Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MACRO MADNESS WITH THE MIGHTY MP-E !!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 11:31:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well sports fans, the day has arrived!

I have finally obtained the famous Canon 65mm MP-E Macro lens that I
have been coveting for some time. I plan to take lots of cool macro
shots with this beauty. It's a cool lens. Just resting on the camera
it looks like any ordinary 65mm lens. But when you rack it out it
snaps to attention and looks almost like a long telephoto. The lens is
capable of 5x magnification so it is almost a microscope. It goes
almost without saying that Nikon has nothing that can even compare to
this lens. So sad.

Of course, having all that magnification brings with it some drawbacks.
The focusing distance is only a few inches (or less) from the lens.
The DOF is almost nil.
And keeping the damn thing steady is going to present quite a
challenge, even for steady old me. But I did get a new tripod ring out
of the deal which I can also use to replace my broken one on the Super
70-200 f/2.8L. Who Rules?

Canon recommends using the lens with one of their (expensive)
lens-mounted flashes like the Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX or the Macro Twin
Lite MT-24EX, and I can see why. The effective aperture goes to f/16.8
(at 5x) when the camera reads f/2.8 so there is tremendous light
falloff with this lens. I love how they put it in the manual:

"This does not cause exposure problems for normal picture-taking (the
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens cannot take normal pictures)."

Hey, I love it already!

Also, at the close focusing distances you need, the lens itself blocks
much of the ambient light. Looks like I'll be using my off-camera shoe
cord with the 550EX.

Here are a few early samples I took with the lens today.
The first is a pic of the letters on the edge of my Compact Flash card.
You know how thin these cards are, right? Well the letters in this
pic are about half the thickness of the card.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777969/original

The next two shots are closeups of my computer monitors.
Note the differing patterns between them (maybe someone else can
explain why).
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777970
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777971

Look for more Macro Madness from the Mighty MP-E coming soon!

More about : macro madness mighty

Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:03:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1112927464.484195.304580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well sports fans, the day has arrived!
>
> I have finally obtained the famous Canon 65mm MP-E Macro lens that I
> have been coveting for some time. I plan to take lots of cool macro
> shots with this beauty. It's a cool lens. Just resting on the camera
> it looks like any ordinary 65mm lens. But when you rack it out it
> snaps to attention and looks almost like a long telephoto. The lens is
> capable of 5x magnification so it is almost a microscope. It goes
> almost without saying that Nikon has nothing that can even compare to
> this lens. So sad.
>
> Of course, having all that magnification brings with it some drawbacks.
> The focusing distance is only a few inches (or less) from the lens.
> The DOF is almost nil.
> And keeping the damn thing steady is going to present quite a
> challenge, even for steady old me. But I did get a new tripod ring out
> of the deal which I can also use to replace my broken one on the Super
> 70-200 f/2.8L. Who Rules?
>
> Canon recommends using the lens with one of their (expensive)
> lens-mounted flashes like the Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX or the Macro Twin
> Lite MT-24EX, and I can see why. The effective aperture goes to f/16.8
> (at 5x) when the camera reads f/2.8 so there is tremendous light
> falloff with this lens. I love how they put it in the manual:
>
> "This does not cause exposure problems for normal picture-taking (the
> MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens cannot take normal pictures)."
>
> Hey, I love it already!
>
> Also, at the close focusing distances you need, the lens itself blocks
> much of the ambient light. Looks like I'll be using my off-camera shoe
> cord with the 550EX.
>
> Here are a few early samples I took with the lens today.
> The first is a pic of the letters on the edge of my Compact Flash card.
> You know how thin these cards are, right? Well the letters in this
> pic are about half the thickness of the card.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777969/original

Blurry. How come?

>
> The next two shots are closeups of my computer monitors.
> Note the differing patterns between them (maybe someone else can
> explain why).
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777970
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777971

One is a shadow mask, the other is an aperture grill.

>
> Look for more Macro Madness from the Mighty MP-E coming soon!
>
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:42:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>The approximate Depth of Field will be DoF=2*c*I*(M+1)/M^2 , where c=
>circle of confusion (e.g. 1/1730 x sensor diagonal in mm), I=aperture,

>and M is magnification factor.

I think you just widened my circle of confusion!

