Macro Nature Photography

[Nutball]

Well, you sure got it right on that one. Great shot!

The camera I use supposedly goes up to f16, but any other camera of its size that has manual settings only goes to f8. I have wondered why. The difference I've found is that the manual cameras have a variable aperture, but this cheap camera with auto settings only has only a single filter and auto shutter speeds. I don't know what the filter is, but it claims to make the aperture effectively smaller. I thought maybe it was a ND filter, but those just reduce the incoming light. I can't think of what else it could be. ND filters can't increase depth of field and increase sharpness can they? I thought, maybe there's something I can do to get a greater depth of field by using more filters, but after looking up what ND filters do, I'm not sure it would work.

 

[lumberjack]

ND doesn’t increase depth of field, just reduces light like you said.

Basically no filter can increase sharpness.

My macro lens can can do f2.8-22, diffraction limiting would become an issue.

You’ve got me wanting to play with macro again. 😂

 

[Nutball]

I just wonder what filter my camera uses to claim a double in aperture value. I don't know that I have really tested it to be certain the depth of field is doubled, I guess I should do that.

 

[lumberjack]

What camera are you using?

 

[Nutball]

A little baby Sony wx-220, so it is quite possible the doubled F number only represents brightness instead of depth.

 

[lumberjack]

Is it an external filter? I haven’t found mention of an internal filter in the literature on the camera.

#goSony 😂 all my camera gear is Sony based (one Sigma lens).

 

[Nutball]

It's internal, and being a non pro camera, why would they disclose such a trivial detail? You can see it: shine a bright light into the lens and you see a little mirror like thing pop in view.

I like Sony, they have good stuff, but each manufacturer has some good feature. I wan't all of those in one, but that won't happen. Sony has super fast focusing and fast burst shots, I think Olympus lets you get preview updated during several minute long exposures, so you can stop short of overexposing, and Panasonic I think has built in focus stacking.

I had gotten a new sony camera to hopefully be better than the wx220, but even though it is newer, it has noisier pictures or a worse built in noise reducing program. I also was bummed to find it was missing 2 features that I wanted that cost $100 more even though they are software related such as manual focus, and something else. I've been wanting a larger camera for a while, but the funds never make it into that particular piggy bank, and I can't as easily take these pictures with a bigger camera because of the size, weight, and diameter of the optics and zoom limitations.






Brown widow

 

[Nutball]

 

[Nutball]

 

[lumberjack]

Very nice pictures @Nutball , I’ll have to break out my macro lens and go for a walk about.

 

[lumberjack]

It was cold, windy, and generally unpleasant for pictures outside this afternoon, didn’t spend much time looking for a subject, but this cold fly didn’t want to bugger off when I stuck the lens in its face.

1/200 F8 ISO 16000, 24MP picture. That ISO is 4-6 stops higher than ideal, but it looks decent resized on the forum.

Had to link the picture back to the forum, the software apparently doesn’t like the traditional embedding method.

 

[Nutball]

Yes, pretty good. With my tiny sensor I get a good bit of noise at ISO 100, 200 is acceptable, 400 is usable in small images, and 800 is the max usable for anything practical. I think my 100 is equivalent to a 35mm's 600 or 1000.

I use a very bright ring light that you can find earlier in the thread to be able to use ISO 100. I've been meaning to upgrade it for faster shutter speeds. Actually I did upgrade it from the version I showed earlier, but It still could use and extra 30-100% more light. I still get a shutter speed of 125-400 commonly, 800 if I'm lucky on a light subject and sunny day.

What camera do you have?

I might be able to build you a ring light if I knew the size of your lens (what would be practical to fit around it). Mounting would be your problem. I glued magnets onto mine.

 

[lumberjack]

I currently have a Sony A7Riv, A7Siii, and A9ii, all use the same interchangeable lenses. This picture was with the Sony 90mm G Macro lens on the A7Riv (61MP, cropped to 24MP).

This morning I preordered two A1 (separate orders) that were announced yesterday and am sending the A7Siii back (bought last month, still returnable). I haven’t decided if I’m getting 1 or 2 A1 right now, if I get 2 I’ll almost assuredly be selling the 7Riv and the 9ii to fund the second A1.

I have a couple small 200 watt second battery powered strobes (Godox AD200 Pro) and a 76 watt second camera mounted flash (Godox V1) that can trigger them. That wouldn’t be hard to rig up, although not as easy as a lens mounted ring light/strobe. Diffusing the light could be important, but shouldn’t be difficult. All three are HSS capable, up to 1/8000th.

 

[Nutball]

Why 2? I'd spend that on another camera that has complementary features whatever they may be. Both big and little cameras have their place, and some brands have great features others don't. I don't know if a close 200W flash would scare and/or hurt a fly or not. My ring light seems to distract many bugs from my presence, so they don't scare too easily, and I can get within an inch or less.

 

[lumberjack]

Because the A1 basically does what the A7Siii, A7Riv, and A9ii can do. At this point I’m not interested in investing in another lens mount.

The A1 can take up to 30 frames 50 mega pixel frames per second, shoot 4k 120fps video, 8k 30 fps video, output 12bit log 4k60 raw video, autofocus is the best on the planet (120 autofocus calculations per second).

Compared to the other 3 bodies, it gives up 2 stops of ISO extended range (102k vs 409kISO on the Siii) and 11 megapixels to the A7Riv.... otherwise it does everything they do or more. These are all pro level bodies with pricing ranging from $3500 to $6500.





The 200Ws strobes are only 200Ws at 1/1 power. They can drop to 1/256 power and HSS (high speed sync) drops the power even more, and they all have TTL capability (through the lens, they can auto set their power level when you push the button using the camera’s metering system, and you can offset the TTL setting in 1/3 stop increments).

 

[Nutball]

I'd like to see a camera with changeable sensors. Of course an auto aligning/calibrating system would be needed to fine tune the position of the sensor each time it is changed, but to be able to take advantage of the different speeds and abilities of each sensor all in one body would be nice. You could have a 2MP & 8MP for low light, and 20, 60, 120, & super zoom 500MP options.

I think the ISO 100 on my camera may actually be equivalent to ISO 2400 on a 20MP 35mm, and around 1100 compared to your 61MP. Everything's like a factor of either 6 or 24 comparing my little camera to a 35mm, so your 16000 ISO would be near my 800 or something like that, IDK, but my 800 looks pretty bad.

 

[lumberjack]

ISO isn’t relative to sensor size like depth of field or focal length calculations. Looking up the specs your sensor is 18.2MP 1/2.3”, ISO 80-12800. The crop factor on 1/2.3” to full frame is 5.6x (call it 6x), physically the sensor is ~31x smaller than a full frame. Your lens is a 25-250mm FF equivalent, F18.5-F33.2 FF equivalent. In reading on this I’ve learned that they list aperture in full frame equivalent, I knew they did focal length that way.


Bigger sensors decrease depth of field and increase pixel pitch (how big each pixel is). The A7Siii is a “low light monster” with a full frame 12mp sensor. This is a screen shot from a video from the A7Siii. 4k60, 1/125, F2.8, ISO 409k in 12 bit raw (no denoising in camera or in post for this screen shot). Higher end cameras also handle higher ISO better due to sensor and processor selections.


Here’s a 42.6MP picture 1/1250, F1.8, ISO 12800 picture with the shadows lifted (doesn’t have a stop value like exposure compensation). No “extra” denoising, I have a program I use specifically for that if it was getting printed large, for example.

 

[Nutball]

All I know is ISO will be comparable by pixel size. I didn't know bigger sensors had less depth, that's good to know. I had noticed that when I was doing some work with a 35mm camera. You could tell, for example, that at 10-20ft away aperture set to 4, focal length somewhere between 40-105mm, you'd only get like 3" of depth, just enough to get someone's face in focus, but hardly their whole head let alone the body, or others standing nearby. I thought it was just because the $3500 camera was so much clearer than mine.

Guess what the shutter counter is at on my little wx220.

 

[lumberjack]

Found this little fella hanging upside down in the guest bathtub... guessing his body was the same size as the “ ` “ on my keyboard’s key.

1/640, F10, ISO 100

 

[lumberjack]

I opened the curtain after that picture and that rustled his jimmies. Got him on his web and hung him from the curtain rod for these pictures.


All are 1/5000, F10, ISO 100

Poor composition with the whatever shiny in the background... I think it was the mount for the shower rod.

 

[lumberjack]

Are you familiar with diffraction? It causes softening of images for smaller apertures/bigger F numbers.... granted that gives extra depth of focus. The diffraction limit of a system is dependent on sensor size and resolution.... I don’t have a firm understanding of it, just know it’s a thing.


I know on my A7Riv with 61MP it can start being seen (according to the calculator) around F8. Going back to the calculator, around F11 on the 24MP A9ii and F16 on the A7Siii.

Diffraction Calculator | PhotoPills

This diffraction calculator will help you assess when the camera is diffraction limited.

www.photopills.com

 

[Nutball]

All I know is the annoying aperture blade petals around lights.

Very good pics of those house spiders. I find them in my wood pile, then they invade the garage. They are practically invisible as they run toward the house.

The calculator said F2.4 for my camera. I do notice a limit in clarity Depending on how far I zoom in. My new camera has 720mm equivalent zoom, but isn't any better than my 250mm wx220, and this diffraction limit may be why.

New camera: F8, grainy ISO 400, 245mm (about the limit of quality of my macro setup), and cropped some


Same picture cropped to 100%, resized slightly smaller to be similar in scale to the picture below it


Same settings, but 585mm, no worth while gain in quality:



This was my poor attempt at taking pictures of bug bugs... parasites on beetles. I have found other parasites too, but they are just too small. 3-10 times bigger than pollen.

 

[lumberjack]

I’m sure I’ll be playing with the macro more now... new experience is fun.

Definitely getting soft on those closeups, I’d expect diffraction is playing a part.


A lot of zooms, especially on the lower end have variable max aperture. For example my longest glass is 200-600mm f5.6-6.3. It cost $1900 currently. A 600mm F4 is $13k.

 

[Nutball]

 

[Nutball]