Post by daveh on Aug 28, 2011 3:13:09 GMT -5
Mickey,
Something of a ramble here, in answer to your question on the other thread.
Several things came together to make the difference. Just before last Christmas I acquired the boxed set of Pentax SFZn (which I haven't used), ringflash and 100mm f2.8 macro lens (both Pentax). I already had the *ist DS digital SLR, so I had an instant fit. The rest, as they say is history.
That photo was taken using aperture priority - set to f16, so fairly good depth of field. Shutter was 1/125. The day was actually fairly bright anyway: I think I would have got 1/125 at f8 without the flash. The flash though gives more control and avoids some of the harsh shadows if the photo is in direct sun. If the day is dull macro photography isn't really possible without the use of flash. The downside of ringflash is that there are sometimes circular reflections. Of course stopping down further, even to f32 and more is possible (on some leses at least) to improve DOF further. The ringflash will always give enough light, but the result is less of a synchro-sun and more of a night-time result. The jury (as least my jury) is still out as to what is the best combination - if, indeed, there is one.
It was hand-held and on manual focus. I think overall manual focus is better than auto focus for macro work. My Canon system isn't too bad on autofocus because the focussing is lightning quick. I use the 70-200 lens with close-up lenses attached. The Pentax in comparison takes an age to focus automatically. It also doesn't lock on to focus as readily. I'm sure the differential is less with your Pentax.
The last part of success is part luck and part skill. I don't just mean skill in the sense of handling the camera but also in terms knowing the subject. It is here. the knowledge aspect, I need to improve most.
Mickey, I know you use a zoom lens with macro facility (I looked your lens up the other day) . They are very good, but a dedicated macro lens going to 1:1 (yours I think is 1:2) makes a big difference to the results. Also having a prime lens rather than a zoom makes improves things. The lens I have comes with a matched close up lens, which attaches to the front (several elements in it) to give 2:1 for those really small insects and suchlike.
Over the years I have tried various methods for getting in close. Close-up rings, bellows and lenses and reversing the lens too. The trouble is nothing works as well as a proper macro lens. It is quicker and easier to operate and gives 'better' results. Flash is a must too.
If I go out and buy new for the Canon, the cost for lens and flash starts at about £800 for the Canon system. This obviously is way too much for most people to fork out. Pentax prices will be similar. There are cheaper proper ringflash units around £100. Even cheaper still, around £20, there are the LED units. Some people say they get reasonable results with these: after all you don't need that strong a light when you're up close.
My lens was, I believe, the first Pentax auto-focus macro lens. I have seen some on ebay, but can't recall how much they sold for. I do have a 50mm macro lens for the Canon, but you have to get in too close when you want to get near the 1:1. Usually the insect is long gone. It's fine for flowers though.
Dave.
Something of a ramble here, in answer to your question on the other thread.
Several things came together to make the difference. Just before last Christmas I acquired the boxed set of Pentax SFZn (which I haven't used), ringflash and 100mm f2.8 macro lens (both Pentax). I already had the *ist DS digital SLR, so I had an instant fit. The rest, as they say is history.
That photo was taken using aperture priority - set to f16, so fairly good depth of field. Shutter was 1/125. The day was actually fairly bright anyway: I think I would have got 1/125 at f8 without the flash. The flash though gives more control and avoids some of the harsh shadows if the photo is in direct sun. If the day is dull macro photography isn't really possible without the use of flash. The downside of ringflash is that there are sometimes circular reflections. Of course stopping down further, even to f32 and more is possible (on some leses at least) to improve DOF further. The ringflash will always give enough light, but the result is less of a synchro-sun and more of a night-time result. The jury (as least my jury) is still out as to what is the best combination - if, indeed, there is one.
It was hand-held and on manual focus. I think overall manual focus is better than auto focus for macro work. My Canon system isn't too bad on autofocus because the focussing is lightning quick. I use the 70-200 lens with close-up lenses attached. The Pentax in comparison takes an age to focus automatically. It also doesn't lock on to focus as readily. I'm sure the differential is less with your Pentax.
The last part of success is part luck and part skill. I don't just mean skill in the sense of handling the camera but also in terms knowing the subject. It is here. the knowledge aspect, I need to improve most.
Mickey, I know you use a zoom lens with macro facility (I looked your lens up the other day) . They are very good, but a dedicated macro lens going to 1:1 (yours I think is 1:2) makes a big difference to the results. Also having a prime lens rather than a zoom makes improves things. The lens I have comes with a matched close up lens, which attaches to the front (several elements in it) to give 2:1 for those really small insects and suchlike.
Over the years I have tried various methods for getting in close. Close-up rings, bellows and lenses and reversing the lens too. The trouble is nothing works as well as a proper macro lens. It is quicker and easier to operate and gives 'better' results. Flash is a must too.
If I go out and buy new for the Canon, the cost for lens and flash starts at about £800 for the Canon system. This obviously is way too much for most people to fork out. Pentax prices will be similar. There are cheaper proper ringflash units around £100. Even cheaper still, around £20, there are the LED units. Some people say they get reasonable results with these: after all you don't need that strong a light when you're up close.
My lens was, I believe, the first Pentax auto-focus macro lens. I have seen some on ebay, but can't recall how much they sold for. I do have a 50mm macro lens for the Canon, but you have to get in too close when you want to get near the 1:1. Usually the insect is long gone. It's fine for flowers though.
Dave.
