Thread 4433352

This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic captures utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got it? Good now upload some shit.

Last thread:
>>4376661

>>4433352 (OP)
This shot was taken around 6 hours before the OP. I am almost certain it's the same individual. It was a windy and rainy day. I think the bee was just too cold to fly and was just hanging out on the same flower, resting and waiting for its body temperature to go back up. Much less fluffy in this one because it was wet. Does anyone know which species it could be? Shots were taken on Texel, NL.

>>4433353
Very cool shot

>>4433363
Nice shot.

>>4433352 (OP)
How do you take pictures with such depth of field? Do you kill the bug to make the focus stack or do you use some kind of dark sorcery?
>>4433392
Is that a parasite

>>4433480
I got lucky with this bee thanks to the cold and humid conditions, which slowed its movements down. It was practically sleepwalking and didn’t fly off, even with me holding the plant like in pic rel. I was able to focus using my free fingers on the same hand (my 30mm Olympus is short). It’s worth looking for critters early in the morning or in bad weather like that, as long as you can compensate with a flash in the bad light.
>parasite
I don't think so?

This was taken moments before in-sext.

>>4433486
>f16, iso 1250, some lens correction in post
The noise is honestly a bit high. But I prefer this angle. I was too occupied with getting the focus right to notice the wings were out of frame. Used to smaller subjects

>>4433517
Last one for today.

Grain of sand for scale

>>4433488
>>4433352 (OP)
so much fluff

>>4433466
Some individuals stuck their heads into the entrance to protect their nest from the camera, while others retreated backwards.

this looks expensive to do

>>4435373
Depends

>>4435373
>>4435374
Yea, most systems that came out in the last 10 years is very decent at macro. It help to have one that has good stability so you can shoot without a tripod. Imo, composing is everything with insects, and becomes super cumbersome with a tripod. Unless you get into stacking maybe, but you need really still subjects to that first (which actually you do find in the wild on cold mornings).

>>4435427
To add, teleconverters and extension tubes are also good options if you dont have a dedicated macro lens.

>>4433352 (OP)
This wasn't macro per se, but it definitely came close to it.

>>4435427
If you really want to work macro with a tripod a sliding rail make composing on tripod way easier. Still cumbersome, but not nearly as bad as without.

>>4433352 (OP)
First time using the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and first time doing any macro work in general, but after about a 100 pic learning curve, I'm pretty happy with the results.

Any tips, lads?

>>4436265
Very nice shot! You're not going to get the entire subject in focus unless it's all on a flat plane to your focus, or you do a focus stack. Pretty hard to do on creatures like a dragonfly. It needs some work in lightroom. Very overexposed, and you need to darken the back to make that little guy pop.

>>4433486
>>4433488
>>4433489
>>4433492

These are badass shots.

>>4436653
Thanks for the tips, anon. Trying to figure out how to mask him out since the wings are translucent.

Here are some shots on my old underwater setup, got a new wet macro lens and strobe that I can't wait to try out. Seas have been rough latley.

Also here are some bees from the hive that lives on my porch taken using my dive rig pre-upgrade

not very macro, but I liked the colours/composition. Guy was fast, probably because of the tick (or mite) on his back

Damselfly with mites :(

soldier fly

damselfly with mites :(

Sleeping Macropis with wet hair. Kinda difficult to compose with my DIY flash setup. If I stepped down the dark areas were too dark, if I stepped up the reflection got too krass in the eyes or light areas on plants. I tried adjusting exposure a bit in post here, but maybe I should just shoot in RAW in low light to begin with?

>>4435145
I promise this is the last picture of this pantaloon bee I will post, but the head shot is a unique view imo, especially with all that FLUFF. Have I already mentioned the fluff?

>>4436876
Pretty nice shots. Man I wish I lived somewhere with water to do this kind of stuff. Is focusing any different with the water in between the lens and subject? Btw, Marcel Panne (@metalimnion) has a nice style and method to composing his underwater stuff. Perhaps you might be interested.

>>4437280
Thank you, still new to dive photography but I use an Olympus TG6 which has really good autofocus but no manual making focusing pretty brainless. The trickiest part is the weird focal distance and the constant movement underwater making macro hard to get the hang of (as you can see by the fuzzyness in the underwater pictures compared to the bees with the honey). It also sucks needing to have the lens several inches from the subject when diving, one wrong jerk and you either scare the critter off, come slightly out of focus and are left with a blurry mess, or kick up a bunch of sand and ruin the shot.
These pictures are all taken like 500ft from my apartment in the USVI.

