Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BUGGED OUT BY THE 20D !!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 10:17:03 PM

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

Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181

More about : bugged 20d

April 15, 2005 10:55:40 PM

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

Annika1980 wrote:

> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181


Jesus.

That's with mirror lockup on a tripod I assume. Did you have to freeze
the poor thing? You must have been half an inch away for 65mm??? How'd
you get it to land in front of the tripod? Does the f/stop go above 11
and is it worth using?


grrrrr
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:49:00 AM

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

> http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110181



Jesus.

That's with mirror lockup on a tripod I assume. Did you have to freeze
the poor thing? You must have been half an inch away for 65mm??? How'd
you get it to land in front of the tripod? Does the f/stop go above 11
and is it worth using?
-----------------------------------

No, those were taken handheld without mirror lockup.
The MP-E lens doesn't focus the way most lenses do.
You rack it out to increase the magnification from 1x up to 5x.
Focus is achieved by moving the lens closer or farther away from the
subject, which has proven quite challenging so far with bugs that
usually fly away when you put a lens 1" from them.
And since I have to move the camera, using a tripod is kinda tough
without a special mount.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:15:20 AM

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

At 1/250 you shouldn't need MLU. Just a good tripod and enough light!

Gregor

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:eq2dnf97eqMA7f3fRVn-oA@speakeasy.net...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181
>
>
> Jesus.
>
> That's with mirror lockup on a tripod I assume. Did you have to freeze the
> poor thing? You must have been half an inch away for 65mm??? How'd you get
> it to land in front of the tripod? Does the f/stop go above 11 and is it
> worth using?
>
>
> grrrrr
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 9:53:51 AM

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

Amazing.....
Can you tell us what it is under the title "Can you guess what this
is?"
Is it a wishies from a dandelion?
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 4:42:27 PM

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

In message <Yy_7e.2824$t85.2542@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>At 1/250 you shouldn't need MLU. Just a good tripod and enough light!

The 1/focal_length rule is for infinity focus. You could need as much
as 0.1/focal_length for macro.

The shutter speed needed to avoid shaking-blur is not really related to
focal length; it is related to magnification, and it is just a
coincidence that that most subjects are usually far enough away from the
camera that magnification is proportional to focal length.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 6:24:00 PM

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

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180

Holy cow! Flipping amazing! Great work!

> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181

Presumably this is a crop from the second one? You really need a scanning
electron microscope for this sort of magnification.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 1:50:07 AM

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

With any decent SLR, at 1/250 you do not need a MLU. I tried subjects as
close as 0.2mm from the microscope lens successfully without MLU. The rules
you're postulating are for tripod vs. non-tripod. Vibration induction from
mirror slap is a completely different subject.



BTW, for most DSLR's you should also include the cropping factor in your
equation and not just the focal length of your lens. It would then read 1/
(f * cropping factor) not just 1/f.



Gregor



<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:qo1261hsqnmia2r1qtg7j03mgffppmpmh9@4ax.com...
> In message <Yy_7e.2824$t85.2542@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>At 1/250 you shouldn't need MLU. Just a good tripod and enough light!
>
> The 1/focal_length rule is for infinity focus. You could need as much
> as 0.1/focal_length for macro.
>
> The shutter speed needed to avoid shaking-blur is not really related to
> focal length; it is related to magnification, and it is just a
> coincidence that that most subjects are usually far enough away from the
> camera that magnification is proportional to focal length.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:09:20 AM

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

Annika1980 wrote:
>
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110182/original
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110180
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/imag­e/42110181
>
> Jesus.
>
> That's with mirror lockup on a tripod I assume. Did you have to freeze
> the poor thing? You must have been half an inch away for 65mm??? How'd
> you get it to land in front of the tripod? Does the f/stop go above 11
> and is it worth using?
> -----------------------------------
>
> No, those were taken handheld without mirror lockup.
> The MP-E lens doesn't focus the way most lenses do.
> You rack it out to increase the magnification from 1x up to 5x.
> Focus is achieved by moving the lens closer or farther away from the
> subject, which has proven quite challenging so far with bugs that
> usually fly away when you put a lens 1" from them.
> And since I have to move the camera, using a tripod is kinda tough
> without a special mount.

Hello

Try a shoulder stock arrangement, that way you can brace the camera more
effectively against your body.

Mike Engles
April 17, 2005 2:09:21 AM

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

Mike Engles wrote:
>
> Try a shoulder stock arrangement, that way you can brace the camera more
> effectively against your body.


How does that work like a rifle?
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:54:10 AM

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

In message <jMf8e.5644$t85.1925@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>With any decent SLR, at 1/250 you do not need a MLU. I tried subjects as
>close as 0.2mm from the microscope lens successfully without MLU. The rules
>you're postulating are for tripod vs. non-tripod. Vibration induction from
>mirror slap is a completely different subject.

Yes. I thought I saw a post that said that 1/250 wasn't needed, and I
thought I was replying to it, but apparently, I was hallucinating.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:11:39 AM

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

Damn!

That lens looks to be a load of fun. For me, I'm reversing a Pentax 50mm
f1.7 on the Canon 50mm 1.8 II. I get high mag. Illumination is not even and
perhap not as sharp.

A dirt cheap setup is to buy 2 EOS 50mm 1.8's for $150, get a reversing ring
for another $20 (?) and enjoy.

John

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113614222.890260.163600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181
>
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 5:56:57 AM

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

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:fJi8e.591967$w62.584031@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Damn!
>
> That lens looks to be a load of fun. For me, I'm reversing a Pentax 50mm
> f1.7 on the Canon 50mm 1.8 II. I get high mag. Illumination is not even
> and perhap not as sharp.
>
> A dirt cheap setup is to buy 2 EOS 50mm 1.8's for $150, get a reversing
> ring for another $20 (?) and enjoy.
>
> John
>
BTW, here is a central crop of a shot using the Canon 50mm 1.8 with the
Pentax reversed on it. Hand held, ISO 800, dRebel
http://home.att.net/~jriegle/revmacro.jpg
Not a bad alternative if you can't afford that Canon $800 macro lens.
John
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 8:00:18 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:lbl8e.2953$_t3.2242@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Those are fantastic shots, Bret!

They sure are.

Cathy

> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1113614222.890260.163600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Took these today with the Magical MP-E Macro:
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110182/original
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110180
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42110181
!