Bridge, MFT, achromats, dSLR, primes - a journey of exploration

[GardenersHelper]

Update 19 January 2018. Post 8 of 12. An unconventional combination of kit for small subjects?

I then discovered something curious.

For some time I have wanted to use a teleconverter with the 55-250 on my 70D. This would allow the same magnification from further away, or more magnification at the minimum focus distance. That could solve the "butterfly" problem. However, the 55-250 is an EF-S lens and you can only use teleconverters with EF lenses. You can fit an EF-S lens on to an extension tube. So if you fit a teleconverter to the camera, then fit an extension tube on to the teleconverter you can then attach an EF-S lens such as the 55-250. Unfortunately this severely limits the range over which you can gain focus. It isn't to do with using autofocus. Even with manual focus you simply can't gain focus apart from in the somewhat narrow range.

For some reason I tried it anyway. I fitted a 2X teleconverter to the camera, then a 10mm extension tube, then the 55-250 and then a Raynox 250.


1279 01 70D small subject setup by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

At 55mm focal length the scene width was 18mm with a working distance of 75mm. My close-up setups give me a better working distance for this size of scene - over 100mm with the G5/G80 and over 180mm with the FZ330.

However, as I increased the focal length the magnification increased and the scene width decreased. No surprise there. But the working distance increased. By the time I got to the maximum focal length of 250mm the scene width was down to 5.5mm and the working distance was up to 115mm. This compares to about 45mm with the FZ330 (with a pair of Raynox 250s) and around 30mm with the G5/G80 (with a Raynox MSN 202).

Autofocus worked. (It also works at this scale on the G5/G80, but not the FZ330.) As is inevitably the case with the 70D when using live view, the focus point could not be placed with the same degree of accuracy as with the Panasonic cameras. That is because the focus area is much larger on the 70D than it is when using the smallest of the available focus areas on the Pansonics.

On a ruler test, which has high contrast black against cream edges, there was some fairly mild purple and green fringing. This could be almost completely removed in Lightroom (by using both the CA removal option and also the manual defringing option). There was stronger fringing with the G5/G80, which Lightroom could not remove. There was little or no fringing with the FZ330, but there was nothing in sharp focus either, even in the centre, and not far out from the centre everything became ... difficult to describe - horrible.

After my normal processing in DXO PhotoLab and Lightroom the 70D images showed better detail in the centre and and out towards the edges than the G5/G80.

In terms of usability, the 70D setup is larger and heavier than the FZ330 and G5/G80 setups. But the 55-250 is an EF-S lens and not as heavy as the Sigma 105 or the Meike 80mm (380g vs 740g for the Sigma 105). Also, like the Meike, the 55-250 has a significantly smaller diameter than the Sigma 105 and I find it quite comfortable to hold. The zoom and focus rings are fly by wire and easily turned.


1279 02 70D small subject setup vs G5 setup by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I also found that I could take the KX800 flash unit off of the FZ330 or G5/G80 and use it on the 70D without making any adjustments to the arms. Given how long the 70D setup was, especially with the 55-250 fully extended, I found that rather surprising.


1279 03 70D small subject setup fully extended by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I would not want to use this 70D setup at the lower magnifications it can cover because of the relatively short working distances, but for higher magnifications it looks definitely worth testing, as it may provide better working distances and better image quality than any of my other setups for the smallest scenes that I want to tackle in the field, and do so in a package that is as usable as anything else is likely to be at this sort of scene size.

Or there may be a gotcha lurking here somewhere. Only by testing in the field will I know one way or the other.


Continued in next post....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Update 19 January 2018. Post 9 of 12. Unusual kit for butterflies etc too?

One thing leads to another.

Having found a potential new setup for the smallest of my invertebrate subjects, I wondered if something similar might work for the largest of my invertebrate subjects, addressing the "butterfly" problem of being able to have enough magnification, or enough working distance, but not both. I made some measurements of the current setups that I use for larger invertebrates: FZ330, G80 with 45-175 and 70D with 55-250, all three setups with and without a 500D close-up lens. These measurements are shown in the top three blocks below. I then did some similar measurements, shown in the bottom two blocks below, for the new setup of 70D with 2X teleconverter, 10mm extension tube and 55-250, with and without a 500D, and for the 1.4X teleconverter, 10mm extension tube and 55-250, without a 500D. (Only a few measurements are shown for the 1.4X TC setup because the result showed that only the 2X TC at 250mm focal length was relevant to the "butterfly" problem.)


1279 07 Some scene widths and working distances by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Without the 500D, none of the FZ330, G80 or 70D gets down to a small enough scene width. With the 500D the FZ330 provides the smallest scene width of 28mm at 325mm working distance or a better working distance of 470mm with almost the same scene size of 30mm. The G80 and 70D don't provide as small a scene width and for the scene widths they do cover the working distances are shorter than with the FZ330. So I used the FZ330 as the baseline for my comparison with the new setup.

Without the 500D the 2X TC setup at its minimum working distance of 510mm provided the same scene width as the FZ330 with 500D at a slightly shorter 470mm working distance. In order to cover larger scene widths the FZ330 had to reduce its focal length - it could only move slightly further away because the close-up lens limits the maximum working distance to around 500mm. In contrast the working distance for the new 2X TC setup increased rapidly as the scene width decreased, for example with a working distance of around a metre for a 50mm wide scene. The 2X TC setup therefore provides combinations of scene widths and working distances which are better for butterflies etc than any of the other combinations of kit I have tried.

I don't know that it would be particularly relevant for butterflies etc, although it might be for smaller ones, but with a 500D the 2X TC setup could cover a scene width of 20mm at 450mm working distance which was significantly better than the 30mm scene width the FZ330 could cover at 470mm working distance.

So far so promising, in theory. As with the high magnification setup it would be a matter of experiment to find out if this setup would be useful for butterlies, dragonflies, damselflies etc. These are subjects that I don't find very often, and there certainly aren't any around at the moment. I decided to do the next best thing, take the 2X TC setup without the 500D and try it out on botanical subjects. My aim was to find out whether autofocus would work in real world conditions and whether the image quality looked like it might be acceptable.

The conditions were poor. It was 100% and quite heavy overcast and very breezy. The 2X teleconverter turns the 55-250 from being a f/4 to f/5.6 lens (i.e not very fast) to an f/8 to f/11 lens (i.e. really rather slow, even at maximum aperture). This means that phase detect focusing will not work on the 70D. However, I almost always use live view so that isn't an issue for me. These small maximum apertures also constrain the already limited opportunities of a f/4 to f/5.6 lens for using larger apertures to isolate subjects. They also limited my options for increasing the aperture to get exposures fast enough for the breezy conditions while keeping the ISO within tolerable limits. I ended up using ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 much of the time. (I usually like to limit the ISO to 800, with occasional use of ISO 1600.)

Autofocus worked fine. As for image quality the test was on the negative side of inconclusive. However, tiven the prospective subject matter, this would be a fine weather configuration, so I need to do more tests in stronger light..

One thing that was interesting was the impression I got that backgrounds were thrown further out of focus than I am used to, producing some (to my eye) nicely blurred backgrounds in quite cluttered shots even though the maximum apertures were quite large. I can't be sure about this. It depends on the geometry of the scene of scene: the distance between the subject and the background. But the teleconverter would effectively double the focal length of the lens I think, so at 250mm the effective focal length would be 500mm, or 800mm full frame equivalent. And longer focal lengths blur backgrounds more.

