Macro Photo thread

[DibblyDobbler]

Ed_P said:

I would guess St Mark's Fly (or something related). They tend to start emerging in late April (around St Mark's Day) and are on the wing into May. Tend to fly with their legs hanging down. Important pollinators apparently.

Thanks Ed - yes I believe you are right

[Boring_Chris]

Bloody awful creatures, but my second (reasonably successful) attempt at capturing an insect!

(any advice welcome!)

Fly2 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

I know I've gone a little over the top with the editing on this one...

Fly1 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

[ddarno]

Anyone know what this is? Probably common...I just don't have a clue what to Google for to ID it.

Beetle of some sort by David Arnold, on Flickr


Large Red Damselfly by David Arnold, on Flickr


Bug of some sort by David Arnold, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

Got my RX10iii going with macro now - seems to do this very well also!



Sony RX10iii Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

Another macro shot - I would say it's pretty good but not great (in comparison with what you could get with a prime) comments welcome


Sony RX10iii Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[rich888]

DibblyDobbler said:

Another macro shot - I would say it's pretty good but not great (in comparison with what you could get with a prime) comments welcome


Sony RX10iii Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Very very impressive if you don't mind me saying, though that fly could do with having a shave

Did you use the Raynox on the front of the lens or just rely on the inbuilt macro facility on the RX10 MK3?

[DibblyDobbler]

rich888 said:

Very very impressive if you don't mind me saying, though that fly could do with having a shave

Did you use the Raynox on the front of the lens or just rely on the inbuilt macro facility on the RX10 MK3?

Cheers Rich - yes I mounted the Raynox 150 for this one. Can't decide if I'm happy with it or not! It's definitely decent but lacking a bit of resolution compared to my other rig (Canon 760 + 100mm prime).

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

rich888 said:

Very very impressive if you don't mind me saying, though that fly could do with having a shave

Did you use the Raynox on the front of the lens or just rely on the inbuilt macro facility on the RX10 MK3?

Cheers Rich - yes I mounted the Raynox 150 for this one. Can't decide if I'm happy with it or not! It's definitely decent but lacking a bit of resolution compared to my other rig (Canon 760 + 100mm prime).

I've been trying to think of a witty comment about the Sony - but totally failed.

I think for the macro work it's probably pushing the lens somewhat to go to full zoom and f16 when very fine detail is required. And the Raynox may be slightly augmenting the effect og the limitations that must surely exist in the lens at that level - good as it is for its type.

I think I spotted a touch of purple fringing as well. No great surprise for that sort of set up other than it seems well controlled BUT it would certainly contrive to take a bit more of the edge off absolute resolution. Bear in mind that there is every possibility that the lens design relies on a lot of help from software in processing and I doubt the Raynox will have been considered in that mix.

That said your sparrow shot was mighty impressive for detail.

I read the write up for the camera on DPReview and downloaded some of the more challenging RAW files, running them through Capture One (Sony's RAW converter of choice) and the ability to make something more than decent from some of the most difficult lighting situations (should one wish to do so) was remarkable. I'm not sure it would tempt me to dive in and buy one but, as the owner of a 600mm lens that never goes anywhere with a car to carry it, I can fully understand why people would find the compactness attractive and the results very acceptable for the money.

[rich888]

Boring_Chris said:

Bloody awful creatures, but my second (reasonably successful) attempt at capturing an insect!

(any advice welcome!)

Fly2 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

I know I've gone a little over the top with the editing on this one...

Fly1 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

Very impressive for your 2nd attempt, I'm still binning most of my macro pics despite tinkering around in the macro world for several months despite using a variety of cameras, lenses and macro add-ons and tons of advice on here as to how to go about taking macro photos of fast moving insects.

Your first pic always reminds me of the film 'Gremlins' so you're obviously doing something right - keep up the good work

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

I think for the macro work it's probably pushing the lens somewhat to go to full zoom and f16 when very fine detail is required. And the Raynox may be slightly augmenting the effect og the limitations that must surely exist in the lens at that level - good as it is for its type.

Yes agreed. I have bought a 72mm Marumi diopter to replace the Raynox (which needs the longer focal length to avoid vignetting) so I should be able to shoot at shorter focal lengths and perhaps open the lens up a bit also might help.

LongQ said:

I think I spotted a touch of purple fringing as well. No great surprise for that sort of set up other than it seems well controlled BUT it would certainly contrive to take a bit more of the edge off absolute resolution. Bear in mind that there is every possibility that the lens design relies on a lot of help from software in processing and I doubt the Raynox will have been considered in that mix.

