Taggarts Wood, May 2019

GardenersHelper

GardenersHelper

In Memoriam
Messages
6,344
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
These were captured a couple of days ago in a two hour late afternoon session at a local nature reserve using a Venus Optics KX800 twin flash with a Panasonic G9 and 45-175 with a Raynox 150. some with a second Raynox 150 or a Raynox 250 stacked on the first Raynox 150. The raw files were batch processed in DXO PhotoLab and Silkypix, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom. There are 1300 pixel high versions in this album at Flickr.

#1

1488 018 2019_05_22 P1004309_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1488 031 2019_05_22 P1004472_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1488 040 2019_05_22 P1004548_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1488 046 2019_05_22 P1004613_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1488 049 2019_05_22 P1004625_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1488 084 2019_05_22 P1004803_PLab SP7 LR 1300h-2 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1488 036 2019_05_22 P1004517_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1488 066 2019_05_22 P1004745_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



Continued in next post .....
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Wow what a belting set. I take it you focus stack but how do you manage that with a moving subject.I ask because I assume the ant wasn't stationary
 
Wandering star said:
Wow what a belting set. I take it you focus stack but how do you manage that with a moving subject.I ask because I assume the ant wasn't stationary
Click to expand...

Thanks. I do use stacks, but only for plants, so these are all single captures. As you say, stacking isn't possible with subjects that are moving a lot; and the ants were moving a lot, scurrying around quite fast, down the stalk, up again, down, up, over and over, and sometimes around the top. They only stopped briefly where the one is in the second image below, and more often a bit further up and on the other side, somewhat around to the back and not offering a good view of them. What with all the movement and the ants being fairly small the ant shots were particularly hit and (much more often) miss. Here are the only other ones I kept from 132 shots in around twelve and a half minutes.

The reason for the depth of field is that I use very small apertures, minimum apertures in fact, which on this micro four thirds rig is f/22, which is equivalent to f/45 on full frame in terms of depth of field and also in terms of the trade-off - the blurring and loss of fine detail from diffraction. However, I like to get as much depth of field as I can and am willing to put up with the loss of fine detail in order to get a wider front to back range of larger detail (depth of field roughly doubles for each two stops decrease in aperture).


1488 025 2019_05_22 P1004370_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1488 026 2019_05_22 P1004383_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1488 027 2019_05_22 P1004430_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1488 028 2019_05_22 P1004455_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1488 029 2019_05_22 P1004457_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


1488 030 2019_05_22 P1004458_PLab SP7 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
As usual Nick, a good selection of quality macro images here, nice one.

As a side note, ive recently bought into MFT myself (only a 2ndhand Panny G7). I'd thought about trying MFT's for sometime now, so when a good as new boxed G7 with 12-60mm lens(an 2 spare batteries) was advertised local to me, i took the plunge!...I wanted this setup for mainly Butterflies.
The 12-60mm (although a nice lens) was too restrictive, when i added either 500D or Raynox 150 filters, so i soon bought a Panny 45-150mm lens, an this works much better with the 2 close up lens that i mentioned. it gives me more working distance from my chosen subjects.
Anyway, 1st impressions are good, keeping good image quality(with much higher ISO's) than im used to using, is great, plus i wanted a touch screen to speed up my process, all in a light weight package(because i often shoot one handed)......the G7 with 45-150 ticks all the boxes.
 
alfbranch said:
Great as ever Nick
Click to expand...

Thanks Alf. I've not been doing much with invertebrates for some months now, partly because I found myself wanting to concentrate on botanical stuff for several months, partly because when I did go out looking for invertebrates several times I didn't find much, and that disinclined me to spend more time on that side of things. This latest session was better, and I may try some of the sites I haven't visited for a while.
 
Testudo Man said:
As usual Nick, a good selection of quality macro images here, nice one.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul.