Depending on what minimum scene width is needed, the 1.4X TC setup might be better than the 2X TC setup, and better than the other options. The 55-250 would be f/5.6 to f/8 rather than f/8 to f/11 with the 2X TC setup and the optical distortion would be less than with the 2X TC setup. With a minimum scene width of 42mm at a working distance of 510mm the 1.4X TC setup does not match the 30mm scene width of the FZ330 at 470mm working distance. However, as the scene width increases the working distance increases significantly for the 1.4X setup but doesn't increase much for the FZ330. So if the bias is towards scene widths of 40mm and wider then the 1.4X setup has better working distances.

Note 1. At this point in preparing these posts I realised that strictly speaking we should probably be matching scene heights rather than scene widths, allowing for the cropping of the 70D 3:2 aspect ratio to the 4:3 of the Panasonics. A cropped 4:3 scene from a 42mm scene width 70D image that matched the height of a 30mm scene width Panasonic image would be 37mm wide. This is still rather more than the 30mm of the FZ330 though. For the sake of simplicity (and to avoid a load of re-writing!) I'll stick with scene widths. We need to bear in mind though that for this use case that does put the 70D at a slight disadvantage in the comparisons of working distances - which we want to be large for this use case.

Note 2. There would be no advantage to using the 1.4X TC option with a Raynox 250 for small subjects. This only reaches down to a scene width of 7.5mm at a working distance of 110mm. The FZ330 with a Raynox 250 can match this, with a scene width of 7.5mm at a working distance of 115mm, and unlike the FZ330 configurations for higher magnifications, with a single Raynox 250 on the FZ330 autofocusing is fine and there is no chromatic aberration issue.



Continued in next post....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Update 19 January 2018. Post 10 of 12. FZ330 or G80 for medium sized insects etc?

Having considered small invertebrates and larger invertebrates, let's consider medium sized invertebrates. These are by a huge margin the ones I photograph most often, these days almost always using single, minimum aperture, hand-held shots with flash. I used both the FZ330 and the G80 for these last year, with the KX800 twin flash. Some of the images made me think that the G80 was producing better looking results but I could not make my mind up about this. I did not do a systematic comparison. I recently got more systematic about it.

I went backwards through a number of invertebrate image sets until I had gathered over 300 G80 shots and over 1400 FZ330 shots. This reflects the balance of use between the cameras. The G80 was pretty much the only camera I used for flowers etc, but for invertebrates I used the FZ330 and the G80. I had a feeling that the G80 was producing better results and it would have been logical to use it much more, or exclusively. However, when I did use I kept being reminded of how much better I found the usability of the FZ330, sufficiently so that I kept going back to the FZ330.

I had the FZ330 shots and the G80 shots in separate folders. I didn't try to match like for like images - I had tried that last year and even after trawling through a lot of images (more than I used for this recent exercise) there were too few sufficiently similar shots to feel confident of any conclusions (although the few I found did favour the G80). So I tried a different approach. I went through the G80 images for some time, sometimes back and forth, trying to get a an overall "feel" for what I was seeing. I then started to do the same for the FZ330 images and quickly came to the conclusion that the G80 images were better - richer colours, better microcontrast, more "dimensional". The FZ330 images looked flat in comparison.

All the images from both cameras had been processed in the same way, using ISO-specific presets in DXO Optics Pro to produce DNG files from the raw files, a single preset in Silkypix for all of the DNG files to produce TIFF files, and image-specific adjustments to the TIFF files in Lightroom to produce 1300 pixel high JPEG images. However, I decided to re-process some of the FZ330 raw files. Even though I used the same presets, in DXO (upgraded to PhotoLab) and Silkypix, I got significantly different results. Here are a couple of examples which should flip between the previous and newly processed versions.
(These are 256 colour gifs so they may look a bit crunchier than the individual source files, especially in the smooth background areas.)(The differences may stand out more when looking at the 1300 pixel height versions over at Flickr)


1279 04 Comparison 1, 03a 1172 24 2017_05_18 P1250061_DxO 0100RAW01cP SP7 LR6 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1279 05 Comparison 2, 05a 1172 43 2017_05_18 P1250202_DxO 0100RAW01cP SP7 LR6 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The newly processed images seemed to me to have a similar feel to the G80 images, so given the superior usability of the FZ330 I am going to use it as my main camera for this intermediate size of invertebrates. (Another advantage of using the FZ330 for small aperture work has to do with it being a fixed lens camera. With my interchangeable lens cameras I find dust on sensors, and cleaning it off, and dealing with dust spots on images, an ongoing annoyance. In the past decade I have had seven fixed lens cameras, using 5 of them most of the time for small aperture work. I have not so far had a problem of dust or anything else on the sensor of any of them. From that point of view I much prefer changing close-up lenses to opening up the camera to change lenses or extension tubes.


Continued in next post....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Update 19 January 2018. Post 11 of 12. Lightroom CC.

On the face of it it is puzzling that the new FZ330 versions should be so much (to my way of seeing anyway) better than the previous versions, given the common processing workflow. A couple of possibilities come to mind. One is that I was simply being more careful and discriminating about the processing, having the example of the G80 images to work towards. The other is that I have in the past few days moved from the "buy to keep" Lightroom 6 to the "pay forever" Lightroom CC (strictly speaking it is Lightroom CC Classic that I am using). This has a reworked "auto tone" function which has apparently been trained using AI. There are divergent views about it, ranging from "rubbish"/"it still overexposes everything just like the previous version" to "it's actually not too bad as a starting point for processing". When I used the new auto tone function on the FZ330 TIFF files produced by DXO and Silkypix I was very pleasantly surprised. Apart from cropping I was not inclined to do much else to the (admittedly small number of) images that I reprocessed.

Like many others I was resistant to the move to Lightroom CC, and I tried trials of various alternatives. But I eventually came to the conclusion that I really did want to use Lightroom. I didn't need to start paying Adobe as all my cameras were supported by Lightroom 6. However, there were a couple of functions I had noticed that I thought might be helpful. (Ironically, Autotone was not one of them.) One was that I had noticed that the Radial and Graduated filters and the Adjustment brush in CC had more options: they had Whites and Blacks as well as the Shadows and Highlights available on the adjustment brush in Lightroom 6, an improvement I had wished for, and also Dehaze (a new function) and Defringe. They also had a "Range Mask" option, which lets you refine the filter/brush mask by picking colour(s) from within the masked areas or by specifying a range of luminosities. This looked more interesting than vital. CC also had an option for warping panoramas to fill out irregular edges rather than having to crop down to the inside of the edges. I liked the sound of that.

The £120 per year would be offset by the amount I had been paying anyway for Lightroom upgrades, and in addition I would get an up to date version of Photoshop (my current version was the rather aged CS2). This might have its uses, for example median stacking. Given my use of slow shutter speeds perhaps Shake reduction might be useful. There might be other things too. I will need to explore Photoshop to find out.

It turned out that Lightroom CC was more of an improvement than I expected it to be. There was the Auto tone function, which for my purposes may turn out to be extremely useful. Also, it looks as though the Range mask option is going to rather more significant than I expected. It depends on the image, but being able to define a (or make an initial, and then editable) local area to work on by means of colour or brightness has already proved useful. It doesn't let you do anything that you couldn't do before, but it can make it much faster to define an area to work on. For example in the image below it only took one click to select the yellow areas that I wanted to adjust with sharpness, clarity, vibrance or whatever, and possibly (I don't recall) one click to define the pinks areas for some local noise reduction.