>You may even develop a taste for stacking images at different focus
>positions/depths into an enhanced DoF composite. Panorama software can

>be used for the stacking/morphing bit.

Excellent idea! Macro panoramas ..... of cheerleaders!
I'll have to get in real tight, of course!
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1112927464.484195.304580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> Of course, having all that magnification brings with it
> some drawbacks.

You have been warned ...

> The focusing distance is only a few inches (or less) from
> the lens.

That's why I recommended a 100mm Macro lens, it gives much more
working space. However, the MP-E 65mm is more suited for *flat*
subjects, because

> The DOF is almost nil.

Yes, just a fraction of a millimetre, not very usable on 3D subjects.
As long as you can maneuver the subject to be in the focus plane,
you'll be fine, but insects will get scared away by the lens proximity
(and they move too fast at high magnification). Bird or insect
feathers, or leafs, make fine subjects
The approximate Depth of Field will be DoF=2*c*I*(M+1)/M^2 , where c=
circle of confusion (e.g. 1/1730 x sensor diagonal in mm), I=aperture,
and M is magnification factor.

> And keeping the damn thing steady is going to present quite a
> challenge, even for steady old me.

You'll need a tripod and flash. The tripod is needed because you
magnify any camera movement (including mirror slap), and you'll lose
sight of the subject. The flash is needed to freeze subject movement
and get a useful exposure. The exposure needs to be increased by a
factor of (M+1)^2, or M+1 stops, where M is the magnification factor.

SNIP
> Also, at the close focusing distances you need, the lens
> itself blocks much of the ambient light. Looks like I'll be
> using my off-camera shoe cord with the 550EX.

And don't forget to use your Lumiquest diffuser, otherwise you can
only produce very harsh side lighting. A diffusor screen can also help
a lot to avoid pitch black shadows. In this specialized field of
photograpy you can also use accessories like the "Plamp" (or home made
equivalents) to mount diffusors on the tripod, and/or immobilize the
subject in front of the lens.
<http://www.tripodhead.com/products/plamp-main.cfm&gt;

SNIP
> Look for more Macro Madness from the Mighty MP-E
> coming soon!

Hope you soon develop an eye for the beauty of (parts of) flat
subjects. Composition will become very important, because subjects
will often turn into "abstract shape/color compositions".
Remember, at 5:1 you only capture a surface of 4.5x3 mm, with e.g. a
Dof of 0.12mm at f/16, so it might be wise to start at more modest
magnification factors.
You may even develop a taste for stacking images at different focus
positions/depths into an enhanced DoF composite. Panorama software can
be used for the stacking/morphing bit.

Bart
April 8, 2005 7:44:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1112927464.484195.304580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> SNIP
>
>> Of course, having all that magnification brings with it
>> some drawbacks.
>
>
> You have been warned ...
>
>> The focusing distance is only a few inches (or less) from
>> the lens.
>
>
> That's why I recommended a 100mm Macro lens, it gives much more working
> space.

Here's the range I get from a 70-200 with 2x teleconverter & +2 diopter:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/lenses/close...


> However, the MP-E 65mm is more suited for *flat* subjects, because
>
>> The DOF is almost nil.


If I stop it down, I can get pretty usable DOF. Flash helps if not in
full sun & boosting ISO is also sometimes needed. I can get pretty sharp
results at 1/60 sec handheld with VR but a tripod seems to just give
more room for mirror flap shake so is not useable.

Here's a full crop at 200mm without the teleconverter:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;

Here's 400mm:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;

At various less extreme lengths:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;


