20D: IT'S BEE-AUTFUL !!!

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

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42351510
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42351511
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42351512

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

>I don't think that is a bumble bee, I think it's a carpenter bee.

So noted. Thanks.

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

Nice! Was that 100% crop on the first one? Also, does the exif data
on the
page not take into account the 1.6x mag factor of your 20D? The site
page
says 400mm but is it not really 640mm?
------------------

The first one was a 50% crop. And no, the EXIF data only knows what
lens is used.

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

>You're sure having fun with your macro, Bret - which lens is that?

That one was the 400 f/5.6L, not the macro.
The little buzzers wouldn't let me get close enough (< 4" )
to use the MP-E.

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

Chris D wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2005 12:25:54 -0700
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>You're sure having fun with your macro, Bret - which lens is
>>>that?
>>
>>That one was the 400 f/5.6L, not the macro.
>>The little buzzers wouldn't let me get close enough (< 4" )
>>to use the MP-E.
>
>
> If you can find a hive around dusk, then they can be quite
> placid, and let you get pretty close (4" might be
> pushing it though - how fast can you run?!)- I Managed to take
> some snaps (Not nearly as nice as yours) from about 1.5 - 2'
> away from a wild hive on dusk, with flash, without bothering
> them at all. I Moved back pretty quick first time flash went
> off, but it didn't bother them, so I just moved in again and
> kept snapping, they didn't really care.
>
> http://www.riverland.net.au/~dicko [...] nghome.jpg
> http://www.riverland.net.au/~dicko [...] home-1.jpg


Yikes, don't try that with yellowjackets! They'll let you get 12-6 feet
from the nest then attack. Most bees are really easy going though in a
busy garden or meadow they are hard at work with plenty of food. Some
species don't sit still though.

These Hoverflys are my bee macro contribution for today:
(no stinger)
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-21-bees&PG=1&PIC=3>
Full sized crops in the subgallery though they are not super sharp.
70-200 f/2.8 VR lens on a D70 at ISO 400 with 2x teleconverter & +2
diopter (2-element). I'd be happy with it if not for Annika's fly eyes!

This is the best I could do on my 3MP oly:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/Insects/2004-05-06-bee&PG=1&PIC=3>
Not bad but those are full pixel crops for web & now I can print 8x10's

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

paul wrote:

> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-21-bees&PG=1&PIC=3>
> Full sized crops in the subgallery though they are not super sharp.
> 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens on a D70 at ISO 400 with 2x teleconverter & +2
> diopter (2-element). I'd be happy with it if not for Annika's fly
> eyes!

Nice shots. What was the distance between the lens and the subject? I have
the 70-200 f/2.8 VR as well, but never tried diopters on it. I'm curious if
it will give me more room than the 105mm Micro Nikkor I use for macro?


Rita

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

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-21-bees&PG=1&PIC=3>
>>Full sized crops in the subgallery though they are not super sharp.
>>70-200 f/2.8 VR lens on a D70 at ISO 400 with 2x teleconverter & +2
>>diopter (2-element). I'd be happy with it if not for Annika's fly
>>eyes!
>
>
> Nice shots. What was the distance between the lens and the subject? I have
> the 70-200 f/2.8 VR as well, but never tried diopters on it. I'm curious if
> it will give me more room than the 105mm Micro Nikkor I use for macro?


About 2' from the subject at the closest possible focus, the frame is
1-1/2 inches wide. The short focus range at 200mm brings you back only
another 6 inches where the frame is about 2-1/4" wide.

The 2x teleconverter brings you in to about 3/4 inch wide frame also at
2-feet away at a little better than 1:1 magnification (half that without
the teleconverter). It is crazy difficult to even hold steady enough to
keep the subject in the frame & in focus. I kind of have to jab at the
shutter repeatedly & hope the VR kicks in LOL. Is it like that with the
105 or less shake exaggeration I guess.

My tripod is useless with this setup, maybe I'll have to try setting up
a shot sitting the camera on a beanbag or something to see if I can get
it sharper. I was under the impression that the optics would be real
close with a good diopter, just losing the focus to infinity of a real
macro lens but I've gotten strange effects like this:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/macro-test&PG=1&PIC=5>
Shiny metal.

This is a full size crop of the orange shot:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-21-bees/crop&PG=1&PIC=1>
Not really very sharp at all. I'm not sure why.

