Went for a walk today as its the first weekend in a few that Ive decided to be "non working" and refuse to do any tidbits of work. It can all wait till the start of next week!
So, 8.5 miles later and Ive filled my memory card up (450ish photos) with pics of dragonflies.
Using a Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 DG Macro lens.
The results are below, and these are my BEST results. I am trying to decide how much of the blur is my ineptitude at photography, and how much is down to the quality of the lens. I mean, it costs ~£70, as opposed to the £200+ "proper" macro lenses.
Im guessing its mostly me as sometimes I do get some good shots, but nearly always when using the lens the end product is slightly out of focus or extremely soft at the least.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2468/3622686424_d0601738c8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622686424/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3637/3622697156_6b4d5296ed.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622697156/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3622696324_ce779363d8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622696324/)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3621875891_1c6e3d6853.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3621875891/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/3622695364_c46ae24635.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622695364/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3622691252_50ea1d8381.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622691252/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3622688698_d3b0624cf3.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622688698/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/3622685378_f0bdda79f8.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3622685378/)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3621872565_10f3fc8827.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/3621872565/)
Theyre still quite good for *just* a £70 lens, if you manage to get yourself a proper macro lens you should be able to get some really good results.
I love the top one and the spider.
Id crop the top one so the insect is in the middle of the frame or crop it so that its long and thin and its at one end of the picture.
I struggle with the whole "rule of 3rds" thing. I either end up whacking the subject bang in the middle, or take it to the extremes ><
Would you guys say that a lot of the softness is due to the lens, and not me? (I wonder as as I said, sometimes I get a really clear picture, but its by total fluke, even when I use a tripod and take a dozen shots of the same stationary thing, 1 out of the set might be clear, the rest really soft!)
Youll pickup the rule of 3rds the longer youve been taking photos. Course the thing is even when you take photos using it the rule doesnt always work so sometimes its easier to break the rule and just take the photo rather than bugger about trying to conform to something that doesnt always work.
I find thats part of macro photography, your bound to get lots that are blurry as you adjust things. One thing that might help is a remote release, got one last year and it helped me get this one.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/3072016906_b07101d615.jpg
But I did read somewhere online recently saying that you shouldnt use a tripod for macro photography but that you just need good light, especially for bugs.
Remote release? as in a remote? How would that work for macro stuff, given that generally you might not be using a tripod and so need both hands to hold the camera?
Put camera on tripod and a remote release will allow you to reduce the impact of pushing the button to an absolute minimum.
Not useful if you are doing it hand held though.
I wouldnt bother too much in macro with thirds, you are after the subject, not the surrounding greenage.
Quote from: zpyderRemote release? as in a remote? How would that work for macro stuff, given that generally you might not be using a tripod and so need both hands to hold the camera?
Yeah I know thats half the point, theres no set way of doing it, anything goes. But mainly if its a static subject, tripod and remote release if it moves then so do you.
Thats one of the reasons I went for a monopod, its not as clumsy to carry as a tripod and its not too bad at steadying the camera.
I was using one for some of the shots. The problem with this lens is that it seems to soft focus things even with a tripod a lot of the time :(
what aperture were you using Zpyder? its hard to tell sharpness from small versions on the forum, but the one which looks to me most "unsharp" is the 3rd one. Given that some of the shots appear to be quite acceptable (the 4th one looks good), Id suggest the following possibilities:
1. Consumer grade long zooms like this one tend to be soft wide open, particularly at the long end. This is made worse by the close focus which really stretches the capabilities of the glass. Keep the lens stopped down to about F8 if you can and you should see an improvement.
2. Focusing at macro distances is critical, and its very easy to drift off once you have acquired focus.
good pics by the way, I have a soft spot for closeups of butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies and the like.
Cheers mongoose.
The pictures should link to the flickr pictures, which also have the full sized ones available. Im not sure what aperture they were, but think they were all mostly around thr 5.6 mark.
I think for what I want a 100mm macro lens would be useful, though really a 200mm lens would be better as generally my subject is either botanical or entomological, or both. And quite often if its a plant its in a place that wont allow me to get close!
trouble is 200mm Macros are serious money, Sigma make one at the "budget" end of the ~200mm macro market, I think its about £800!! The Pentax FA 200mm Macro is supposed to be the best macro ever made by anyone, but they are rare as hens teeth and if Sir has to ask the price, Sir cannot afford it.
My weapon of choice in this arena is a Tamron 90mm macro for which I have a matched 2x converter to give me 180mm when I need it. £50 second hand, although EOS adaptall mounts are rather hard to come by so may not be such a good option for you.