Ladder-marked horn beetle with his face full of bark from a cherry tree

ladder marked longhorn beetle with schmutz (bark, I think it was cherry) on his face

>>4437515
Great shot! Looks like you got him right after his meal.

leaked images from the upcoming Alien movie

>>4436876
Nice!

>>4433352 (OP)
A closer look at the foam on aCafé Bombón.

>>4433352 (OP)
Closeup of the stem of a european stinging nettle. You can see the urticating hairs.

>>4437331
Learn how to set up your shot upside down. I can hover feet upwards and holding the camera upside down with one hand using my thumb to push the shutter. Just place one finger from your other hand down on some dead piece of coral to steady yourself well and snap away. This is with an OLD Canon IS570

>>4438049
I am not sure if it was feeding or breaking open the bark to lay eggs into. But it was definetly putting in some work.

>>4438090
underrated

>>4437254
Another sleeping macropis, this time a male. I couldn't figure out how to avoid the specular highlights with this guy.

>>4437254
Another sleeping macropis, this time a male. I couldn't figure out how to avoid the specular highlights with this guy.

When my best friend lent me his EOS 1200D for a side gig (with the bundled lens so nothing special I presume) I tried macro mode and had tons of fun with it. A while ago I bought a Poco F3 for my mother and also had fun testing the macro mode on that (I might get crucified for this but I think those photos came out way better than the Canon's)

I'd like to get a camera+lens (I really don't want to buy a phone) exclusively for still (I have shaky hands) macro photography but at the same time I don't really want to spend more than 300€, can I get anything decent for that? The 1200D goes from 120 (body only) to 300€ used here, maybe I could buy my best friend's (he wants to upgrade anyway) and get some good enough macro lens after selling the bundled ones?

>>4442219
If you stay with Canon you can get EF macro lenses which have a few versions that aren't that pricey and will deliver fantastic macro ability. An EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (not the IS version) will set you back probably 200-250 euros and will mog the majority of other macro setups for fuck all money. Get an amazon-tier speedlite for 30 euros, and the biggest softbox you can be bothered using for 20 euros more, and you're basically set.
Unironically if that looks too big/bulky for you then Olympus sells a 60mm macro that practically justifies having an MFT camera and produces very good results as well, as well as being smaller and lighter. You'd need to buy an M43 body and the lens though, so it's probably outside your budget unless you find good used deals.

>>4442229
Thanks for the advice. I take it the 1200D is still pretty good then? The lens go for 300-500 so I'll keep an eye out for any deals.
>speedlite
He had one of those, AA-operated iirc. Was pretty bulky but I didn't mind it too much since it produced one hell of a flash.
>olympus 60mm
Point me towards a decent body and the lens you mentioned and I'll set up a search for it

>>4442237
>I take it the 1200D is still pretty good then?
It's a fair camera for today at the entry-level. You could probably get a nicer model for the same price though unless your friend is willing to cut you a good deal.
>The lens go for 300-500
I can buy a non-IS version for $400 AUD off ebay and euros are 1.8x more valuable than my fake currency. Your market is either scuffed or you're looking at the IS version that is significantly newer.
>olympus 60mm
>Point me towards a decent body and the lens you mentioned and I'll set up a search for it
I don't use MFT anymore but I'd guess the E-M5 Mark II is probably a healthy middle ground between budget and performance. It's the same age as the 1200D for that matter.
Thing is, it'll cost about the same as the EF lens, and you still need to buy the 60mm lens to go with it. Depends on what you value more.

>>4442245
Forgot the lens.
M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 Macro

>>4442219
olympus e-m5 ii or e-m1 (1st gen)
either olympus 60mm f2.8 macro or lumix 45mm f2.8 macro depending on budget
jjc olympus ttl cable
fl-lm3 flash

>>4442245
>>4442246
Eh maybe I'll stick with the 1200D
>unless your friend is willing to cut you a good deal.
He'll probably ask me to make him an offer and take whatever, I'll at the very least offer as much as the ebay listings for the body+lens+flash.

with that said, I found this E-M5 MK II on ebay for 400€ (with the lens), the average is a good 300-450 (without lens)
should I? lens seem to go for 100+€

>>4442249
I think MFT is a meme system but the cult has apparently been on a strong recruitment drive lately. It really comes down to if you're going to enjoy it more one way or the other, and admittedly the MFT options for macro are wayyyyy~ smaller than full-frame mounts. My EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is 700g alone and I still need the camera body, but an EM5 + 60mm Macro together weigh that much. Individual lens sharpness matters for basically nothing when doing macro since you'll be shooting at very narrow apertures where diffraction smears everything regardless.