>
>
> Yes, just a fraction of a millimetre, not very usable on 3D subjects. As
> long as you can maneuver the subject to be in the focus plane, you'll be
> fine, but insects will get scared away by the lens proximity (and they
> move too fast at high magnification). Bird or insect feathers, or leafs,
> make fine subjects
> The approximate Depth of Field will be DoF=2*c*I*(M+1)/M^2 , where c=
> circle of confusion (e.g. 1/1730 x sensor diagonal in mm), I=aperture,
> and M is magnification factor.
>
>> And keeping the damn thing steady is going to present quite a
>> challenge, even for steady old me.
>
>
> You'll need a tripod and flash. The tripod is needed because you magnify
> any camera movement (including mirror slap), and you'll lose sight of
> the subject. The flash is needed to freeze subject movement and get a
> useful exposure. The exposure needs to be increased by a factor of
> (M+1)^2, or M+1 stops, where M is the magnification factor.
>
> SNIP
>
>> Also, at the close focusing distances you need, the lens
>> itself blocks much of the ambient light. Looks like I'll be
>> using my off-camera shoe cord with the 550EX.
>
>
> And don't forget to use your Lumiquest diffuser, otherwise you can only
> produce very harsh side lighting. A diffusor screen can also help a lot
> to avoid pitch black shadows. In this specialized field of photograpy
> you can also use accessories like the "Plamp" (or home made equivalents)
> to mount diffusors on the tripod, and/or immobilize the subject in front
> of the lens.
> <http://www.tripodhead.com/products/plamp-main.cfm&gt;
>
> SNIP
>
>> Look for more Macro Madness from the Mighty MP-E
>> coming soon!
>
>
> Hope you soon develop an eye for the beauty of (parts of) flat subjects.
> Composition will become very important, because subjects will often turn
> into "abstract shape/color compositions".
> Remember, at 5:1 you only capture a surface of 4.5x3 mm, with e.g. a Dof
> of 0.12mm at f/16, so it might be wise to start at more modest
> magnification factors.
> You may even develop a taste for stacking images at different focus
> positions/depths into an enhanced DoF composite. Panorama software can
> be used for the stacking/morphing bit.
>
> Bart
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:04:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
>
> Well sports fans, the day has arrived!
>
> I have finally obtained the famous Canon 65mm MP-E Macro lens that I
> have been coveting for some time. I plan to take lots of cool macro
> shots with this beauty. It's a cool lens. Just resting on the camera
> it looks like any ordinary 65mm lens. But when you rack it out it
> snaps to attention and looks almost like a long telephoto. The lens is
> capable of 5x magnification so it is almost a microscope. It goes
> almost without saying that Nikon has nothing that can even compare to
> this lens. So sad.
>
> Of course, having all that magnification brings with it some drawbacks.
> The focusing distance is only a few inches (or less) from the lens.
> The DOF is almost nil.
> And keeping the damn thing steady is going to present quite a
> challenge, even for steady old me. But I did get a new tripod ring out
> of the deal which I can also use to replace my broken one on the Super
> 70-200 f/2.8L. Who Rules?
>
> Canon recommends using the lens with one of their (expensive)
> lens-mounted flashes like the Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX or the Macro Twin
> Lite MT-24EX, and I can see why. The effective aperture goes to f/16.8
> (at 5x) when the camera reads f/2.8 so there is tremendous light
> falloff with this lens. I love how they put it in the manual:
>
> "This does not cause exposure problems for normal picture-taking (the
> MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x lens cannot take normal pictures)."
>
> Hey, I love it already!
>
> Also, at the close focusing distances you need, the lens itself blocks
> much of the ambient light. Looks like I'll be using my off-camera shoe
> cord with the 550EX.
>
> Here are a few early samples I took with the lens today.
> The first is a pic of the letters on the edge of my Compact Flash card.
> You know how thin these cards are, right? Well the letters in this
> pic are about half the thickness of the card.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777969/original
>
> The next two shots are closeups of my computer monitors.
> Note the differing patterns between them (maybe someone else can
> explain why).
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777970
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/41777971
>
> Look for more Macro Madness from the Mighty MP-E coming soon!


Hello

Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher


http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=880342

Mike Engles
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

paul wrote:
>
> Mike Engles wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
> >
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=880342
>
> Amazing stuff:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2427178


Hello

In the past Olympus had one of the best macro systems available.
This is with a OM4 a 65-115 extension tube, a 38 mm lens and TTL Flash,
on Kodachrome. Magnification is about what the Canon PE does. I took
this many years ago.

http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/AntsAphids....

