GardenersHelper
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,344
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
These images are from a session yesterday morning where I was testing the use of a Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens with one 2X and one 1.4X teleconverter. This follows on from this post where I was using two 2X teleconverters.
I think this will be my preferred setup for a while: Sony A7sii, Kenko 2X and 1.4X teleconverters, Canon EF-mount Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens with Sigma EF to E mount adapter and a Yongnuo YN24EX twin flash in manual mode, working hand-held to capture single shots at a rate of up to one every one to two seconds, using manual focus aided by focus peaking on the rear screen with a SmallRig LCD hood.
My reason for preferring this setup to the two 2X setup is that it gives me a range of usable magnifications which are better suited to my subject matter, namely around 1:1.5 to 5.6;1 rather than 1:1 to 8:1 with the two 2X setup. Both setups go right out to infinity focus, however for any particular magnification the working distance is larger with the two 2X setup, and by the time I get to 1:1 with the two 2X setup the working distance is increasing so fast that if I try to go out any further the flash can't throw enough light on to the scene to keep me to a tolerable ISO. The lower magnification out to 1:1.5 that I get with the 2X + 1.4X setup turns out to be much more useful to me than the lost magnification of 5.6:1 to 8:1.
I used f/40 throughout the session. This is the f-number reported by the camera, which would be f/14 set on the Laowa and a 2.8X teleconversion factor. I was using magnifications of around 1:1.5 to 5.6:1 during the session, giving effective apertures of around f/50 to f/120. For any particular scene size this closely matches the effective apertures of the twin 2X teleconverter setup I was previously testing used at f/45.
It is very convenient to not adjust the aperture as the magnification changes. Given that this means the effective aperture changes with magnification, I don't understand why this works as well as it does in terms of apparently (difficult to test) getting a similar depth of field in relation to subject size whatever the magnification.
I captured around 280 shots of 19 subjects during the 58 minute session (around one shot every 12 seconds on average) and kept 69 of them, about 25% (They are in this album at Flickr at 1300 pixels high). Given that it was quite breezy, and some of the subjects were fairly small, I think this setup performed adequately.
There are a lot of similar shots of some of the subjects. That is because I like to capture sequences. For example, image #1 below is one of a sequence of 12 images of two poses at a similar magnification. The interest there for me is the huge movement of the antennae. Image #4 is one of a sequence of 18 images of an ? earwig nymph as it moved around. Image #7 is one of three shots at different magnifications of a stationary subject, going from "spider hanging under its web" somewhat "environmental" shot to a closer-in body shot.
The very small apertures used for these images destroy fine detail that would otherwise be visible at larger display sizes than the 1300 pixel height that I use. Indeed, based on a bench test I did, Rik Littlefield of photomacrography.net has shown here that if you look very carefully (400%) and compare an image of this type with a focus-stacked image of the same scene which used a normal aperture you can see, even at 1300 pixels high, that it isn't just that the finest detail is lost, but some of the smallest features are not rendered accurately, although as Rik points out the overall look of the image is unchanged. So these images lean slightly away from the photographic and towards the impressionistic. Given that what I aim for is "pretty pictures" which are credible rather than precisely accurate records, I'm ok with that. YMMV, of course.
These were captured raw and processed with presets in DXO PhotoLab, Adobe Lightroom and Topaz DeNoise AI, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom.
#1
1900 09 2021_05_25 DSC02586_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#2
1900 14 2021_05_25 DSC02606_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#3
1900 21 2021_05_25 DSC02636_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#4
1900 29 2021_05_25 DSC02664_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#5
1900 43 2021_05_25 DSC02693_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#6
1900 46 2021_05_25 DSC02705_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#7
1900 55 2021_05_25 DSC02730_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#8
1900 63 2021_05_25 DSC02780_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
--
Nick
Summary of photo activity since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
Blog
https://fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com/
I think this will be my preferred setup for a while: Sony A7sii, Kenko 2X and 1.4X teleconverters, Canon EF-mount Laowa 100mm 2X macro lens with Sigma EF to E mount adapter and a Yongnuo YN24EX twin flash in manual mode, working hand-held to capture single shots at a rate of up to one every one to two seconds, using manual focus aided by focus peaking on the rear screen with a SmallRig LCD hood.
My reason for preferring this setup to the two 2X setup is that it gives me a range of usable magnifications which are better suited to my subject matter, namely around 1:1.5 to 5.6;1 rather than 1:1 to 8:1 with the two 2X setup. Both setups go right out to infinity focus, however for any particular magnification the working distance is larger with the two 2X setup, and by the time I get to 1:1 with the two 2X setup the working distance is increasing so fast that if I try to go out any further the flash can't throw enough light on to the scene to keep me to a tolerable ISO. The lower magnification out to 1:1.5 that I get with the 2X + 1.4X setup turns out to be much more useful to me than the lost magnification of 5.6:1 to 8:1.
I used f/40 throughout the session. This is the f-number reported by the camera, which would be f/14 set on the Laowa and a 2.8X teleconversion factor. I was using magnifications of around 1:1.5 to 5.6:1 during the session, giving effective apertures of around f/50 to f/120. For any particular scene size this closely matches the effective apertures of the twin 2X teleconverter setup I was previously testing used at f/45.
It is very convenient to not adjust the aperture as the magnification changes. Given that this means the effective aperture changes with magnification, I don't understand why this works as well as it does in terms of apparently (difficult to test) getting a similar depth of field in relation to subject size whatever the magnification.
I captured around 280 shots of 19 subjects during the 58 minute session (around one shot every 12 seconds on average) and kept 69 of them, about 25% (They are in this album at Flickr at 1300 pixels high). Given that it was quite breezy, and some of the subjects were fairly small, I think this setup performed adequately.
There are a lot of similar shots of some of the subjects. That is because I like to capture sequences. For example, image #1 below is one of a sequence of 12 images of two poses at a similar magnification. The interest there for me is the huge movement of the antennae. Image #4 is one of a sequence of 18 images of an ? earwig nymph as it moved around. Image #7 is one of three shots at different magnifications of a stationary subject, going from "spider hanging under its web" somewhat "environmental" shot to a closer-in body shot.
The very small apertures used for these images destroy fine detail that would otherwise be visible at larger display sizes than the 1300 pixel height that I use. Indeed, based on a bench test I did, Rik Littlefield of photomacrography.net has shown here that if you look very carefully (400%) and compare an image of this type with a focus-stacked image of the same scene which used a normal aperture you can see, even at 1300 pixels high, that it isn't just that the finest detail is lost, but some of the smallest features are not rendered accurately, although as Rik points out the overall look of the image is unchanged. So these images lean slightly away from the photographic and towards the impressionistic. Given that what I aim for is "pretty pictures" which are credible rather than precisely accurate records, I'm ok with that. YMMV, of course.
These were captured raw and processed with presets in DXO PhotoLab, Adobe Lightroom and Topaz DeNoise AI, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom.
#1
1900 09 2021_05_25 DSC02586_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#2
1900 14 2021_05_25 DSC02606_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#3
1900 21 2021_05_25 DSC02636_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#4
1900 29 2021_05_25 DSC02664_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#5
1900 43 2021_05_25 DSC02693_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#6
1900 46 2021_05_25 DSC02705_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#7
1900 55 2021_05_25 DSC02730_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
#8
1900 63 2021_05_25 DSC02780_PLab4 LR 1300h DNAI DNAIc by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
--
Nick
Summary of photo activity since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/
Blog
https://fliesandflowersetc-ramblings.blogspot.com/
Last edited:
