MacroPhotography: For the Off-Season?

[Rob Wadsworth]

Darren:

You may just have found a way to recycle an old technology - and even give it a new lease on life. I'd be interested in what you came up with. If this idea translates across to other brands of enlargers, maybe you could put a patent on conversion kits. One good write-up in 'Popular Photography' and it could be off and flying. I like the idea of the staging area; but to get an off angle view will require some special mirrors and careful adjustments. But overall - it sounds slick...

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

This little bugger is only slightly larger than a sesame seed...

 

[Greg Campbell]

We have a Canon MPE-65mm macro at work. The thing does 5:1 macro. No, not 1:5, 5X. While spendy, the thing produces amazing magnification levels.

Since a quarter seems to be the 'standard unit' here, I shot one at full 5x on a Drebel XT. This is not cropped, only downsized. The area shown is 4.4 x 3mm.

I only wish I had more time to play with the thing...

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

I've been meaning to post the true capabilities of the MP-E 65; Glad someone beat me to it! I'm telling ya, folks, if you've got the extra cash, go for the MP-E. But the 100mm 2.8 macro is excellent too!

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Thinking out loud for a minute here...
A Canon MP-E lens, w/ring flash, and a rail mount system is a $1200 gig that can get into a bug's eyes; while the $600/100mm Macro is both a minimal macro at 1:1 magnification that can double as a portrait lens. Darren A and Mike D showed that necessity is the mother of invention and can get decent 1:1 macro or above.

What are some of the settings that are making the MP-E and homebrew macros work? Melanie pointed out that a f/11 or higher brings about certain effects - as an example. So - it's not always the LENS that helps get the macro shots working, but the camera settings that lends to the overall finished effects - too!

When I shoot macro with my Minolta Z20, I set the ISO to 50, turn off the flash and incorporate natural light, use the f/8 principle w/aperture priority on, and beanbag the camera for the bug shot up close.

Methodology to macro shots are needed....
Help!
Examples and explanations?!?

 

[Greg Campbell]

Rob,
We use the MP-E to photograph optics defects.
At 5x, depth of field is extremely limited; fractions of a millimeter. Any subject contour (or tilt, if flat) results in out-of-focus areas. Without live-view, we usually take a series of pictures, 'focus bracketing' so to speak. The camera is mounted on a micrometer driven slide stage, so it's easy to rip off a series of pics as you slowly advance the plane of focus.

Stopping down helps a lot, but beyond F9.5~11, diffraction blur becomes critical. It seems that F8~9.5 is the sweet spot.

While the lens may be at F8, the optical system is working at much higher values. You need nuclear volumes of light. We use a high power fiber light at point blank range. This gives good relief when photographing a tiny scratch or dig, but is generally too harsh for bugs and other 'cool' stuff. AFAIK, the flash ring setup works very well.

Needless to say, a very sturdy mount is required to maintain focus and prevent motion blur. You could probably hand hold it at 1x and machine-gun a few lucky shots. At 5X, forget it. Even with our overbuilt camera/mirror mount, mirror lock up makes a noticeable difference at the higher magnification levels.

-Greg

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Now here is some serious macro photography. Crazy crazy stuff to look at in this guy's portfolio on there.

http://www.sciencefaction.com/respages/Result.asp?txtKeyword=%22David%20Scharf%22&chkSearchSF=SF&Page=3&images=30

Good lord. Guess it's probably called micro photography.

Micro lenses on a CCD sensor.....

http://www.sciencefaction.com/respages/preview.asp?Trans_No=1005159&VisitedFrom=Search&Pos=241

I don't get how the hell they make that stuff.

 

[Darren Addy]

I couldn't get either of those links to work, but from the URL info I was able to type David Scharf into the Quick Search box on the root site and see what you were talking about. Wild stuff.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

Ooh, that is some amazing stuff. Makes me want to go out and buy a high-powered microscope.

I'm not sure if I had mentioned this earlier, but I thank Greg for doing so...The DOF with this lens is soooo shallow. At 5x, it truly is non-existent.

With the twin flash, I set it at F16, ISO 100, 1/125. I actually do almost all of my shots hand-held (lots of bug & flower shots) with the flash, but I don't usually shoot at more than 2x.

To shoot at more than 3x, a tripod is essential, but no bug is going to sit around that long and wait for me to set up my 'pod and get situated. There really is no focusing ring on this lens, either. You just move either forward or backward, so a set of focusing rails can help you there.

The other 'downside' to this lens is that you have to get extremely close to your subject, within a couple of inches. This poses some difficulty when shooting insects also.

Honestly, gang, unless you're looking for the ability to really go tiny (sugar crystals, grains of sand, etc.), I would go for the 100mm f2.8. I'm sooo happy with this lens and it is very versatile. Abes of Maine is selling for $489 w/free shipping. I've purchased from them in the past and I'm quite happy w/them.

The first shot was taken with the 100mm f2.8. It's a fairly wide shot, yet if you look at the second shot, I can get in quite close w/the same lens. Very versatile.

The third and fourth were taken w/the MP-E at about 2 1/2x, handheld.

EDIT: Btw, the last photo is the inner part of a flower, like the yellow part of the flower in the first photo...

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

I see this thread is fading into the October sunset, so here's a shot of b12...

I entered a dahlia photo competition this past weekend and this was a first place winner in its category (self-indulging pat on the back).

Melanie

 

[Jason Foster]

yeah, bring more

I love to see Macro shots....it is really great for giving me ideas when doing any architectural projects. I like things that show natural structure, as sometimes the natural example is great for the built environment.

Keep those Macros coming

 

[Greg Campbell]

Excellent stuff Melanie, and Darren's Frankencamera rocks!

 

[Christian Neumann]

As a paleontologist, I still use the good old Nikon Coolpix 4500 for close-ups. This camera was issued in 2002 (the stone age of digital photography). It is still good enough for producing the illustrating for most of my publications. The lens is superb and together with the ringlight Nikon SL-1 you can achieve excellent results. However, 4 Megapixel resolution limits print size.
The crab (Ilia nucleus) on the inserted picture measures 15 mm.

Bests from Berlin,
Christian

 

[Jim Saueressig]

I was looking at various macro sites and had read about getting a reverse ring mount to backwards mount a 50mm lens then found where people backed 2 50mm's together so having a couple of old manual 50mm's laying about I tried them and it was so-so so then ended up placing one of the 50's on the end of 135mm lens and taped them together for this shot of a quarter. The depth of field is paper thin but it does get down there for a real cheap super macro. I pasted a 100% of the mint mark on the un cropped picture.



I need plants or insects now.

Edit, A spoon full of Sugar:

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Last fall I had a mantis in here on a plant trying to get some good macros before I bought the reversing ring and such. I guess I left it in the house to long. It would have stayed longer but the wife stepped on it.

Here she is eating a cricket:



Turns out though she is long gone she is far from being forgotten.



These are appearing around the house..... LOL

They are about 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch long. Notice the tiny piece of lint on the left ones antennae. (click for large)

Shot with a 50mm on a reverse ring for macro.