1279 06 1277 6 2018_01_14 G80+60 F2.8 ISO800 1-320 PF 40f (C) P1140387 LR6 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



Continued in next post....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Update 19 January 2018. Post 12 of 12.

Having pretty much rejected the idea of full frame (although Steve's fungi stacks have raised doubts in my mind yet again), I wasn't finished considering expensive options. In November Panasonic announced the G9. There is also a Leica 50-200 f/2.8 to f/4 expected soon. The G9 costs £1,500. The price of the 50-200 is not yet known, but the recently introduced Leica 200 f/2.8 is £2,700 (no, that isn't a typo) and so I imagine the 50-200 could also be very expensive. Cost aside, an optically strong 50-200 is very attractive to me. I use the 45-175 a lot, and would prefer to use a zoom lens for flowers etc. Especially if used with the G9, giving 6.5 stops of IS (at least at the wide end), the 50-200 might replace the Olympus 60mm macro for flowers.

The G9 costs twice as much as the G80 (a camera I am coming to like a lot). It is Panasonic's flagship stills camera, with a lot of nice features. However, the only ones that at this stage appear to matter much for my use cases is an extra stop or so of IBIS, 25% more pixels on the sensor, 6K post focus (which I could use instead of the lower resolution 4K post focus on the G80) and better rendition of JPEG images (which normally wouldn't matter to me as I shoot generally shoot raw, but may matter more if I do move to using more stacking).

After an initial flush of enthusiasm for the G9 and 50-200 I have come round to thinking that the benefits don't seem certain enough to materialise sufficiently to make a significant difference to the image quality I can achieve (and might actually lose a little in usability, for my purposes). I have therefore, and a bit reluctantly, put aside the idea of a G9 or a 50-200 and ordered a second G80 so that I can use two lenses during each session without having to change lenses in the field. This might for example be the Olympus 60mm macro and the 45-175 for botanical subjects in the garden and the (less expensive, consumer version) 12-60 and the 45-175 for skyscapes/sunsets. For invertebrates I would use the FZ330 for flash work. I would also want access to the Olympus 60mm macro on the G80 for natural light focus bracketing/post-focus. I would also want something for longer natural light reach, for example for the occasional dragonfly and butterfly I encouter (and the even more occasional pheasant). For that I might carry the 45-175 (very small and light, like the 60mm macro) and be prepared to change lenses in the field, or have the 45-175 on the other G80 and carry three cameras, or, also with three cameras, the (larger and heavier) 70D with the 55-250 (with or without one of the teleconverters depending on how further testing of that goes).

In general I feel I am moving away from purchasing very expensive equipment to improve image quality in favour of a more varied approach than previously, in terms of both equipment and techniques, and possibly also subject matter. This may include improved capture techniques, such as for example (going back to) using a tripod more often, especially (hands-on) for small subjects, and possibly (hands-off) elsewhere, and also the use of a wider variety of multi-image capture and processing techniques and associated software. I am also very aware of how much difference post processing can make and hope to diversify and deepen my knowlege of and facility with the various software packages I use, singly and in combination.

I won't be able to match the very highest image quality, for example the type of images that Steve produces. Being realistic, I don't think I've got the appropriate frame of mind or skillset for that. However, that still leaves a rather large field of opportunities to explore and grow into.

 

[Bollygum]

I think your conclusion "In general I feel I am moving away from purchasing very expensive equipment to improve image quality in favour of a more varied approach than previously, in terms of both equipment and techniques, and possibly also subject matter." is a good one. I do use some very expensive equipment, but I haven't paid for most of it, which is a major consideration. But, even if using expensive equipment, you still have to focus on all the other things that go into making a good image, not least of which is the subject. Only after you have all the other ducks lined up is it worth spending large amounts of money on equipment. Some areas of photography are difficult without large investments, for example bird photography, but most can be done without huge expense. I know fungi photographers who get some superb images with very inexpensive equipment. One uses a plastic bucket as a tripod, The key to his photos are the subjects he finds. When I was playing with getting very high res results I found that the resolution was very subject dependant. If I photographed a mushroom that had been sitting in the sun for half a day, then it had little fine detail to record and a mobile phone may make as good a picture as the very best camera available. If, on the other hand, it was a pristine mushroom on a damp day, then i could use all the resolution I could get.

 

[davholla]

Update 19 January 2018. Post 6 of 12. Try the MPE-65 again?

I quickly sent the MPE-65 back (along with the 100L macro and MT24EX). It didn't seem to give me any better image quality (only later did I realise why that was), and it was a beast to use; it was heavy, needed lots of turning of a stiff ring to change magnification, and was manual focus only.

The MPE-65 should not have a stiff ring, mine moves very easily - and I bought it second hand (not saying you should buy it, but I think you had a defective copy)

 

[davholla]

When I was playing with getting very high res results I found that the resolution was very subject dependant. If I photographed a mushroom that had been sitting in the sun for half a day, then it had little fine detail to record and a mobile phone may make as good a picture as the very best camera available. If, on the other hand, it was a pristine mushroom on a damp day, then i could use all the resolution I could get.

Interesting, I don't think I will have the time to photograph fungi in the future, but if I do I will remember that too much sun is not good for the quality. I guess for you the best time is sunny just after it has been raining for a bit?

 

[Bollygum]

Sun is almost always bad for photography, especially macro photography. Apart from the obvious perils of water, rain is probably the best time. It's like working in a gigantic soft box. Immediately after rain is good, but no sunshine. Insects can be challenging without bright light, but the colour is better and there a fewer specular highlights with natural light when the sun goes behind a cloud.

 

[davholla]

Sun is almost always bad for photography, especially macro photography. Apart from the obvious perils of water, rain is probably the best time. It's like working in a gigantic soft box. Immediately after rain is good, but no sunshine. Insects can be challenging without bright light, but the colour is better and there a fewer specular highlights with natural light when the sun goes behind a cloud.

It can help with bird photography - providing it is not in the wrong direction.
However I take your point about the rest, it is so long so I took photographs in bright sunshine I had forgotten all this. (It has been gloomy in the UK for some months now).

 

[GardenersHelper]

I think your conclusion "In general I feel I am moving away from purchasing very expensive equipment to improve image quality in favour of a more varied approach than previously, in terms of both equipment and techniques, and possibly also subject matter." is a good one.

Thanks.

I do use some very expensive equipment, but I haven't paid for most of it, which is a major consideration. But, even if using expensive equipment, you still have to focus on all the other things that go into making a good image, not least of which is the subject. Only after you have all the other ducks lined up is it worth spending large amounts of money on equipment. Some areas of photography are difficult without large investments, for example bird photography, but most can be done without huge expense. I know fungi photographers who get some superb images with very inexpensive equipment. One uses a plastic bucket as a tripod, The key to his photos are the subjects he finds. When I was playing with getting very high res results I found that the resolution was very subject dependant. If I photographed a mushroom that had been sitting in the sun for half a day, then it had little fine detail to record and a mobile phone may make as good a picture as the very best camera available. If, on the other hand, it was a pristine mushroom on a damp day, then i could use all the resolution I could get.

Interesting background about your photography. Thanks.

Very true about how much can be done without overly expensive equipment. I periodically have interesting discussions about why I continue to use a bridge camera and close-up lenses for a lot of what I do, despite having better equipment and being fortunate enough to be able to afford even better equipment than that. But of course "better" is context dependent; I tend to think in terms of fitness for purpose, as in fitness for my purposes and my preferred methods, my skillset and its limitations, my subject matter etc. I enjoyed the plastic bucket reference.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The MPE-65 should not have a stiff ring, mine moves very easily - and I bought it second hand (not saying you should buy it, but I think you had a defective copy)

Interesting. Thanks David. That would make it easier. All the same, I did another test of some relatively heavy and manual focus kit. As a result I'm going to be sticking with my lightweight, autofocusing kit for now.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Sun is almost always bad for photography, especially macro photography. Apart from the obvious perils of water, rain is probably the best time. It's like working in a gigantic soft box. Immediately after rain is good, but no sunshine. Insects can be challenging without bright light, but the colour is better and there a fewer specular highlights with natural light when the sun goes behind a cloud.

I quite like working with flowers when the sun is out: direct sun, pools of light and contra-jour. I use flash most of the time for invertebrates, apart from larger insects such as butterflies and damselflies in sunny conditions, mainly because I often can't get suitable combinations of shutter speed, ISO and aperture in overcast or/and shady conditions, especially when working hand-held (which generally I do) and/or in breezy conditions (which I often am). I also occasionally use flash in sunny conditions even though there is enough light to get a good shutter speed at the aperture and ISO that I want, when the ambient light produces overly harsh results.

 

[davholla]

Interesting. Thanks David. That would make it easier. All the same, I did another test of some relatively heavy and manual focus kit. As a result I'm going to be sticking with my lightweight, autofocusing kit for now.

Sounds better to me, saying that for various reasons (money and time) I will not be changing. I wonder if sales of the MPE65 mm and other canon DSLRs have dropped because Panasonic looks so good.
One good feature of the MPE65 is that you can work out sizes, although very few people do.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Sounds better to me, saying that for various reasons (money and time) I will not be changing.

There's obviously an element of that for me too. Moving up-market could be extremely expensive! If the money didn't matter to me I would have tried full frame (and probably medium format) by now. But that amount of money definitely does matter to me!

To be honest though that isn't the main thing. Given "good enough" (to my eye) image quality, usability is turning out to be the main thing for me.

I wonder if sales of the MPE65 mm and other canon DSLRs have dropped because Panasonic looks so good.

I think I read a while ago that Nikon has problems but Canon seem to be ok at the moment. As to the MPE-65, it is unique (for now at least, although the Chinese do seem to be developing interesting lenses and other photo equipment).

One good feature of the MPE65 is that you can work out sizes, although very few people do.

I think you need to note down/remember the magnification you used as I don't think it is recorded in the Exif data (or is it?). If you know what achromat you used you can work out sizes from the Exif data. (I usually don't know what achromat I used, I swap them around a lot. And even when I do I only work out sizes occasionally.)

 

[davholla]

I think you need to note down/remember the magnification you used as I don't think it is recorded in the Exif data (or is it?). If you know what achromat you used you can work out sizes from the Exif data. (I usually don't know what achromat I used, I swap them around a lot. And even when I do I only work out sizes occasionally.)

The magnification is recorded in the Exif data and once you have recorded in a scripting program how to work it out, you can do so.
It is very easy to get wrong btw.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The magnification is recorded in the Exif data and once you have recorded in a scripting program how to work it out, you can do so.

That's good to know. Thanks.

It is very easy to get wrong btw.

You've got me curious. Why is that?

 

[davholla]

That's good to know. Thanks.



You've got me curious. Why is that?

Well the calculation is a bit tricky at first and so you can get it wrong by a lot. I have a program that does it now so it should always use the same logic. which I think if you look at this photo is correct (it is on a bramble leaf).
Caterpillar IMG_0620 by davholla2002, on Flickr

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thanks David.

FWIW (not much IMO, but )if that is an uncropped image, my calculation for a 2.7x magnification is 4.5mm head to toe rather than 3.6mm.

My thinking was thuswise:

Canon APS-C sensors are 22.5mm wide, so at 2.7X a scene with a scene width of 22.5mm / 2.7 = 8.33mm fills the sensor.

On my screen the image is 350mm wide and the caterpillar is 190mm long, making the length of the caterpillar

190 / 350 x 8.33mm = 4.5mm.

 

[davholla]

Thanks David.

FWIW (not much IMO, but )if that is an uncropped image, my calculation for a 2.7x magnification is 4.5mm head to toe rather than 3.6mm.

My thinking was thuswise:

Canon APS-C sensors are 22.5mm wide, so at 2.7X a scene with a scene width of 22.5mm / 2.7 = 8.33mm fills the sensor.

On my screen the image is 350mm wide and the caterpillar is 190mm long, making the length of the caterpillar

190 / 350 x 8.33mm = 4.5mm.

It is cropped, I can compose a photo of a human in such a way that it does not need cropping to look good, but insects - that is far too difficult, too small and they don't move in the correct way.

 

[GardenersHelper]

It is cropped,

Ah. Understood. Thanks.

I can compose a photo of a human in such a way that it does not need cropping to look good, but insects - that is far too difficult, too small and they don't move in the correct way.

Absolutely!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Update 28 March 2018

Update 19 January 2018. Post 12 of 12.

...... After an initial flush of enthusiasm for the G9 and 50-200 I have ..... put aside the idea of a G9 or a 50-200 and ordered a second G80 so that I can use two lenses during each session without having to change lenses in the field. This might for example be the Olympus 60mm macro and the 45-175 for botanical subjects in the garden and the (less expensive, consumer version) 12-60 and the 45-175 for skyscapes/sunsets. For invertebrates I would use the FZ330 for flash work. I would also want access to the Olympus 60mm macro on the G80 for natural light focus bracketing/post-focus. I would also want something for longer natural light reach, for example for the occasional dragonfly and butterfly I encouter (and the even more occasional pheasant). For that I might carry the 45-175 (very small and light, like the 60mm macro) and be prepared to change lenses in the field, or have the 45-175 on the other G80 and carry three cameras, or, also with three cameras, the (larger and heavier) 70D with the 55-250 (with or without one of the teleconverters depending on how further testing of that goes).

"Flower" camera

As with the first one, it took several attempts to get a second G80 that didn't have permanent spots on the sensor, but I have one now. Rather unexpectedly I also now have a Panasonic 14-140 ii and this has rather changed things.

I bought the 14-140 with sunsets/skyscapes in mind, and also as a walkaround with the G80 when I didn't mind carrying something a bit bigger than the pocketable TZ60 travel camera. It looks like it should be fine in both those roles. However, what surprised me was how much I like it for botanical subject matter, both in terms of usability and the look of the images I can get with it. Despite being a zoom lens, and a wide-ranging one too, it is surprisingly sharp and I like the microcontrast, rendition of textures and the colours I get with it. And I much prefer to use a zoom lens rather than a prime. And it is fairly light and compact.

The 14-140 is f/3.5 to f/5.6 rather than the f/2.8 of the Olympus 60mm macro. However, it turns out that this is sufficient for my taste in single image botanical shots. What it is not so good for is stacking, on two grounds. One is that the f/2.8 of the 60mm macro lets me use lower ISOs/faster shutter speeds for capturing post focus videos and focus bracket sets for stacking. This is good because I generally work hand-held with post focus captures, which is what I use much more often than focus bracketing because it is so much faster and convenient to execute. The other advantage of the 60mm macro is that it focuses over a much wider range than the 14-140, which is beneficial for the capture technique I use in which the camera remains in place and the lens moves the focus from front to back of the scene (as against moving the camera with the focus fixed). I can therefore do deeper stacks with the 60mm macro.