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:09:38 -0700
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

> These Hoverflys are my bee macro contribution for today:
> (no stinger)
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area
> /San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-21-bees&PG=1&PIC=3>

Nice!

I've been trying to get some photos of our "Bush Bees", cute
little black n white buggers that we get down here, but the
little buggers zip all over the place, the're faster than a
normal bee, will be hovering in one place, then seem to teleport
to a spot a couple of feet away, without passing through the
space in-between! Very hard to photograph! Especially with a
slow P&S (A95) like I've got

-Chris D

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

In message <lAP9e.15658$m31.145100@typhoon.sonic.net>,
"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote:

>Nice! Was that 100% crop on the first one? Also, does the exif data on the
>page not take into account the 1.6x mag factor of your 20D? The site page
>says 400mm but is it not really 640mm?

A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens no matter what camera it is mounted on.

"Millimeters" are not angular units!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

paul wrote:

> The 2x teleconverter brings you in to about 3/4 inch wide frame also
> at 2-feet away at a little better than 1:1 magnification (half that
> without the teleconverter). It is crazy difficult to even hold steady
> enough to keep the subject in the frame & in focus. I kind of have to
> jab at the shutter repeatedly & hope the VR kicks in LOL. Is it like
> that with the 105 or less shake exaggeration I guess.

The only issue I have with the 105 is the tight DOF that makes it critical
for keeping the distance the same. I primarily use the 105 handheld and try
to be as creative as possible to keep rock steady. If the subject is on the
ground I get down on my knees and elbows and hold my breath while taking the
shot. It can be a challenge at higher stops without a flash. Here are a
couple shots I took under direct sunlight handheld with no flash. The
flower is no bigger than a quarter of an inch.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Flower.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2 [...] wer_01.jpg

> My tripod is useless with this setup, maybe I'll have to try setting
> up a shot sitting the camera on a beanbag or something to see if I
> can get it sharper. I was under the impression that the optics would
> be real close with a good diopter, just losing the focus to infinity
> of a real macro lens but I've gotten strange effects like this:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/macro-test&PG=1&PIC=5>
> Shiny metal.

That's my biggest problem with sharpness as well since I don't carry a
tripod with me. I find that taken an extra shot or two and picking the best
one is easier than hauling a tripod. Sometimes I wished I used the tripod
since I wasted a great shot.

> This is a full size crop of the orange shot:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-21-bees/crop&PG=1&PIC=1>
> Not really very sharp at all. I'm not sure why.

I'll bet you changed distance a fraction of an inch from the subject as you
hit the release.



Rita

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

paul wrote:

> With a teleconverter needed to reach 1:1+ at 400mm the DOF should be
> the same for a given f/stop but I can double the f/stop with the TC
> so maybe it does give more DOF. The TC also loses shutter speed but is OK
> on a
> tripod I guess.

I wondered this myself if you get more DOF with the TC? I'm guessing you
don't since I really can't visibly see any difference with the TC on or off.
If there is a measurable difference it must be so small that it isn't worth
worrying about? I already have the TC-20E II, but I don't have a 77mm
diopter. I'll have to pick one up since this conversation really has
sparked my curiosity.

I'll have to do some side-by-side comparisons with the setup you're using
compared to the 105mm. If I find the end results and ease of use the same
as the 105mm I will leave the 105mm home when I go hiking. The 70-200mm is
always with me and it would be great just to put the diopter in front and
enjoy that setup.

My only real experience with diopters is using them in front of a 50mm f/1.4
and the results were acceptable, but a true macro lens (105mm) blows that
setup away by a mile.

>> I'll bet you changed distance a fraction of an inch from the subject
>> as you hit the release.
>
>
> OK I did some test shots at different apertures with the camera solid
> on the ground using the remote:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-04-22-macro-test>
> Use your enter key to loop through the set & check out the full crop
> sub-galleries. This was a valuable test. f/16 is much better & it
> really makes a difference to get the camera stable (I turned off VR).
> In full sun I got 1/250 at f/16 which would handle a decent amount of
> movement if a bee happened to land on that flower. For smaller print sizes
> f/45
> is useful for adding DOF. f/16 is definitely better than f/8 & f/5.6
> is bad.

You can definitely see the difference. I noticed the slight movement of the
branch, which indicates your setup has an extremely tight DOF. The 105mm is
tight as well. I did some tests with it up to f/32 and shooting at f/11 -
f/16 works best for my needs.



Rita