For anyone interested, here is the setup I used, with a home made
flash extension. I also have a ring flash, but rarely used it, lighting
is very 'flat'. This setup can simulate the angle of the sun. There is
more than enough light for f16, but one has to be aware of diffraction
problems, so f11 is best.
Closest focussing is about 50mm

http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Macro.jpg

Mike Engles
April 9, 2005 1:59:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
> paul wrote:
>>
>> Mike Engles wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
>> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
>> >
>
> Mike Engles
--------
Mike...
Is it necessary to kill the insects before photographing them? Some time ago
my mentor had an amazing collection of butterfly photos. He killed ever last
one of them claiming it was the only way to keep them still long enough to
get a clear photo.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Douglas wrote:
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
> > paul wrote:
> >>
> >> Mike Engles wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello
> >> >
> >> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
> >> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
> >> >
> >
> > Mike Engles
> --------
> Mike...
> Is it necessary to kill the insects before photographing them? Some time ago
> my mentor had an amazing collection of butterfly photos. He killed ever last
> one of them claiming it was the only way to keep them still long enough to
> get a clear photo.
>
> Douglas


Hello

It is never necessary. Photographing a live insect is the challenge.
When I did macro on film, I would be extremely lucky if I got ONE
perfect image out of a 36 exp roll.A lot of the time I just threw the
whole film in the bin. The advantage with digital is that you can see if
you have a perfect image, using the review.

http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Hoverfly.jp...

This one was alive!

Mike Engles
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:11:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
> Douglas wrote:

I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them sluggish
(no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:22:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
> > Douglas wrote:
>
> I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them sluggish
> (no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.


Hello

But by the time you have put them in a natural looking setting,they will
have warmed up and flown away. Just study the behaviour of the animals
and you will be able to photograph them in the wild.

You can encourage insects to come to you. I used to put a tall stick
next to the pond. Dragonflies love to have a high vantage point an will
use one if you give them one.

Mike Engles
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 4:59:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:jLO5e.2760$mV1.1328@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
>> Douglas wrote:
>
> I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them
> sluggish (no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.

That works with children too.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:30:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:u6qdnXG57Mp7lMXfRVn-gg@speakeasy.net...
>
> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
> news:jLO5e.2760$mV1.1328@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
>>> Douglas wrote:
>>
>> I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them
>> sluggish (no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.
>
> That works with children too.

LOL! ;P
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:30:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4257C91D.6093@btinternet.com...
> ian lincoln wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
>> > Douglas wrote:
>>
>> I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them
>> sluggish
>> (no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.
>
>
> Hello
>
> But by the time you have put them in a natural looking setting,they will
> have warmed up and flown away.

super glue.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:27:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Cynicor wrote:
> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
> news:jLO5e.2760$mV1.1328@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
>>
>>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them
>>sluggish (no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.
>
>
> That works with children too.
>

Looking forward to trying that one...
: )
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Nice shot!

Was it using same setup?
Are these kind of flies standing "still" in the air for a limited time
periode? ........else I would say it was not
possible to catch a flying flie.....

Max

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
> Douglas wrote:
>>
>> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
>> > paul wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mike Engles wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hello
>> >> >
>> >> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
>> >> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Mike Engles
>> --------
>> Mike...
>> Is it necessary to kill the insects before photographing them? Some time
>> ago
>> my mentor had an amazing collection of butterfly photos. He killed ever
>> last
>> one of them claiming it was the only way to keep them still long enough
>> to
>> get a clear photo.
>>
>> Douglas
>
>
> Hello
>
> It is never necessary. Photographing a live insect is the challenge.
> When I did macro on film, I would be extremely lucky if I got ONE
> perfect image out of a 36 exp roll.A lot of the time I just threw the
> whole film in the bin. The advantage with digital is that you can see if
> you have a perfect image, using the review.
>
> http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Hoverfly.jp...
>
> This one was alive!
>
> Mike Engles
April 10, 2005 3:02:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

MXP wrote:

> "Mike Engles" wrote:
>
>>
>>It is never necessary. Photographing a live insect is the challenge.
>>When I did macro on film, I would be extremely lucky if I got ONE
>>perfect image out of a 36 exp roll.A lot of the time I just threw the
>>whole film in the bin. The advantage with digital is that you can see if
>>you have a perfect image, using the review.
>>
>>http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Hoverfly.jp...
>>
>>This one was alive!
>>

> Nice shot!
>
> Was it using same setup?
> Are these kind of flies standing "still" in the air for a limited time
> periode? ........else I would say it was not
> possible to catch a flying flie.....


Yeah, that's why they are called hover flies. Still an awesome shot though!
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:43:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

MXP wrote:

> Nice shot!
>
> Was it using same setup?
> Are these kind of flies standing "still" in the air for a limited time
> periode? ........else I would say it was not
> possible to catch a flying flie.....

Chasseur D'Images, about a year ago, had an article on nothing but
flying insects caught on macro. Fantastic shots.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:45:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

MXP wrote:
> Nice shot!
>
> Was it using same setup?
> Are these kind of flies standing "still" in the air for a limited time
> periode? ........else I would say it was not
> possible to catch a flying flie.....
>
> Max
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
>
>>Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
>>>
>>>>paul wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mike Engles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
>>>>>>Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mike Engles
>>>
>>>--------
>>>Mike...
>>>Is it necessary to kill the insects before photographing them? Some time
>>>ago
>>>my mentor had an amazing collection of butterfly photos. He killed ever
>>>last
>>>one of them claiming it was the only way to keep them still long enough
>>>to
>>>get a clear photo.
>>>
>>>Douglas
>>
>>
>>Hello
>>
>>It is never necessary. Photographing a live insect is the challenge.
>>When I did macro on film, I would be extremely lucky if I got ONE
>>perfect image out of a 36 exp roll.A lot of the time I just threw the
>>whole film in the bin. The advantage with digital is that you can see if
>>you have a perfect image, using the review.
>>
>>http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Hoverfly.jp...
>>
>>This one was alive!
>>
>>Mike Engles
>
>
>
Awww, he didn't stop the wings. Grin.
Nice shot anyway.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:26:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:rQb6e.591$wl6.78441@weber.videotron.net...
> MXP wrote:
>
>> Nice shot!
>>
>> Was it using same setup?
>> Are these kind of flies standing "still" in the air for a limited time
>> periode? ........else I would say it was not
>> possible to catch a flying flie.....
>
> Chasseur D'Images, about a year ago, had an article on nothing but flying
> insects caught on macro. Fantastic shots.
>

Was some very sophisticated equipment used? .....a broken light ray which
triggers the
camera or other kind of technology?

Max

> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:26:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

MXP wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> skrev i en meddelelse

>>Chasseur D'Images, about a year ago, had an article on nothing but flying
>>insects caught on macro. Fantastic shots.
>>
>
>
> Was some very sophisticated equipment used? .....a broken light ray which
> triggers the
> camera or other kind of technology?

Part I is he attached two stiff wires (like clothes hanger wire) to the
camera (via the quick release plate) and these stuck out and bent into
"L" shapes at the plane of focus (several inches in front of the lens).
Whenever a bug flew in there, he would trip the shutter (with flashes).

Part II was, as you suggest, the development of an array of tripping
devices and an enclosed enviroment (complete to natural looking
backgrounds). This was so he could capture a particular spieces and
then photograph it in a more controlled manner. This system was just
coming together at the time of the article.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:26:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

(Annika1980) wrote:
>Well sports fans, the day has arrived!
>I have finally obtained the famous Canon
> 65mm MP-E Macro lens that I have
>been coveting for some time.

Did you see vikings when you placed the order?

>I plan to take lots of cool macro shots
>with this beauty.

There is a cool two page spread, fly portrait in Popular Photography
Magazine, that was taken on a D30 and lit with a Sigma EF-500 Super
flash.




Cody,

You will never possess what you are unwilling to pursue.

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyL...
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:16:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

MXP wrote:
>
> Nice shot!
>
> Was it using same setup?
> Are these kind of flies standing "still" in the air for a limited time
> periode? ........else I would say it was not
> possible to catch a flying flie.....
>
> Max
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
> > Douglas wrote:
> >>
> >> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
> >> > paul wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike Engles wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hello
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
> >> >> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Mike Engles
> >> --------
> >> Mike...
> >> Is it necessary to kill the insects before photographing them? Some time
> >> ago
> >> my mentor had an amazing collection of butterfly photos. He killed ever
> >> last
> >> one of them claiming it was the only way to keep them still long enough
> >> to
> >> get a clear photo.
> >>
> >> Douglas
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > It is never necessary. Photographing a live insect is the challenge.
> > When I did macro on film, I would be extremely lucky if I got ONE
> > perfect image out of a 36 exp roll.A lot of the time I just threw the
> > whole film in the bin. The advantage with digital is that you can see if
> > you have a perfect image, using the review.
> >
> > http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Hoverfly.jp...
> >
> > This one was alive!
> >
> > Mike Engles


Hello

The are called hoverflies. The mimic bees and hover in the air, but are
rarely totally still.