Definitely keep an eye out for a ~100mm macro though, I dont think a bad one has ever been made. Even the rather plastic Cosina 100mm F3.5 macro has good glass, it just looks and feels plastic.
a 90mm would make a reasonable portrait lens too, although slightly long for the smaller digital sensors.
The shorter lens is probably going to have a better f number, meaning faster exposures and possibly less blur. You might need to get a bit closer to the subject but it wont amplify any movements you put in anywhere near as much.
yes my 90mm serves nicely for head and shoulders portraits or candids from a distance. I dont do people photography much but when I do it comes in handy.
Its so sharp that I can crop right down to ~2MP out of the centre of my 10MP camera and still get a decent image, which makes it good for those events where long lenses are impractical. I took it to a hockey game a couple of years ago where long lenses were not allowed but the 90mm went unnoticed.
Quote from: zpyderCheers mongoose.
The pictures should link to the flickr pictures, which also have the full sized ones available. Im not sure what aperture they were, but think they were all mostly around thr 5.6 mark.
Thats wide open for this lens at 300mm so you wont be getting its best work. F8-F10 is the sweet spot for most lenses, but obviously youll have to ballance this against slower shutter speeds or higher ISO. Close ups of living things are tricky! which of course is what makes them fun, and adds to the satisfaction when you manage to get a good one.
Another good reason for stopping down when close in is that the depth of field is tiny at such close distances. It takes some doing to get the focus and angle just right so that enough of the critter is in focus that it doesnt notice. Particularly with something the size of a dragonfly, getting the whole thing in focus is often at odds with an interesting composition.
I get confused with this stuff...the lower the number the higher the aperture?
yes, the f/ numbers are focal ratios, focal length/aperture diameter.
A 50mm f/2 lens has a maximum aperture of 25mm (50/25=2). Stop it down to F8 and youre only using the central 6.25mm (50/6.25=8). This helps with various lens problems because:
1. its easier to polish a lens to be perfect over a small area than a large one
2. the approximations used in calculating lens formulea are more valid at the centre than at the edges
so by only using the centre of the lens you get a better result.
The apparently counter intuitive f/ value scale allows easy comparison between lenses of different focal lengths. Its much easier to conform to the way light works and have to learn the slightly funny numbers than to try and force a "sensible" scale on it and then have to re-learn each lens separately because a 25mm aperture on a 50mm lens (f/2) is a lot faster than a 25mm aperture on a 200mm lens (f/4).
This is also why your zoom lens is 70-300 f/3.5-5.6, because the focal length is changing, so does the focal ratio. Obviously in reality its a bit more complex, and the aperture of the lens actually changes slightly as you zoom. Some (usually more expensive) zooms have "constant" apperture which actually means the aperture changes as you zoom to fully compensate for the change in focal length. The more you look into this the more complex it gets!
for ease though, smaller numbers = more light, one "stop" = twice as much light.
Right....
So I was kinda right and wrong at the same time. I was going on the assumption that the smaller number, the more light, and so the faster the shutter speed = less blur, which would be of course desired for a moving insect.
When really I should have made a bit of a trade off between this and raising the ISO a bit to counter balance this. Bit more grain but better quality shot?
yes, its all a bit of a trade off.
I when shooting this sort of thing I tend to end up at about ISO 400-800 with the lens closed down to F8. In the case of my Tamron macro, its actually pretty good right from wide open (F2.5), but at that setting the depth of field is essentially zero.
You do end up with more noise this way, but you also get higher shutter speeds and therefore a better hit rate as far as motion blur goes. This is where the shake reduction on my Pentax really comes into its own so you may have to push a bit harder with your Canon. Still the Canon sensor is supposed to be pretty good for noise so you may find that ISO 1600 produces acceptable results.
ISO 1600 did the robin photo I put up here ages ago. Does the job but is fairly grainy :(
I guess sorting out the aperture is my next step in learning the ropes. Ive just about got to grips with shutter speeds and ISO hehe.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/1081079429_475d79ebf3.jpg)
try Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com/)
its pretty good for noise reduction. The demo version is free for non-commercial use and isnt crippled particularly badly.
Large aperture = more light = faster shutter speed but less subject in focus
Smaller aperture = less light =slower shutter speed but more subject in focus
A larger aperture (small f number) also lets in more stray light, so the appearance can be fuzzy, and as mongoose says the best glass is in the middle of the lens. Shutting down the aperture tightens up the result. For this reason some use a high power ring flash and a small aperture (large f number).
An F number relates the size of the aperture to the focal length of the lens, which is why a 50mm f/1.8 is reasonably sized and priced while a 500mm f/2.8 is exorbitantly priced and big. The way they did this means the bigger the number the less light getting into the camera, stopping down 1 stop halves the light.