Testudo Man said:
As a side note, ive recently bought into MFT myself (only a 2ndhand Panny G7). I'd thought about trying MFT's for sometime now, so when a good as new boxed G7 with 12-60mm lens(an 2 spare batteries) was advertised local to me, i took the plunge!...I wanted this setup for mainly Butterflies.
The 12-60mm (although a nice lens) was too restrictive, when i added either 500D or Raynox 150 filters, so i soon bought a Panny 45-150mm lens, an this works much better with the 2 close up lens that i mentioned. it gives me more working distance from my chosen subjects.
Anyway, 1st impressions are good, keeping good image quality(with much higher ISO's) than im used to using, is great, plus i wanted a touch screen to speed up my process, all in a light weight package(because i often shoot one handed)......the G7 with 45-150 ticks all the boxes.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised about the 12-60. That was my experience too when I tried it with close-up lenses. The 45-150 should be much better. The 45-175 I use gives a nice range with the 500D (and bare lens) for flowers etc. I find the 150 a bit restrictive on the 45-175 for insects etc, having to switch more often than I like to something more powerful (with the disadvantage of shorter working distances as well as the hassle of juggling with multiple close-up lenses). In that respect it compares poorly with my FZ bridge cameras, which give me the range from 100mm to 600mm equivalent without vignetting with the 150, and that range covers most of what I want to do with invertebrates, so I don't have to change lenses around much, and not at all during some sessions.

The thing is that I'm pleased with the image quality I'm getting with the G9 and 45-175 and I'm back using MFT, again. (It's been on and off, with the G3, G5 and G80, in between going back to the FZs.) Now, with the G9, I'm leaving a 150 screwed on to the 45-175 and then, when I need more magnification, using an additional 150 or 250, using clip on adaptors for speedy changes. So far I'm finding the lens switching tolerable; we'll see how it goes in the longer term. For all I know I may go back to the FZs, yet again.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Thanks Paul.



I'm not surprised about the 12-60. That was my experience too when I tried it with close-up lenses. The 45-150 should be much better. The 45-175 I use gives a nice range with the 500D (and bare lens) for flowers etc. I find the 150 a bit restrictive on the 45-175 for insects etc, having to switch more often than I like to something more powerful (with the disadvantage of shorter working distances as well as the hassle of juggling with multiple close-up lenses). In that respect it compares poorly with my FZ bridge cameras, which give me the range from 100mm to 600mm equivalent without vignetting with the 150, and that range covers most of what I want to do with invertebrates, so I don't have to change lenses around much, and not at all during some sessions.

The thing is that I'm pleased with the image quality I'm getting with the G9 and 45-175 and I'm back using MFT, again. (It's been on and off, with the G3, G5 and G80, in between going back to the FZs.) Now, with the G9, I'm leaving a 150 screwed on to the 45-175 and then, when I need more magnification, using an additional 150 or 250, using clip on adaptors for speedy changes. So far I'm finding the lens switching tolerable; we'll see how it goes in the longer term. For all I know I may go back to the FZs, yet again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding here Nick (i dont want to hijack your thread).

I did get some success with the 12-60/500D set up, but the short zoom range meant that i had to get too close to the butterflies(casting a shadow sometimes) an like you say, with a raynox 150 attached, too much vignetting! I think we are always "juggling setups/lens/filters" etc. its just part of the course, when taking different camera types out together, an alway trying to compare.
As you know, if im after macro/real close images, then i rely on my trusty ole FZ50/Raynox 250 set up.
But this G7 set up is primarily for butteflies, an it looks like i will use - G7/45-150/raynox 150, for the kind of butterfly images i want to produce.
An in the other hand - Panny FZ150/500D close up filter, for producing the same kind of butterfly images.

When you get a spare couple of minutes Nick, please take a look at the last 5 butterfly images that ive just up loaded on my 2019 macro/close up thread.
To capture those 5 images, i used both panny G7 an panny FZ150 set ups.....................but which cameras produced which images??
Cheers Paul.
 
Testudo Man said:
Thanks for responding here Nick (i dont want to hijack your thread).
Click to expand...

Not a problem. I am happy whatever direction the conversation goes in my threads (whether it involves me or not, or my images or not).

Testudo Man said:
I did get some success with the 12-60/500D set up, but the short zoom range meant that i had to get too close to the butterflies(casting a shadow sometimes) an like you say, with a raynox 150 attached, too much vignetting! I think we are always "juggling setups/lens/filters" etc. its just part of the course, when taking different camera types out together, an alway trying to compare.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. I've just come indoors from just such a comparison session (comparing the same camera with different lenses in this case, for flowers, comparing usability as well as - to be done - image quality).

Testudo Man said:
As you know, if im after macro/real close images, then i rely on my trusty ole FZ50/Raynox 250 set up.
But this G7 set up is primarily for butteflies, an it looks like i will use - G7/45-150/raynox 150, for the kind of butterfly images i want to produce.
An in the other hand - Panny FZ150/500D close up filter, for producing the same kind of butterfly images.
Click to expand...

I have never found a setup I really like for butterflies. I haven't been able to find one with quite as much magnification as I want (to fill the frame or thereabouts with a whole body/wings shot) with as much working distance as I would like (a metre or so - typical telezoom minimum working distance). I very rarely see butterflies these days (or dragonflies or damselflies, which have the same issue, for me at least) so I'm not experienced with them, but I find the 20 inches max working distance of the 500D is a bit too short for comfort, too easy to scare off a butterfly, but the magnification not quite large enough for my taste at full zoom with a bare FZxxx, Gxx with 45-175 or 70D with 55-250.

Testudo Man said:
When you get a spare couple of minutes Nick, please take a look at the last 5 butterfly images that ive just up loaded on my 2019 macro/close up thread.
To capture those 5 images, i used both panny G7 an panny FZ150 set ups.....................but which cameras produced which images??
Cheers Paul.
Click to expand...

They are all very pleasing, but I couldn't say which camera produced which image (the images, and the subject size within the images, are rather small for doing comparisons, for my eyesight at least, but than again I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't tell with larger image sizes - I see the same sort of similarities as between my FZs, Gs and 70D). The first of the three Common Blues may have slightly better clarity, but there are various possible reasons for that (if it is true!), such as differences in the ambient conditions of light and movement, camera settings, exposure and/or processing.

With my setups I'm never convinced there is a significant difference until I can see a consistent pattern across at least several quite closely like for like pairs of images, preferably exactly the same scene captured at the same time with two (or more) different setups, preferably alternating between the setups at least a couple of times. That is rather difficult to arrange with live invertebrates of course! It is easier with flowers. One thing I found with flowers at the end of last year was that it didn't make a significant difference (for my type of flower images) using a full frame camera compared to MFT (written up and discussed here and here on another site). That was a big surprise and a disappointment. I haven't actually found anything useful to do with the full frame yet. It might turn out to be rather good for sunsets, but we haven't had a decent sunset (where I've been ready for it, to go out to a local vantage point) for many months.
 
Last edited:
I do have numerous (uncropped) butterfly images, were i have filled the frame, but these images are more for "specific species type images", rather than "composition type images"...the latter images are the ones i now favour. But i still shoot butterfly images which will fill the frame, and i can use several camera set ups to do this. The easiest set up for me, is - Panny FZ150/500D close up filter. This set up allows me some distance from the subject, and also the ability to quickly zoom in or out, in order to capture full frame butterfly images (without the need to crop later). Ive been doing this for years now, so i guess ive honed my field skills enough, not to spook the butterfly. (time of day, recent emergence of butterfly, cloud cover etc.) all play a part.

Yes, sorry about the image sizes Nick, but i never upload files much larger than those.
As you have rightly stated above ^^^^^^ - differences in the ambient conditions of light and movement, camera settings, exposure and/or processing.
Many other factors come into play too...but for comparisons, i try to shoot the same subject, with how ever many camera set ups, i take out in the field with me.
Normally 2, but sometimes 3 set ups...which means, one in each hand, and sometimes the 3rd in my back pack! Conditions can change within seconds, so you are never going to get absolutely ideal "like for like" comparisons, but im happy with the comparisons i make.
As for those 5 recent butterfly images, 1st 4 are with the Panny G7, 5th image is Panny FZ150. Editing is virtually the same for both cameras. I always shoot in Jpeg, an handheld. I havent been using the G7 set up for that long(so still learning/experimenting) but i know the FZ150 inside an out now.

Obviously, with the G7, i can use much higher ISO's(probably get away with ISO 1000) The smaller sensor FZ150, struggles to maintain a good quality image beyond ISO 200! But even so, there is not alot of image qaulity difference, between the 2 cameras! Not for my subjects/purposes anyway.
They both weigh about the same (G7/45-150/500D and FZ150/500D) easy to use one handed too...I just have to spend more time with the G7, get to know it well, so i can operate as fast as i can, like with my trusty ole FZ150!

Like you, ive tried crop sensor, full sensor(although my Nikons were old models) Ive given the Nikon V1/J1 one inch sensors a good go, Ive tied various FZ Bridge cameras...an now im giving MFT's a go too!...I just think there is - no "one camera does it all"...I think various cameras...for various subjects/situations etc.
 