Mike Engles
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:19:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4257C91D.6093@btinternet.com...
> > ian lincoln wrote:
> >>
> >> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4257ABA7.7EF0@btinternet.com...
> >> > Douglas wrote:
> >>
> >> I have heard of putting them in the fridge of freezer to make them
> >> sluggish
> >> (no pun intended) and make them easier to shoot.
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > But by the time you have put them in a natural looking setting,they will
> > have warmed up and flown away.
>
> super glue.


Hello

You will most probably end up glued to the insect and have no free hands
to hold the camera.

Mike Engles
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:57:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:16:57 +0000, Mike Engles wrote:

> It is never necessary. Photographing a live insect is the challenge.
> When I did macro on film, I would be extremely lucky if I got ONE
> perfect image out of a 36 exp roll.A lot of the time I just threw the
> whole film in the bin. The advantage with digital is that you can see if
> you have a perfect image, using the review.
>
> http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Hoverfly.jp...
>
> This one was alive!

Wow! That's impressive! It's wallpaper on my PC now!

--
The good old days start now.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:30:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht
news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
> paul wrote:
>>
>> Mike Engles wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
>> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=880342
>>
>> Amazing stuff:
>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2427178
>
>
> Hello
>
> In the past Olympus had one of the best macro systems available.
> This is with a OM4 a 65-115 extension tube, a 38 mm lens and TTL Flash,
> on Kodachrome. Magnification is about what the Canon PE does. I took
> this many years ago.
>
>> Mike Engles

Superb photo's Mike,
Still using Om system with loose flashe(s).
These photo's give me again the spirit to go further with macro.
greetings, Gijs
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:30:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Gijs Rietveld" <gigagys@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:425dabac$0$42476$e4fe514c@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht
> news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
>> paul wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike Engles wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello
>>> >
>>> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
>>> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=880342
>>>
>>> Amazing stuff:
>>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2427178
>>
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> In the past Olympus had one of the best macro systems available.
>> This is with a OM4 a 65-115 extension tube, a 38 mm lens and TTL Flash,
>> on Kodachrome. Magnification is about what the Canon PE does. I took
>> this many years ago.
>>
>>> Mike Engles
>
> Superb photo's Mike,
> Still using Om system with loose flashe(s).
> These photo's give me again the spirit to go further with macro.
> greetings, Gijs
>
>
I notice that most macro shots like these (of insects) have very shallow
depth of field. Is there any way to improve this? Would a much smaller
aperture yield a greater depth of field as it would with a normal lens?
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 6:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In message <ms-dnXOapuVBL8DfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>I notice that most macro shots like these (of insects) have very shallow
>depth of field. Is there any way to improve this? Would a much smaller
>aperture yield a greater depth of field as it would with a normal lens?

It would, but the compromises can be pretty steep.

Firstly, the 1/focal_length rule for hand-holdability goes down the
drain with Macro - the rule only applies, literally, at infinity. The
real limit concerning hand-hold-ability is *magnification* of the
subject, not the focal length of the lens (which, BTW is stated for
infinity focus). The "rule" was coined for non-macro situations, where
the subject is close enough to infinity that magnification is roughly
proportional to stated "focal length". For an extreme close-up, you
might need 1/500s for a 50mm macro lens! This means that there might
not be enough light to do a motion-blur-free exposure with a large DOF.
Also, even the highest f-stop a lens can provide may have a very shallow
DOF for extreme close-ups, as DOF is inversely related to magnification,
for any given f-stop.

Secondly, the smaller the aperture, the more refracted light (off of the
edges of the aperture blades) compromises the total exposure, making the
maximum sharpness possible in the image lower.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:58:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ms-dnXOapuVBL8DfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
SNIP
> I notice that most macro shots like these (of insects) have very
> shallow depth of field. Is there any way to improve this?

One could use a smaller sensor/film which, with appropriate shorter
focal length, exhibits more depth of field. Of course there is an
image quality decrease due to grain/noise when magnifying to output
size, but that's a trade-off like this 5mm spider:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Araniella_cucurbitin...;
Good enough for on screen display but a bit limited for large print.

