but here goes: while Rand mentioned that he cropped his image, I come across photos of super macro images in discussion groups and when I hear how the shot was taken I realize it is probably not possible to shoot them the way the photographer says he did.

For example I have seen pygmies from Indonesia and they look greatly magnified. I have no problem with what people do to their photos. It is their work afterall. But when I hear someone say an image is not cropped, only to find out it was taken with a 60mm lens, a 2xtele and digital camera and it is extreme supermacro, it makes me wonder how the shot was taken. How does one achieve such magnification on an image when you really are limited by certain parameters such as your equipment in this case. You can only get so close with certain equipment which will dictate your final output. Are they cropping and not telling?

Even if they are, I still love all the work I see and it does not matter. It just helps keep discussion of such things on the right track. I know Chris Bangs has done lots of super macro both on film and digital and I have seen lots of his work from diving with him. I also know he doesn't do much cropping and I consider him an expert in this field. Perhaps he or someone else can shed some light on the matter and even do the math for the closest distance one can get with the 60mm 2x tele and a nikon digital SLR for example. I am just curious. In any case keep up the great shots everybody! I love all the macro and have been to the Lembeh Straight 3 times myself last year. It is awesome. P.S. Sorry if I put this in the wrong place but I wanted to mention it.

Doug
Underwater Lightroom - Manage, Edit, Showcase - Make it Easy on Yourself
Underwater Photoshop - Take digital editing to a new level...

#46 cor

cor

    The Hacker

  • Admin
  • 1989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 17 February 2006 - 04:45 AM

How does one achieve such magnification on an image when you really are limited by certain parameters such as your equipment in this case.  You can only get so close with certain equipment which will dictate your final output.  Are they cropping and not telling?

Perhaps he or someone else can shed some light on the matter and even do the math for the closest distance one can get with the 60mm 2x tele and a nikon digital SLR for example.

Doug


Hi Doug, I just happen to have my rig set up with a 60mm and 2xTC (I use this instead of a normal 105mm as it gives me more options). No formulas, but some emperical information.

If I rack this out as far as I can, my minimal distance is 6 cm (about 2.5 inch). This is not only dictated by the minimal focus distance of the lens, but also by the physical attributes of the port. I have done this often under water, so I no doubt someone can get that close. Ive even done this with pygmees, without touching anything. All it takes is buoancy control and a mind melt with your housing :D That close though a lot of critters dont behave normally. A 105 with 2xTC is a better choice for something like a pygmee if you wanted maximum magnification.

The image I get with this setup is about 1.3mm wide, and about 9mm high (give or take a bit, i was just quickly measuring by holding a ruler).

My wife just happens to have a 105+2xTC set up. It's not a surprise that the minimal distance for that setup is 12cm. Again slightly dictated by the port. It's got some outer edges for protection that I think should be taken into account. The image size should be the same if her camera was a D2x also, but since it's an F100 I wont bother measuring.

Also remember that a bargibanti is quite a bit bigger than a denise, so even if the second image was cropped, it doesnt have to be much of a crop depending on the size of the bargibanti. Maybe rand can post the original image.

Cor
Cor Bosman - Nikon D2X Subal ND2 - Nikon D7000 Subal ND7000
website | tripreports/journal | facebook | wetpixel map | twitter


#47 Sloss

Sloss

    Lionfish

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2006 - 07:55 AM

Thanks Cor,

I pretty much use the same setup for my F100 and D70 as well, and have success shooting supermacro although it sometimes can be nerve racking. I wish I had some to post at the moment. I just wanted to hear discussion on some cropping issues that are relative to super macro but thanks for including the number crunching. I know the range is extremely small. There's nothing like a 105 with a 2xtc and then seeing blue ring octopus mate! Oh well, that's the beauty of Lembeh, anything can happen! P.S. Nice website!
Doug
Underwater Lightroom - Manage, Edit, Showcase - Make it Easy on Yourself
Underwater Photoshop - Take digital editing to a new level...

#48 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:37 AM

Hi Sloss,

How does one achieve such magnification on an image when you really are limited by certain parameters such as your equipment in this case. You can only get so close with certain equipment which will dictate your final output. Are they cropping and not telling?


First off, let me say thankyou. Saying you have doubts about the photos only re-inforces the reason why I posted this information. Guess you could say the results are: "Unbelievable". :D

Here's the full frame of the Bartender. In retrospect, it probably should have been posted this way to begin with as I feel it stands on it's own with out the negative space removed:

Posted Image

Rand
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#49 segal3

segal3

    Powerful Sea Gull

  • Admin
  • 1739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:53 AM

I'm curious as to how people are defining their cropping...

Rand, you stated earlier the shot was a roughly 15% crop. By my standards and using the original for the comparison, it turns out to be roughly a 35% crop by length (of top or bottom) measurements (leaving a remaining 65% of original by length), and a 55% crop by area comparison (leaving a remaining 45% of original by area).