Testudo Man said:
I do have numerous (uncropped) butterfly images, were i have filled the frame, but these images are more for "specific species type images", rather than "composition type images"...the latter images are the ones i now favour. But i still shoot butterfly images which will fill the frame, and i can use several camera set ups to do this. The easiest set up for me, is - Panny FZ150/500D close up filter. This set up allows me some distance from the subject, and also the ability to quickly zoom in or out, in order to capture full frame butterfly images (without the need to crop later). Ive been doing this for years now, so i guess ive honed my field skills enough, not to spook the butterfly. (time of day, recent emergence of butterfly, cloud cover etc.) all play a part.

Yes, sorry about the image sizes Nick, but i never upload files much larger than those.
As you have rightly stated above ^^^^^^ - differences in the ambient conditions of light and movement, camera settings, exposure and/or processing.
Many other factors come into play too...but for comparisons, i try to shoot the same subject, with how ever many camera set ups, i take out in the field with me.
Normally 2, but sometimes 3 set ups...which means, one in each hand, and sometimes the 3rd in my back pack! Conditions can change within seconds, so you are never going to get absolutely ideal "like for like" comparisons, but im happy with the comparisons i make.
As for those 5 recent butterfly images, 1st 4 are with the Panny G7, 5th image is Panny FZ150. Editing is virtually the same for both cameras. I always shoot in Jpeg, an handheld. I havent been using the G7 set up for that long(so still learning/experimenting) but i know the FZ150 inside an out now.

Obviously, with the G7, i can use much higher ISO's(probably get away with ISO 1000) The smaller sensor FZ150, struggles to maintain a good quality image beyond ISO 200! But even so, there is not alot of image qaulity difference, between the 2 cameras! Not for my subjects/purposes anyway.
They both weigh about the same (G7/45-150/500D and FZ150/500D) easy to use one handed too...I just have to spend more time with the G7, get to know it well, so i can operate as fast as i can, like with my trusty ole FZ150!
Click to expand...

All very interesting. Thanks for taking the time. I think we have a similar approach to testing alternatives.

Testudo Man said:
Like you, ive tried crop sensor, full sensor(although my Nikons were old models) Ive given the Nikon V1/J1 one inch sensors a good go, Ive tied various FZ Bridge cameras...an now im giving MFT's a go too!...I just think there is - no "one camera does it all"...I think various cameras...for various subjects/situations etc.
Click to expand...

Various cameras for various subjects/situation etc. Yes, that is what I have come to (and have been fortunate to be able to afford to take that approach).
 
GardenersHelper said:
All very interesting. Thanks for taking the time. I think we have a similar approach to testing alternatives.



Various cameras for various subjects/situation etc. Yes, that is what I have come to (and have been fortunate to be able to afford to take that approach).
Click to expand...


Yes Nick, i agree, we do share a similar approach...although, as ever, your approach is - way more thorough/in-depth/scientific etc. than my approach.
An your approach should be applauded/admired mate. ;)

I spent some time, reading those last 2 DPREVIEW links you posted in this thread, an wow, what a read!!!

One thing that caught my eye...........................an as soon as i read "David's" 1st post in your thread, i thought that his "style" of "trolling"...sorry, i meant "posting content" looked familiar to me. Im pretty sure the very same "David", used to post on this site, in the same manor.

There cant be "2 Davids" surely??!! ;)
 
Testudo Man said:
Yes Nick, i agree, we do share a similar approach...although, as ever, your approach is - way more thorough/in-depth/scientific etc. than my approach.
An your approach should be applauded/admired mate. ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you. You are very kind.

Testudo Man said:
I spent some time, reading those last 2 DPREVIEW links you posted in this thread, an wow, what a read!!!
Click to expand...

It was a bit of a marathon, both the preparations for the initial posts and the subsequent discussion, in particular ...

Testudo Man said:
One thing that caught my eye...........................an as soon as i read "David's" 1st post in your thread, i thought that his "style" of "trolling"...sorry, i meant "posting content" looked familiar to me. Im pretty sure the very same "David", used to post on this site, in the same manor.

There cant be "2 Davids" surely??!! ;)
Click to expand...

I think one of him is quite enough!
 
A very nice set Nick. I blew out the shutter on my EM-1 so I recently purchased a G9 as a replacement. I look forward to following you threads and comparing notes on the camera and shooting strategies.

Best regards - William
 
wow Nick, what an impressive set.

I've let my macro photography slide a little- focusing more on wildlife/ birds etc- this set inspired me to dust off the 105mm f2.8 and get cracking on macro again, using my new Sony a7iii

Thank you for the inspiration fella.

L:es :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top