Basically
>1200D / Canon route w/ 100mm Macro
Sharper lenses, diffraction kicks in slightly later, more reach (100mm x 1.6crop = 160mm eFL), cheaper overall, ability to upgrade to full frame if desired.
>E-M5 II / M43 route w/ M.Zuiko 60mm Macro
Smaller, lighter, weather sealed, more expensive, mirrorless.

Go look at some Youtube reviews and wait for a good deal on something.

Behold the power 8x10 macro.

>>4441830

>>4442257
>Go look at some Youtube reviews and wait for a good deal on something.
400 for the listing I found (body, battery, charger, lens, only damage is a broken battery cover plastic thingy) seems like a decent deal considering the price of the body alone, a damaged one is 300€ minimum right now
I don't really plan on upgrading once I get decent lens and since I have shaky hands a lighter camera would probably be better for me, with the EOS I basically found out that I can't do macro unless I have a tripod
also no I checked, it's the USM version

at the end of the day if i get the best deal on both cameras with their respective macro lens it's about 750 for the olympus (same seller for both the body bundle and the macro lens so maybe i can ask for a discount) and 600 (really beaten up 100mm lens but apparently still working) to 800 for the canon
If I end up getting the olympus are the lens it comes with good enough for everyday photography? (picrel)
Sorry, I'm completely clueless about this stuff

>>4442261
Do not buy a 14-42 dear fucking lord
Do not buy a 12-32 either
These lenses have extreme copy variation, ribbon cable issues, and detaching zoom rings

Micro four thirds has a fairly small selection of quality lenses that justify it as a small budget system with unique advantages and outside of this small selection you might as well get a job, save up, and buy a FF sony/nikon later.

>Lumix 20mm f1.7 II, 14mm f2.5, 15mm f1.7
>Olympus 17mm, 25mm, 45mm, and 75mm f1.8 quartet
>Lumix 45mm macro, Olympus 60mm macro
>Lumix 12-60 f3.5-5.6, Olympus 12-45 f4 (warning: zoom wobbles, bad for video)
>Lumix 100-300, olympus 75-300
Basically don't bother outside of these

>>4442265
The olympus 8-25mm and lumix 7-18mm are also ok but doing wide angle photography with limited digital resolution tends to look a bit shit

>>4442265
>Do not buy a 14-42 dear fucking lord
Those are the lens the seller is bundling with the body, dunno if that's what they came with originally but I just plan on selling them to offset the cost of the macro if they're THAT bad. So take 100-150€ off the total price if I manage to sell them

>>4442265
The olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 and lumix 7-18mm f4 are also ok but doing wide angle photography with limited digital resolution tends to look a bit shit

Daylight snapshit/low light building corner system

>>4442268
the 7-18 mogs the shitlympus

>lumix makes the best glass but the worst bodies
>sync is no workie on olympus
lol

>>4442261
Think of m43 has having a lower skill and results ceiling. You may never need more, but it's easier to find yourself limited by the gear versus an APS-C / Full frame mount.
M43 has few advantages and macro is one of them. But for general purpose photography it is garbo

>>4442272
>But for general purpose photography it is garbo
Yeah I'm starting to think that maybe if I'm spending more than half a grand I should probably get a jack of all trades
I'm most likely not gonna do much general photography but having the ability to get decent shots in addition to the macro stuff is probably worth the extra money and weight, hmm
>>4442245
>You could probably get a nicer model for the same price though
Which ones would those be?

>>4442279
It is garbo for "photography" as in purposefully pursuing the best looking results and always achieving your vision

If you just want "picture of thing" it's brilliant honestly, and wildlife and macro is almost nothing but "picture of thing". And it is brilliant simply because it is mirrorless. SLRs are a deeply flawed and blatantly inferior design. Optically and mechanically. M43 can easily outperform APS-C DSLRs and even some FF DSLRs in many situations simply by not having to skirt mirror shock problems, 1/flen or 1/2*flen rules, and inherent focus inaccuracy. Also having an up to date sony sensor makes a difference. Most DSLRs actually have less DR than an E-M1 II.

>>4442289
never forget, the day the DSLR chuds fervently defending spot metering highlights and shadows every time before taking a picture as if it were an alternative to just looking at live view because in theory it would be more likely to improve shadow snr .5ev

>>4442289
>It is garbo for "photography" as in purposefully pursuing the best looking results and always achieving your vision
Oh no lol, if I'm taking a picture at all and it's not macro stuff it's just to help my deteriorating memory, there's no vision here, I treat everything as if I'm using a point and shoot. I suck at and I'm not interested in photographing people, just nature stuff and macro i can take my sweet time focusing
Photographing cars might suck major ass but I don't do it that often and when I do I try to hide the background as much as possible for privacy reasons so eh who knows

Seller's offering me 700€ for the EM-5 (with the 14-42 which I'll probably sell) + 60mm macro (down from nearly 800) but if I add another 200 (down from 370) he'll throw in the M.Zuiko 14-150 mm F/4,0-5,6 II
Good deal/s or nah? The market's fucked here so this is the cheapest I can get

>>4442279
>Which ones would those be?
You could probably get a 50/60/70D for only a few hundred euros. They're a bit bigger than the three and four digit Canons (500D, 2000D etc.) but they have better controls and ergos.
IIRC the 70D was the first one with an articulating screen as well which is honestly a big deal especially for tightly spaced macro shots.
>>4442303
>Oh no lol, if I'm taking a picture at all and it's not macro stuff it's just to help my deteriorating memory, there's no vision here, I treat everything as if I'm using a point and shoot.
Unironically sounds like M43 cameras are right up your alley.
>>4442316
>The market's fucked here so this is the cheapest I can get
I want to feel like that's still a rip off, but I guess not. If you kept the 60mm macro and the 14-150mm you'd basically never have to buy anything again. The 14-150mm is soft though, just as a warning.

>>4442496
>The 14-150mm is soft though, just as a warning.
Yep, definitely not the sharpest lens in the shed from the sample pics I've seen but they don't seem that soft either.
Not sure how long the guy's had all that stuff for sale, I'll wait another week or so and if nothing cheaper shows up I'll bite.
One thing I really liked about the canon when I was doing that side gig is that I could connect it to a pc and shoot remotely through the really janky EOS Utility software, can the EM-5 do the same? It's not a dealbreaker if it can't

Never had a better moment for composition but focus wasnt good. nex5 and 50mm with tube.

>>4442496
I bought the bundle in the end.

>>4437244
its a beautiful, if sad, photo

>>4443269
Nice. Sell the shitty 14-42mm kit lens unless you really want a compact kit, in which case sell the 14-150mm.
The 60mm macro lens is literally the #1 sane reason to buy an M43 camera. If you need a flash (you probably do) look for an Olympus FM3 iirc.

>>4443345
Unfortunately the seller sold the camera like an hour after I went to bed in the afternoon so I only got the bundle with the two lenses (for 660)
Need to find a camera, I'm eyeing two for the same price as the last one (400) both without lenses but in better condition overall, one's got 13.6K shots/12.2k triggers (and apparently had its sensor replaced by Olympus at the end of 2023 because the guy scratched it while cleaning it, not sure if that's a red flag or not) and the other's got 14k shots and even less wear.
Which one should I go for? My inner racist says the latter because the former is fr*nch and I don't have an ultrasonic cleaner.

>>4443359
>>4443345
>Olympus FM3
You mean this one?

>>4443359
eh fuck it i went for a black one with 6k shots, 50€ cheaper and in better condition too

>>4443368
>You mean this one?
I did, but I quickly looked up the GN value and it's a whopping 9 which is likely no better than the inbuilt flash. The only M43 camera I had didn't have an inbuilt flash so it made sense.
Go buy a speedlite off amazon for $50 instead. It'll have a GN more like 30-50 which is infinitely more useful. I use a TT350 but you can get more power from a cheaper TT600; I just wanted something small.
>>4443785
Good man. Time to aschew the devil (gear) and go find some macro to shoot.

>>4443794
ashew. lmao. Gesundheit.
It's eschew, fuck me.

>>4443794
rip lol, the silver one i wanted didn't have the flash so i bought a brand new in box one for 70 bucks
but this black one comes with the same flash
don't really regret it since apparently these are decent (compared to the em5 flash) but for some people they just died out of the blue, if either one dies i'll get the Speedlite

i'll go shoot stuff the moment it arrives

>>4443798
it's a shame that i absolutely loathe bugs, my reaction to most thread images is "EEEWWWWWWW nice shot though"

>>4443794
By the way, the seller hasn't shipped the camera yet and I can still cancel the order. I found an EM-5 Mark III in seemingly really good condition with two lens (40-150 and 14-12) I could sell later on. Should I get that one instead? I know the body is all plastic vs the Mark II's metal body but do I really care?