So my two camera setup for botanical work is now two G80s, one with the 14-140 and one with the 60mm macro. The 60mm macro gets used for small subjects and for stacking captures, and the 14-140 for the rest. In fact in the garden I have been going out sometimes with just the 14-140 and a Canon 500D (which gets me to around 42mm scene width, which turns out to be as much as I need much of the time); it is pleasant to not have to lug a bag around sometimes, and I can always nip indoors and get the other camera if needed (although I have occasionally used the 14-140 for post focus stacking captures).

"Butterfly" camera

I discussed options here for a setup for subjects that I don't see very often - butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies. A recent discussion with Paul (@Testudo Man) in this thread of Paul's has brought me to another option that I think I will try. In addition to the options I previously considered, I looked at using my new 14-140 with and without a Canon 500D, but it not as good as some of the other options. However, I have a currently unused FZ200 and this has the same optical and sensor setup as the FZ330 and produces the same image quality as the FZ330. The magnification/working distance envelope is at least as good as anything else, and it is fairly light and compact. I could carry it around in the bag with the Canon 500D attached as my second camera when out and about with the FZ330 set up for flash shooting of invertebrates. (I generally go out with two cameras so that isn't an issue.)

Use-case configurations

At the moment it is looking like two FZ cameras (one with Raynox lenses and flash, one with 500D for natural light) when out at one of the nature reserves or in the garden capturing invertebrates, two G80s (one with 60mm macro, one with 14-140) when out in the garden photographing flowers, one G80 (with 14-140) for sunsets, and a TZ60 or G80 (with 14-140) when I'm out for a walk or similar.

I don't tackle small invertebrates very often, but if I come across any when out with the FZ cameras I can stack Raynox 150/250 or use a more powerful MSN-202. If I do any sessions where I specifically go out looking for small subjects I will probably use the G5 and 45-175 and stacked 250s or MSN-202 since the non-extending 45-175 is particularly good for small subjects, and keeping it on the G5 means that I should not have to open up any of my G cameras to change lenses, thus hopefully avoiding the problems I have had in the past with dust on sensors which shows up so badly with the small apertures that I use for single image captures.

Currently the only use I see for my 70D is with the 55-250 STM for occasional sorties to the local boating lake and marina to photograph the birds, mainly gulls, mainly in flight.

Post processing

Single images

Fast Picture Viewer continues to work well for selecting images for a longlist and putting the longlisted raw files into ISO-specific folders to ease the use of ISO-specific presets in DXO PhotoLab.

For invertebrates the workflow of DXO PhotoLab preset to DNG -> Silkypix preset to TIFF -> Lightroom Classic Auto Settings then image-specific adjustments and export to JPEG continues to work well.

For botanical subjects and other subject matter I am tending to miss out the Silkypix step unless there are problematic highlights to deal with.

I am doing the final image quality QA in XNview again. I previously used Faststone Image Viewer. I then stopped using that when I thought that the colour management was not working properly. Then I managed to convince myself that it was all right after all and stopped using XnView (it is much more convenient to just use Faststone) . Now I am convinced once more that Faststone is getting it wrong (on my PC/screen setup) some of the time and so I'm back to using XnView for final review and selection.

Stacks

I use PhotoFun Studio to view Exif data from 4K post focus mp4 videos and do a quick scan of the videos to choose which ones to process. The videos go into Helicon Focus, which extracts JPEGs from the videos. For both post-focus and focus bracketed image sets Helicon Focus makes it easy to select the images to use from the set and Helicon is then used for the stacking and any stack combination and retouching. The stacked and optionally retouched images are output as TIFF which is then picked up in Lightroom for finishing.

At present I'm putting focus bracketed image sets straight into Helicon Focus but might in future load them into Lightroom for pre-processing before stacking in Helicon Focus. (That said, I haven't felt any pressing need to do this yet, and it would complicate the procedure significantly.)

Other bits and pieces

I have added a small number of additional presets and made some minor preset adjustments in DXO PhotoLab and Silkypix.

The G80s are nicely customisable and I have them set up so I can easily switch between shooting modes for single captures, exposure bracketing (that I rarely use at present), aperture bracketing (that I use almost all the time for non-stack botanical captures), focus bracketing and 4K post focus. I have a spreadsheet documenting the customisations so I can recreate them if necessary. (Unfortunately there is no way to make a backup copy of a customisation for reinstallation if necessary.)

4K post focus produces mp4 files. I'm capturing JPEG for focus bracketing and raw otherwise.

 

[Testudo Man]

Nick, this thread/journey of yours is utterly immense. Whilst Im traveling on a similar journey as you...I could never maintain a thread such as this, its bloody epic.
The content, the detail, its a brilliant piece of work...............I do know one of the reasons why you write down all the info in such minute detail though ...because if its not written down as it happened, its all to easy to forget mate. .

On another note, I know you are not familiar with Nikon Bodies, but last year, since i only used my Nikon full frame body twice, i decided to sell it...It was just gathering dust.
Whilst it was a nice camera to use...especially with both my Nikon macro VR 105mm lens and also my Sigma 150mm macro lens, i just didnt use it.
I could get virtually the same type of quality image, by using a Nikon V1/FT1 (or indeed my Panasonics) as i could with the more heavy/expensive kit.
Ok, it wasnt a modern, all singing, all dancing Nikon Full Frame body...it was an older(but well respected) Nikon D700.
I sold the D700 and the macro 105mm lens, but kept the Sigma macro 150mm lens, because that works very well, with my light weight Nikon V1/FT1 camera.

I did a comparison(out in the field) with both D700 body and V1 body, using the same lens(which was the Sigma 150mm macro). The Subject was a wild snake(Adder, Vipera berus).
Shot some images of said snake, using both set ups, same lighting conditions, at the same time...Processed the images(as i do) came to the conclusion that i dont need the larger/heavier kit(for my type of photography, subjects).

Obviously, this comparison was personally for both me and my chosen subjects, others may not agree with my findings.
Im pretty sure i could buy one of the latest high end Nikon bodies, and produce some high quality images...But since i dont print my images, i dont sell my images, Im just a hobbiest/enthusiast.................do i really need both the expense, an lug around the extra weight, when im out in the field, chasing those darn Butterflies for anything up to 6 hour sessions!!!

Cheers Paul.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick, this thread/journey of yours is utterly immense. Whilst Im traveling on a similar journey as you...I could never maintain a thread such as this, its bloody epic.
The content, the detail, its a brilliant piece of work...............I do know one of the reasons why you write down all the info in such minute detail though ...because if its not written down as it happened, its all to easy to forget mate. .

On another note, I know you are not familiar with Nikon Bodies, but last year, since i only used my Nikon full frame body twice, i decided to sell it...It was just gathering dust.
Whilst it was a nice camera to use...especially with both my Nikon macro VR 105mm lens and also my Sigma 150mm macro lens, i just didnt use it.
I could get virtually the same type of quality image, by using a Nikon V1/FT1 (or indeed my Panasonics) as i could with the more heavy/expensive kit.
Ok, it wasnt a modern, all singing, all dancing Nikon Full Frame body...it was an older(but well respected) Nikon D700.
I sold the D700 and the macro 105mm lens, but kept the Sigma macro 150mm lens, because that works very well, with my light weight Nikon V1/FT1 camera.

I did a comparison(out in the field) with both D700 body and V1 body, using the same lens(which was the Sigma 150mm macro). The Subject was a wild snake(Adder, Vipera berus).
Shot some images of said snake, using both set ups, same lighting conditions, at the same time...Processed the images(as i do) came to the conclusion that i dont need the larger/heavier kit(for my type of photography, subjects).

Obviously, this comparison was personally for both me and my chosen subjects, others may not agree with my findings.
Im pretty sure i could buy one of the latest high end Nikon bodies, and produce some high quality images...But since i dont print my images, i dont sell my images, Im just a hobbiest/enthusiast.................do i really need both the expense, an lug around the extra weight, when im out in the field, chasing those darn Butterflies for anything up to 6 hour sessions!!!

Cheers Paul.

I apologise for not responding sooner Paul. I was rather unwell around that time and subsequently didn't pick this up.

I find this is very interesting - the conclusions you have draw from your comparison of full frame against smaller sensor cameras, for your particular purposes, is very much in line with my journeying. I haven't (yet) tried full frame (I am very tempted for flowers, but not for insects etc), but further down the size scale I have settled, for my particular purposes, on small sensor (1/2.3") bridge cameras with achromats for medium sized insects etc using flash.

As it happens I prefer a larger (m43 or APS-C) sensor camera for natural light shots of larger insects, butterflies, dragonflies etc, although I very rarely see these. I prefer m43 for very small subjects but that is not related to sensor size but is because the Panasonic 45-175 lens, which doesn't change length when zooming, has great usability with powerful achromats for very small subjects like springtails.

It's different for flowers, which is what I'm shooting mostly these days (I'm seeing almost no insects etc in our garden, which is where I'm doing almost all my shooting now). I've pretty much settled on a Panasonic G80 with Olympus 60mm macro, with occasional use of a second G80 with a Panasonic 14-140 when I need more reach. In both cases I'm using aperture bracketing almost all the time so I can choose in slow time on a decent screen what aperture(s) gives me the most appealing (to my eyes) balance between subject DOF coverage and background rendition.

And you are right about writing things down here. From time to time I refer back and trawl through to remind myself about some of this stuff, a fair bit of which I find I had entirely forgotten about.

 

[davholla]

I apologise for not responding sooner Paul. I was rather unwell around that time and subsequently didn't pick this up.


It's different for flowers, which is what I'm shooting mostly these days (I'm seeing almost no insects etc in our garden, which is where I'm doing almost all my shooting now).

Is your garden very small? My garden is quite small, but I normally find insects in it. I am surprised that you find very few there.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Is your garden very small? My garden is quite small, but I normally find insects in it. I am surprised that you find very few there.

The plot, including the house, is 1/4 acre. So no, the garden is not very small, and it has lots of plants and quite a variety of plants.

 

[davholla]

The plot, including the house, is 1/4 acre. So no, the garden is not very small, and it has lots of plants and quite a variety of plants.

That is quite big, you should get loads of insects, my parents have a similar size garden and get loads, it is a great place for insect photography and they don't do much to encourage them.

 

[GardenersHelper]

That is quite big, you should get loads of insects, my parents have a similar size garden and get loads, it is a great place for insect photography and they don't do much to encourage them.

Yes, should do. Don't know what is going on. I've only been to one of the local nature reserves once in the past several months, but apart from lots of dung flies there wasn't much else around.

 

[davholla]

Yes, should do. Don't know what is going on. I've only been to one of the local nature reserves once in the past several months, but apart from lots of dung flies there wasn't much else around.

That is really weird, has other wildlife been affected? I always see butterflies when I go to the park but unless they are Comma (the most co-operative species) I rarely photograph them

 

[GardenersHelper]

That is really weird, has other wildlife been affected?

I don't know. At the nature reserves I have rarely seen anything other than invertebrates. All I generally see in the garden is common birds - robin, tits, pigeons etc, and they are the same as usual. Occasionally others - a blue jay a couple of times this year, a woodpecker in one or two previous years.

I always see butterflies when I go to the park but unless they are Comma (the most co-operative species) I rarely photograph them

I see butterflies occasionally passing through the garden but generally they don't stop here, and when they do it's hardly ever for long enough and/or in a position I can get a clear line on them (also I'm generally not using a suitable camera). Commas are about the only butterflies I get to photograph, and that is very infrequent. I didn't see a single butterfly, not even in the distance or on the wing, on my one (warm/hot, sunny day) visit to a nature reserve this year.

On the other hand the flowers have been amazing around here this year, and not just in our garden. I have been concentrating on flowers, unsurprisingly.

 

[davholla]

I don't know. At the nature reserves I have rarely seen anything other than invertebrates. All I generally see in the garden is common birds - robin, tits, pigeons etc, and they are the same as usual. Occasionally others - a blue jay a couple of times this year, a woodpecker in one or two previous years.



I see butterflies occasionally passing through the garden but generally they don't stop here, and when they do it's hardly ever for long enough and/or in a position I can get a clear line on them (also I'm generally not using a suitable camera). Commas are about the only butterflies I get to photograph, and that is very infrequent. I didn't see a single butterfly, not even in the distance or on the wing, on my one (warm/hot, sunny day) visit to a nature reserve this year.

On the other hand the flowers have been amazing around here this year, and not just in our garden. I have been concentrating on flowers, unsurprisingly.

It amazes me that you don't see more. I was at my parents on Sunday and in about 20-30 minutes I got these, nothing amazing (and there were lots of bumblebees that got away)
Caterpillar IMG_1159 by davholla2002, on Flickr

Bumblebe IMG_1157 by davholla2002, on Flickr

Hoverflies IMG_1218 by davholla2002, on Flickr

 

[Testudo Man]

I apologise for not responding sooner Paul. I was rather unwell around that time and subsequently didn't pick this up.

I find this is very interesting - the conclusions you have draw from your comparison of full frame against smaller sensor cameras, for your particular purposes, is very much in line with my journeying. I haven't (yet) tried full frame (I am very tempted for flowers, but not for insects etc), but further down the size scale I have settled, for my particular purposes, on small sensor (1/2.3") bridge cameras with achromats for medium sized insects etc using flash.

As it happens I prefer a larger (m43 or APS-C) sensor camera for natural light shots of larger insects, butterflies, dragonflies etc, although I very rarely see these. I prefer m43 for very small subjects but that is not related to sensor size but is because the Panasonic 45-175 lens, which doesn't change length when zooming, has great usability with powerful achromats for very small subjects like springtails.

It's different for flowers, which is what I'm shooting mostly these days (I'm seeing almost no insects etc in our garden, which is where I'm doing almost all my shooting now). I've pretty much settled on a Panasonic G80 with Olympus 60mm macro, with occasional use of a second G80 with a Panasonic 14-140 when I need more reach. In both cases I'm using aperture bracketing almost all the time so I can choose in slow time on a decent screen what aperture(s) gives me the most appealing (to my eyes) balance between subject DOF coverage and background rendition.

And you are right about writing things down here. From time to time I refer back and trawl through to remind myself about some of this stuff, a fair bit of which I find I had entirely forgotten about.

Looks like im now apologising to you Nick!...for not answering your post!...Apart from Flickr, i havent been active on any forums/sites for several months now.
This is the 1st time/day that i have posted anything on this forum for some time.


I hope you are now feeling much better, im sorry to hear that you have been unwell. Not sure what else to say mate, but keep yourself busy, with all that you do, in regards to your style of photography, and your findings throughout your journey, in this wonderful world of close up/macro photography.
All the best, cheers Paul.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Looks like im now apologising to you Nick!...for not answering your post!...Apart from Flickr, i havent been active on any forums/sites for several months now.
This is the 1st time/day that i have posted anything on this forum for some time.

No need to apologise Paul. I hope you are ok.

I hope you are now feeling much better, im sorry to hear that you have been unwell. Not sure what else to say mate, but keep yourself busy, with all that you do, in regards to your style of photography, and your findings throughout your journey, in this wonderful world of close up/macro photography.
All the best, cheers Paul.

Thanks Paul. I had a bad patch for a couple of months and it all looked a bit grim, but things picked up and I've been feeling fine for several months now. I have been popping in to this site from time to time to see what is going on but haven't been posting. Partly that is because the emphasis here is very much on insects etc, and I have pretty much given up on that side of things for the moment, having found very few insects to photograph, and very little variety in what I did find, as described in some previous posts. I have been doing a fair amount with flowers etc, but that doesn't seem to fit too well here. I've been posting at dpreview.

After not doing any for a while, I've been trying stacking again for flowers, with mixed results. Sometimes it works fine, the processing is easy and I really like the results. Other times I can't get the stacks to work to my satisfaction, even when I put a lot of time and care into individual images. I haven't yet been able to work out what the key difference(s) is (are) between ones that work and ones that don't. Still, I'm going to keep mixing in some stacking with single image captures because the stacking results really are (to my eye) very nice sometimes (and I believe sometimes or maybe often not possible with single images, no matter what camera/lens combination is used).

Aperture bracketing is working really well for single images. If I'm using a camera that has aperture bracketing I rarely take single shots now for flowers etc,

So my journey has slowed down a bit this year, but it continues. I'm still thinking about full frame for flowers for example. And I'm still experimenting. For example I recently got a new travel camera, a Panasonic TZ90 because my TZ60 was getting a bit flakey. While experimenting with it I worked out a way of using it with close-up lenses. Here it is with a low power Canon 500D close-up lens. (With the 500D it goes down to a scene width of around 25mm at a working distance of around 500mm, and a scene width of around 22mm at a working distance of around 400mm. With the Raynox 150 it goes down to a scene width of around 11mm.)


1353 09 P1490785_DxO RAW LR7 800h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I wouldn't want to use it for insects etc, at least not for most of the ones I photograph (or used to photograph at least ), because I generally need to use flash to get decent results. It would be ok for natural light shots of things like butterflies and dragonflies. And it works quite nicely for flowers, with a 500D close-up lens. There isn't much scope for varying aperture, which is limiting for single shots (and there is no aperture bracketing, although given the very small range of available apertures there would be little point in aperture bracketing). To my surprise though it can be used for stacking, using the post focus capture technique described in this post above. Here is an example, stacked (using Helicon Focus) from 21 frames from a post focus video.


1351 9 2018_08_05 P1010004 TZ90+500D PF 21f ISO 80 F4.1 1-640 -1EV B3,2 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Of course it can also be used without a close-up lens. This rose for example was up in a tree out of reach of close-up and macro lenses. (For this I used two or three raw captures from a five capture exposure bracket.)


1354 05 2018_08_04 TZ90, No achromat, 2 or 3 shot HDR P1000553-HDR-2 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I did capture one insect with the Raynox 150.


1354 06 2018_08_04 TZ90+R 150 P1000634_DxO RAW LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

However, that was very low magnification and could just as easily have been done with the 500D. Here is what happened when I tried to photograph an insect that really needed the power of the Raynox 150. I had lots of time; it was not moving round much; it was only a bit breezy; but hand-held without flash I could not get a decent shot of it. Out of a large number of shots, this was the best I could do. Not good. It needed flash. But given where the flash is located on the TZ90 that seems impractical to me. But as a natural light camera, I think it is pretty good given its small size and huge reach.


1354 10 2018_08_04 TZ90+R150 Unsatisfactory IQ, no flash P1000709_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

But that was all just one-off experiments. The routine use for the TZ90 will be as an "out and about" camera, for this sort of thing.


1349 43 2018_08_01 P1000201_DxO RAW LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1349 80 2018_08_01 P1000294_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There again, that could include some more or less close-ups from time to time.


1349 31 2018_08_01 P1000162_DxO RAW LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[Testudo Man]

No need to apologise Paul. I hope you are ok.



Thanks Paul. I had a bad patch for a couple of months and it all looked a bit grim, but things picked up and I've been feeling fine for several months now. I have been popping in to this site from time to time to see what is going on but haven't been posting. Partly that is because the emphasis here is very much on insects etc, and I have pretty much given up on that side of things for the moment, having found very few insects to photograph, and very little variety in what I did find, as described in some previous posts. I have been doing a fair amount with flowers etc, but that doesn't seem to fit too well here. I've been posting at dpreview.

After not doing any for a while, I've been trying stacking again for flowers, with mixed results. Sometimes it works fine, the processing is easy and I really like the results. Other times I can't get the stacks to work to my satisfaction, even when I put a lot of time and care into individual images. I haven't yet been able to work out what the key difference(s) is (are) between ones that work and ones that don't. Still, I'm going to keep mixing in some stacking with single image captures because the stacking results really are (to my eye) very nice sometimes (and I believe sometimes or maybe often not possible with single images, no matter what camera/lens combination is used).

Aperture bracketing is working really well for single images. If I'm using a camera that has aperture bracketing I rarely take single shots now for flowers etc,

So my journey has slowed down a bit this year, but it continues. I'm still thinking about full frame for flowers for example. And I'm still experimenting. For example I recently got a new travel camera, a Panasonic TZ90 because my TZ60 was getting a bit flakey. While experimenting with it I worked out a way of using it with close-up lenses. Here it is with a low power Canon 500D close-up lens. (With the 500D it goes down to a scene width of around 25mm at a working distance of around 500mm, and a scene width of around 22mm at a working distance of around 400mm. With the Raynox 150 it goes down to a scene width of around 11mm.)


1353 09 P1490785_DxO RAW LR7 800h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I wouldn't want to use it for insects etc, at least not for most of the ones I photograph (or used to photograph at least ), because I generally need to use flash to get decent results. It would be ok for natural light shots of things like butterflies and dragonflies. And it works quite nicely for flowers, with a 500D close-up lens. There isn't much scope for varying aperture, which is limiting for single shots (and there is no aperture bracketing, although given the very small range of available apertures there would be little point in aperture bracketing). To my surprise though it can be used for stacking, using the post focus capture technique described in this post above. Here is an example, stacked (using Helicon Focus) from 21 frames from a post focus video.


1351 9 2018_08_05 P1010004 TZ90+500D PF 21f ISO 80 F4.1 1-640 -1EV B3,2 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Of course it can also be used without a close-up lens. This rose for example was up in a tree out of reach of close-up and macro lenses. (For this I used two or three raw captures from a five capture exposure bracket.)


1354 05 2018_08_04 TZ90, No achromat, 2 or 3 shot HDR P1000553-HDR-2 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I did capture one insect with the Raynox 150.


1354 06 2018_08_04 TZ90+R 150 P1000634_DxO RAW LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

However, that was very low magnification and could just as easily have been done with the 500D. Here is what happened when I tried to photograph an insect that really needed the power of the Raynox 150. I had lots of time; it was not moving round much; it was only a bit breezy; but hand-held without flash I could not get a decent shot of it. Out of a large number of shots, this was the best I could do. Not good. It needed flash. But given where the flash is located on the TZ90 that seems impractical to me. But as a natural light camera, I think it is pretty good given its small size and huge reach.


1354 10 2018_08_04 TZ90+R150 Unsatisfactory IQ, no flash P1000709_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

But that was all just one-off experiments. The routine use for the TZ90 will be as an "out and about" camera, for this sort of thing.


1349 43 2018_08_01 P1000201_DxO RAW LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1349 80 2018_08_01 P1000294_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There again, that could include some more or less close-ups from time to time.


1349 31 2018_08_01 P1000162_DxO RAW LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Cheers Nick, yes im fine thank you, glad to hear you are on the up/recovering well...Im thinking out door photography could be both therapeutic/uplifting.
Im still chasing butterflies! searching for that near perfect image(although ive changed tactics these last couple of seasons) Im resorting to afternoon/early evening shooting times...Im also venturing out in the field, with 2 or 3 camera setups at a time, to try to cover most bases!
I still think we are spoilt for choice sometimes though...Im pretty sure if we forced ourselves to just use one camera/lens/set up, then we could still produce good enough images on the day.

I havent logged into the dpreview forum/site for a very long time now.

I think the Macro/Close up section and Bugs/Insects will always be the popular choice for most of us...it just seems to be the norm/natural...it is for me anyway.
I think its the challenge for me(an others) to shoot close ups of wild/live/natural images of all the fascinating creatures that we can find on our "doorsteps".
I have zero interest in shooting dead bugs, in a clinically controlled environment(hell, anyone can do that!!)...i want to see them alive an kicking.

Whilst i dont share your enthusiasm for shooting images of Flowers, i can certainly understand why that subject interests you...an who knows, my interests could quit easily change, an i end up chasing all the lovely Orchid species that occur local to me.
As they say - Its Horses for Courses"...Inspiration to pick up a camera, can come from any subject. I hardly took any photos in this years month of June(a great month for butterflies) i just couldnt find the inspiration...I had a good time in the month of May, an August has got off to a good start for me too.

I like how youve adapted your "travel camera" for "semi macro" Nick...your journey will always revolve around close up macro...although your seascape/sky image looks good.

The 500D close up lens/filter is a popular choice for me too, i might even have to buy another one?! rather than switch it over from camera to camera, out in the field!
Ive still used Raynox 250 an 150 this season, ive even had a go at stacking them too, for my Jumping Spider images.
But the 500D, for me, gets used the most, for my Butterfly images...it just works so well for that subject.

Keep shooting Nick, all the best, cheers Paul.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The 500D close up lens/filter is a popular choice for me too, i might even have to buy another one?! rather than switch it over from camera to camera, out in the field!
Ive still used Raynox 250 an 150 this season, ive even had a go at stacking them too, for my Jumping Spider images.
But the 500D, for me, gets used the most, for my Butterfly images...it just works so well for that subject.

I recently bought (another) Canon 250D and a Marumi 330, and I'm doing a load of test shots with the Canon 500D and 250D, Marumi 330 and 200, Raynox 150 and 250 and a +2 and +4 filter. It's pretty tedious but I may have to revise some of my conclusions (here and here) from previous comparisons of the Raynox 150 with the Marumi 200 and Canon 250D. It's more complicated than I thought, and possibly (not sure yet) not so one-sided in favour of the Raynoxes. One notable thing is that the Marumi 330, which I haven't used before, looks like it might be as good or possibly better than the (very good) 500D in terms of capturing detail/textures. Of course the working distance is shorter, maximum about 330mm, which would make it less suitable for butterflies.

 

[Testudo Man]

I recently bought (another) Canon 250D and a Marumi 330, and I'm doing a load of test shots with the Canon 500D and 250D, Marumi 330 and 200, Raynox 150 and 250 and a +2 and +4 filter. It's pretty tedious but I may have to revise some of my conclusions (here and here) from previous comparisons of the Raynox 150 with the Marumi 200 and Canon 250D. It's more complicated than I thought, and possibly (not sure yet) not so one-sided in favour of the Raynoxes. One notable thing is that the Marumi 330, which I haven't used before, looks like it might be as good or possibly better than the (very good) 500D in terms of capturing detail/textures. Of course the working distance is shorter, maximum about 330mm, which would make it less suitable for butterflies.

As always, interesting Nick.
I have no experience with any of the Marumi's, i was under the impression that they didnt do as well as the other close up filters though.

I have thought about trying the 250D, but for me, with Butterflies/Dragonfly images, im trying for that clear/uncluttered/creamy/out of focus background, so even using a Raynox 150, this restricts me using long zooms, thereby not giving me pleasing backgrounds. That why the 500D works well for me, because of its low magnification, i can use more of a zoom, still try for a pleasing composition, an also achieve smooth/clear backgrounds. This generally only works with the smaller species of butterflies though!
Cheers Paul.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

I had a bad patch for a couple of months and it all looked a bit grim, but things picked up and I've been feeling fine for several months now. I have been popping in to this site from time to time to see what is going on but haven't been posting. Partly that is because the emphasis here is very much on insects etc, and I have pretty much given up on that side of things for the moment, having found very few insects to photograph, and very little variety in what I did find, as described in some previous posts. I have been doing a fair amount with flowers etc, but that doesn't seem to fit too well here. I've been posting at dpreview.

Sorry to hear you have been unwell Nick - trust you are still improved though and keep up the good work as always

 

[GardenersHelper]

As always, interesting Nick.
I have no experience with any of the Marumi's, i was under the impression that they didnt do as well as the other close up filters though.

That was the conclusion I came to comparing the Marumi 200 to the Raynox 150. I assumed (dangerous thing to do of course) that the Marumi 330 would be similar. It turns out that the Marumi 330 seems to do better in practice than my bench tests suggest that it should. I have some real world results I quite like from a session with the 330 in the garden and more from a session with two of them stacked. I have done some more thorough bench test captures today and now have to try to make sense of them. I'll write it all up here if I manage to come to any coherent conclusions. One thing is for sure - it isn't straightforward.

I have thought about trying the 250D, but for me, with Butterflies/Dragonfly images, im trying for that clear/uncluttered/creamy/out of focus background, so even using a Raynox 150, this restricts me using long zooms, thereby not giving me pleasing backgrounds. That why the 500D works well for me, because of its low magnification, i can use more of a zoom, still try for a pleasing composition, an also achieve smooth/clear backgrounds. This generally only works with the smaller species of butterflies though!
Cheers Paul.

I'm fortunate in that my taste in backgrounds includes being happy with (rather liking actually) more going on in them than I think most people prefer, which makes it much easier. Besides which, it is quite a while since I have photographed a butterfly and even longer for a dragonfly or damselfly. Most of my subjects are a bit smaller.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Sorry to hear you have been unwell Nick - trust you are still improved though and keep up the good work as always

Thanks Mike. I expect to be adding to this thread quite soon. It looks like there may be a change of equipment on the way, at least for invertebrates. And just may be, in the slightly longer term, for flowers, but I'm more doubtful about that.

 

[davholla]

Thanks Mike. I expect to be adding to this thread quite soon. It looks like there may be a change of equipment on the way, at least for invertebrates. And just may be, in the slightly longer term, for flowers, but I'm more doubtful about that.

Why change equipment you seem to be doing very well with your current set up?