Another possibility comes with a lot of postprocessing when one stacks
and blends different layers of the same motionless subject with
different focus settings per image. That allows to combine the
sharpest parts from different images, but getting them to register is
not that simple.

> Would a much smaller aperture yield a greater depth of field as it
> would with a normal lens?

If the aperture gets too small, image quality will deteriorate due to
diffraction. Again it's a trade-off.

Bart
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:59:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:425eafa7$0$149$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ms-dnXOapuVBL8DfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
> SNIP
>> I notice that most macro shots like these (of insects) have very shallow
>> depth of field. Is there any way to improve this?
>
> One could use a smaller sensor/film which, with appropriate shorter focal
> length, exhibits more depth of field. Of course there is an image quality
> decrease due to grain/noise when magnifying to output size, but that's a
> trade-off like this 5mm spider:
> <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Araniella_cucurbitin...;
> Good enough for on screen display but a bit limited for large print.
>
> Another possibility comes with a lot of postprocessing when one stacks and
> blends different layers of the same motionless subject with different
> focus settings per image. That allows to combine the sharpest parts from
> different images, but getting them to register is not that simple.
>
>> Would a much smaller aperture yield a greater depth of field as it would
>> with a normal lens?
>
> If the aperture gets too small, image quality will deteriorate due to
> diffraction. Again it's a trade-off.
>
> Bart
Thanks for the information, guys.....I guess the primary rule of photography
can be summed up in the words, "It's a trade off"......
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 1:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
>
> "Gijs Rietveld" <gigagys@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:425dabac$0$42476$e4fe514c@dreader6.news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:4256F834.1864@btinternet.com...
> >> paul wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Mike Engles wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Hello
> >>> >
> >>> > Have a look what this chap does with this lens.
> >>> > Also with the cropping factor,the magnification is higher
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=880342
> >>>
> >>> Amazing stuff:
> >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2427178
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> In the past Olympus had one of the best macro systems available.
> >> This is with a OM4 a 65-115 extension tube, a 38 mm lens and TTL Flash,
> >> on Kodachrome. Magnification is about what the Canon PE does. I took
> >> this many years ago.
> >>
> >>> Mike Engles
> >
> > Superb photo's Mike,
> > Still using Om system with loose flashe(s).
> > These photo's give me again the spirit to go further with macro.
> > greetings, Gijs
> >
> >
> I notice that most macro shots like these (of insects) have very shallow
> depth of field. Is there any way to improve this? Would a much smaller
> aperture yield a greater depth of field as it would with a normal lens?


Hello

I took that many years ago. I am a bit too shaky now. I still use the
OM, but the film use is very wasteful. I keep thinking of buying a DSLR,
but, I cannot make up my mind. This Canon lens would be a reason to buy
Canon.

As for depth of field, there is a limit at f16. After that problems with
difraction, can reduce the sharpness.

Mike Engles
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:57:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:425EDDCC.76B6@btinternet.com...
SNIP
> I keep thinking of buying a DSLR, but, I cannot make up my
> mind. This Canon lens would be a reason to buy Canon.

Unless you're into microphotography (mostly flat subjects), I'd
suggest getting an EF 100mm f/2.8 Marcro (still reasonably affordable
for an excellent lens) for general usability *and* macro work (up to
1:1 without accessories). You can always extend its magnification with
a good (multiple element) close-up diopter lens (the diopter doesn't
lose as much light) if you need that.

Bart
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:12:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:425EDDCC.76B6@btinternet.com...
> SNIP
> > I keep thinking of buying a DSLR, but, I cannot make up my
> > mind. This Canon lens would be a reason to buy Canon.
>
> Unless you're into microphotography (mostly flat subjects), I'd
> suggest getting an EF 100mm f/2.8 Marcro (still reasonably affordable
> for an excellent lens) for general usability *and* macro work (up to
> 1:1 without accessories). You can always extend its magnification with
> a good (multiple element) close-up diopter lens (the diopter doesn't
> lose as much light) if you need that.
>
> Bart


Hello

You do have a point, but I do like high magnification, especially like
the ones that Krister Hall has taken and the ones I take using my
Olympus 38 mm, with the variable extension tube.

Mike Engles
!