Agreed again with all of that. The Marumi is supposed to be a more complex optical design so we'll see how it performs.

LongQ said:

That said your sparrow shot was mighty impressive for detail.

Good to hear it! I was dead chuffed with it I must admit

LongQ said:

I read the write up for the camera on DPReview and downloaded some of the more challenging RAW files, running them through Capture One (Sony's RAW converter of choice) and the ability to make something more than decent from some of the most difficult lighting situations (should one wish to do so) was remarkable. I'm not sure it would tempt me to dive in and buy one but, as the owner of a 600mm lens that never goes anywhere with a car to carry it, I can fully understand why people would find the compactness attractive and the results very acceptable for the money.

I don't think I will but I'm not a million miles away from just saying f*ck it and selling everything I've got other than the Sony - it can do everything 80-90% as well as the dedicated lenses.

I've ended up partially moved over to Fuji - with my macro rig still Canon - then the new kid on the block (RX10iii) is now threatening to knock both of them for six! If Fuji would get their fingers out and produce a decent macro lens I would at least be able to sell the Canon stuff but at the moment I'm stuck with 3 systems.

[Top Banana]

these are more 'close up' rather than full macro, as I only had my trusty Tamron 70-200 F2.8 to hand....

dragonfly by jon bawden, on Flickr

dragonfly by jon bawden, on Flickr

dragonfly by jon bawden, on Flickr

[ExPat2B]

Nature red in tooth and claw, a jumping spider devouring a fly, and a massive ( as long as your finger ) Hornet catching and eating a bee.

Jumping_Spider_Eating_Fly by Nature Ist, on Flickr


Hornet_Eating_Bee by Nature Ist, on Flickr

[DibblyDobbler]

That Hornet is fab

[DibblyDobbler]

Back to the Canon 760D + 100mm + MT24-ex - the Sony is good but to me these are in a different league. To be expected I guess

Damselfly by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Damselfly by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Striped Hoverfly by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[Boring_Chris]

rich888 said:

Boring_Chris said:

Bloody awful creatures, but my second (reasonably successful) attempt at capturing an insect!

(any advice welcome!)

Fly2 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

I know I've gone a little over the top with the editing on this one...

Fly1 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

Very impressive for your 2nd attempt, I'm still binning most of my macro pics despite tinkering around in the macro world for several months despite using a variety of cameras, lenses and macro add-ons and tons of advice on here as to how to go about taking macro photos of fast moving insects.

Your first pic always reminds me of the film 'Gremlins' so you're obviously doing something right - keep up the good work

Thanks mate : )

[DibblyDobbler]

Couple from the weekend shot with Canon 760D + 100mm + Raynox 150 + MT24-ex


Snipe Fly by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Marsh Fly by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Fly Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Edited by DibblyDobbler on Monday 20th June 19:28

[LongQ]

Not bad DD.

Considering ....

In fact I think the overall balance of result vs requirement and potential investment for the function seem more than adequate.

The lens combo is clearly an influence but I think the lighting set up is the key to the results. It just looks "right".

Bravo.

[DibblyDobbler]

LongQ said:

Not bad DD.

Considering ....

In fact I think the overall balance of result vs requirement and potential investment for the function seem more than adequate.

The lens combo is clearly an influence but I think the lighting set up is the key to the results. It just looks "right".

Bravo.

Thanks!

Yes agreed - lighting is definitely the key. Took me a year or two to get it right - Mt24 on its own is way too harsh and I have 3 separate layers of diffusers

[DibblyDobbler]

My best so far with the Sony RX10 + MT24ex + new Marumi +5 Achromat (similar idea to the Raynox 150)

Bee by Mike Smith, on Flickr

[Boring_Chris]

Was (un)lucky to be in London this week and stumbled into the Natural History Museums butterfly exhibition. To think I sniffed at the price of entry, and it turned out to be a highlight of the trip!

(un)lucky because I was only there after my car broke down on the way to France!

_MG_0826 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

_MG_0823 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

_MG_0811 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

_MG_0838 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr

_MG_0847 by chris_obrien1982, on Flickr



_MG_0678 by chris_obrien1982, disclaimer; the above is not a butterfly. It's a frog.

_MG_0658 by chris_obrien1982, another disclaimer; that's an ant.

Edited by Boring_Chris on Friday 24th June 22:45

Edited by Boring_Chris on Friday 24th June 22:50