I PMed you an example of a 15% crop by length, you can choose to post it or not.

~Matt Segal
Matt Segal - carbonos scuba

#50 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 17 February 2006 - 09:24 AM

You're right, I made the estimation based on the reduced image size on the width and didn't add in the length. I also corrected the orginal estimate. You're two for two. Didn't realize the nit-picking negativity this thread would generate. I won't start another.

Rand
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#51 CeeDave

CeeDave

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Underwater, especially large animals<br />Landscape, especially wetlands

Posted 17 February 2006 - 10:42 AM

Well maybe I should have posted my oceanic positivity earlier: your stuff rocks, I love the images, but the ability to capture such shots is far beyond my capabilities or imagination still ... so I read the thread in silent awe.

Great stuff. May we have another, please, Rand?
Chris White
Subal ND70 + 2X DS125 ... mostly 10.5, 16, and 60

#52 kdietz

kdietz

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 17 February 2006 - 10:48 AM

More Rand ;) :lol: ......let's don't let the number crunchers dampen a good learning and sharing opportunity :D :o ;)

Karl
Karl Dietz...Nikon D200...Ikelite iTTL housing...10.5mm...15mm FE...12-24mm...17-35mm...60mm micro...105mm micro...dual DS-200's
www.kdietz.com

#53 cor

cor

    The Hacker

  • Admin
  • 1989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted 17 February 2006 - 11:31 AM

Didn't realize the nit-picking negativity this thread would generate. I won't start another.

Rand

I saw a lot of nitpicking, but no negativity. Your OP was very nice, and useful to lots of people that want to try this stuff. I see it often on liveaboards where people think its some kind of magic to get that high magnification, while all it takes is the right camera setup and practice. I actually do quite a few dives just practicing supermacro manual focus. Helps for when you only have those few dives someplace in PNG :D

Cor
Cor Bosman - Nikon D2X Subal ND2 - Nikon D7000 Subal ND7000
website | tripreports/journal | facebook | wetpixel map | twitter


#54 Kasey

Kasey

    Great Hammerhead

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Location:USVI

Posted 17 February 2006 - 12:58 PM

Rand - no nit-picking here. These images ROCK and I'd love to see more. Unfortunately great art has again been dissected to technical minutia. These are some of the finest macro images I've seen yet!!! Just imagine how much better they'd be shot on FF camera in RAW with this curve blah blah blah;) :D

Great Shooting!!! These are the threads that keep me reading WP.
Seacam F100;D2x; 60mm;105mm;16mm;17-35; 10.5mm;12-24mm
Sea & Sea strobes
www.underthecaribbean.com

#55 Sloss

Sloss

    Lionfish

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2006 - 02:19 PM

My apologies for turning this thread into an apparent negative one on nice photo work. I would encourage everyone to REREAD my original post before continuing. I guess I did not explain myself clearly enough. My original question had nothing to do with your image or your crop. I was trying jumpstart a discussion relative to supermacro and also include digital's ability to be able to crop a spectacular super macro shot as well. Next time I will start a separate thread on a clean post. Rand, you will see I complimented your work and nowhere in my post was there a critique (nitpicking). I think it is a great shot and would love to see more. Please reread my post to see what I mean. Hope I didn't offend. My sincerest apologies if I did! As far as what I tried to achieve, I would like to thank Cor for your input. It was nice to get a well explained answer for people to digest relative to distances and setup. I have long give up on the numbers game and just pull the trigger! Thanks for the math lesson. Peace everybody! :D
Underwater Lightroom - Manage, Edit, Showcase - Make it Easy on Yourself
Underwater Photoshop - Take digital editing to a new level...

#56 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 17 February 2006 - 02:26 PM

Sloss, no offense taken. It's the left brainers that drive me crazy. So, in reponse, I'll post this snoot shot for something completely different:

FULL FRAME!!!!!

Posted Image
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#57 CeeDave

CeeDave

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Underwater, especially large animals<br />Landscape, especially wetlands

Posted 17 February 2006 - 02:55 PM

Fabulous lighting, that ... I like the isolation of the front of the fish and the ghostliness of the tentacles.
Chris White
Subal ND70 + 2X DS125 ... mostly 10.5, 16, and 60

#58 herbko

herbko

    Herbzilla

  • Super Mod
  • 2128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 17 February 2006 - 04:02 PM

Great lighting on this shot Rand.
Herb Ko http://herbko.net
Canon 5D; Aquatica housing; 2 Inon Z220 strobes; Canon 100mm macro, 17-40mm ; Sigma 15mm FE, 24mm macro, 50mm macro

#59 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9968 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:19 PM

Hi Rand, remember it takes all kinds - and it seems like all kinds posted here...:-) If any of my remarks were offensive, I apologize. This has been one of the most useful thread in a long time for us Wetpixel members. That's why it's even linked in from the homepage.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#60 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:32 PM

James, no problem at all with your comments. And I appreciate the headline :)

Rand
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages