Jump to content
randapex

Shooting macro with the 105mm and 2xTC

Recommended Posts

Hi Rand,

Geez man. Forget the pigmies, I can't believe the detail of your starfish pic.

Ima crankin' up me shooter to S/M, an goin' huntin'.

That image, to me, is a definate wall hanger!! Well done.

Hooroo my friend

Bruce :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thanks Alex for highlighting the thread.

To me, it's a perfect example of how digital cameras allows us to blow off 100's of shots perfecting a techinique that probably took years with film, especially for the casual U/W photographer.

 

The D2X is a big part of this as well and I should have mentioned that. I just hate to get into the camera thing as it seems to go a certain direction when the comparisons are made.

 

In any case, I looked through my shots for an example of something more people might have seen in the past and relate to the subject size relative to the frame. Here's one of those little Hairy Crabs that are fairly common in Indonesia. I just find it fascinating to see the details and the fact it's almost too big in the frame:

 

Full Frame, 105mm 2xtc.

 

DSC_1123_hairycra_fullframe_01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One point I made on the front page of WP is that the D2X is well suited to this type of photography because of the DOF advantages of a smaller sensor for a given subject size in a frame.

 

I like the fact that you are playing to the strengths of your camera and pushing a technique forward. Oh, and I really appreciate you sharing your views.

 

Alex

 

I hate to beat an old dead horse, but I would disagree that a smaller sensor has a DOF advangtage in macro shots. The limitation is the smallest aperture you can use before diffraction degrades the image resolution and a larger sensor allow you to use smaller apertures for a given resolution and that more than makes up for the longer focal length lens needed for the same field of view.

 

The last times we discussed this was here:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9702

 

and here:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9568

 

I would rather not hijack Rand's thread for another go round on this topic. Please add comments on this topic on one of the old threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Hey Rand -

 

Running the DOF calculator for the Canon 1DsMkII versus the Nikon D2X (1.0x crop versus 1.5x crop) for a 100mm (Canon) and 105mm (Nikon) macro lens at 12in subject distance yields the following:

 

1DsMkII:

f/22, DOF=0.33in

f/32, DOF=0.47in

 

D2X:

f/22, DOF=0.20in

f/32, DOF=0.28in

 

Significant in my mind.

 

~Matt Segal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand, I have a couple of questions:

 

Why did you specifically choose f25? Is that the smallest apperture on the 105mm? ( sorry I am a Canonite)

 

Secondly, did you ever get to try the 105 without the teleconverter but with Woody's diopter? I would be intersted in how your results compare. Theoretically you should have a larger DOF with this setup, although, as you say, x% of buggerall is still buggerall!

 

thanks, Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about racking has me in a daydream :D

 

Sorry I couldn't resist...now back to our regular scheduled program. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andre, f25 was a compromise between DOF and the diffraction at the higher f stops Herb mentions. Follow the links he posted and you'll see the conversation from some of my earlier efforts with the 2xtc.

 

I use the 60mm for macro if I'm not using the 2xtc as the working distance is reduced. Here is a shot using the 60mm with the Woody and yes, the DOF is much better:

 

DSC_9528_pygmy-01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1DsMkII:

f/22, DOF=0.33in

f/32, DOF=0.47in

 

D2X:

f/22, DOF=0.20in

f/32, DOF=0.28in

 

Significant in my mind.

Significant, and i suppose it means you have a slightly higher chance of achieving sharp focus. But once you have sharp focus with either the 1dsmkii or the d2x I doubt it really matters.

 

Very nice pics rand! I love supermacro myself, although my wife is the real artist there between the 2 of us when it comes to supermacro. I think a tc is useful for other things than just racked out to maximum though. There's lots of interesting subjects between the range of a normal 105 (or 60, I actually use a 60+2xtc a lot also) and a 105+2xtc at maximum (assuming you try and do some composition in the camera). Or you could stay at for instance 1:1 and create a bit more distance between you and your subject to get more natural behavior. Or maybe I misunderstood you, as english isnt my first language.

 

Regards,

 

Cor

 

freckles.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cor, your wife indeed is very talented. I checked your website. Very nice.

 

I agree, with you. There are others ranges to be explored with the Teleconverter. My goal, and the main subject of this thread, was getting maximum magnification with the specific subject, Pygmy Seahorse.

 

Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rand,

While I love your Pics, and I truly do! I'm simply 'busting a gut', holding my breath waiting for Matt Seagal to convert his calculations into real images so that we can all go from theory room to the real world and check the images for these so called "significant differences". I hope he can prove it coz I am ready to sell my Nikon setup if he is right! Bloody Nikon, ripping us off like that!!! :D:o

Hooroo,

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm simply 'busting a gut', holding my breath waiting for Matt Seagal to convert his calculations into real images so that we can all go from theory room to the real world and check the images for these so called "significant differences".

 

Two years or a significant monetary donation from you now and I'll have the results. James should be able to provide examples from the 1.6x crop 20D and 1.3x crop 1DMkII.

 

Hooroo!

 

:D

 

~Matt Segal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the credit to the technical creativity but implentation is really what matters at the end of the day and man you really put the two together. The "bartender" is just perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah shot the 20D with the 100mm and the Woody's. I'm not sure if she shot it at the minimum working distance.

 

I shot the 150mm with a 500D diopter both with and without the Macromate.

 

I'll post some examples when I find them.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

I posted the answer to some of your questions here:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?act=S...t=20#entry80286

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

DSC_032pygmy_barternder_fullframe640-01.jpg

 

Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...