>>4443987
ah nevermind lol it's an e-m10 not an e-m5 mk3
not sure why ebay keeps insisting on showing me the 10s when looking for the 5s

>>4443987
IIRC the MkIII has a better sensor. Metal body can be nice but I've never given a fuck. We're starting to split hairs but if the price is negligible get the MkIII.

is a fujifilm x-s10, x-s20, or x-t4 overkill for macro stuff (butterflies mostly)? i wanna take travel/landscape pics too, maybe some vids, but not sure if i'm insane for thinking about spending like $1500
is the pentax dude right about just getting a canon r50?
from what i've read the fuji cameras i mentioned are better than sony ones in the same price range because of better ibis and focus bracketing (memes?)
saw some pics from some dude on reddit and they're nice but seem to require a lot of editing

https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/16ww644/xt4_loawa_65mm_2x_macro/

https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/uy55s3/butterfly_xt4_laowa_65mm_macro/

any thoughts on the lens he is using? what about the Laowa 65mm F2.8?

>>4444006
in the end it was a 10 mk3, not a 5
thanks ebay :)

Is this a gear thread now?

>>4444099
No harm if it's specific to macro but I sure hope not.

>>4433352 (OP)
>>4433353
>>4433357
>>4433358
>>4433363
>>4433367
>>4433370

what are you usin exactly to get these pics? they're real cool

>>4444099
No, sorry, I just didn't know where to ask.

>>4444108
em5 mk 2, oly 30mm and fl-lm3 flash. All the early photos your refering to had a DIY paper diffuser. Im not experimenting with a 3d printed one I found on ebay, but I may need to wrap it in something to reduce specular highlights. Pic related is another sleeping pantaloon bee (I believe)

>>4444338
I ended up waking it and it flew off, but posed for one last shot before it did
>>4444195
I dont blame you, the gear thread is fully contaminated anyway

This one was fully tapped out

>>4444368
I believe the plant is called musk-mallow, had at least 7-8 bees sleeping on it. The flowers close at night, encapsulating the bees, so many were impossible to photograph

>>4444338
*edit: I am now experimenting

random fly to mix it up

>>4436882
yfw bees have tongues and they lap up honey like kittens drinking milk

>>4444338
>em5 mk 2, oly 30mm and fl-lm3 flash
cool, i've been lurking here and the reddit archive all week trying to find a camera to learn to take pics like yours (mostly butterflies) but also travel/landscape type stuff too (probably moreso this)
would you get a different setup if you were just starting out today than you have now?
trying to find something cheaper than the x-s20/x-s10/sony a6xxx i see recommended everywhere, just read through the "m43 appreciation thread" to see if a panasonic or olympus camera might be a good option but all the people defending those (maybe it was just one guy?) seemed retarded and didn't post any pics and got BTFO by the others, your pictures are really cool though so maybe something like what you have would be good, just wondering if it's good for other things besides what you're showing here

>>4444415
nta, different anon who just bought an em5 mk2+60mm+14-150mm here
this was my first time visiting /p/ and from what little lurking i've done it seems like DSLR owners love seething about MFT because it can get you 80% of the way there in terms of quality while being much cheaper and lighter overall
reminds me a lot of the modern nvidia vs amd debacle
could be wrong and i just need to lurk more but i'm only here for macro stuff

>>4444427
For art photography, like "the best possible photo of ____" photography or "capture every last bit of emotion here" it's pretty garbage and the vast majority of photographers look up to lewis baltz, ansel adams, etc

for going nat geo without a nat geo paycheck to back inevitable damaged gear and justify carrying a 10lb macro setup yeah its fine, photo of thing on shit camera > photo of thing on no camera

>>4444427
Have you posted some cool macro pics in this thread?

>>4444443
no? i'm waiting for the stuff i bought

>>4444447
Are you going to post pics or just argue about your gear?

>>4444451
once i get it in my hands yeah. it was just an observation, jesus

>>4444456
Promise? I just want you to be better than the other m43 nerds and actually post pics.

>>4444458
promise

>>4444459
Thanks.

>>4444415
>would you get a different setup if you were just starting out today
If you can get an E‑M5 Mark III or newer, it’s likely a better long-term investment—especially when it comes to resale value. The battery system hasn't changed since the Mark III, which means original batteries should remain available for a while (they still do for the old body). You'll also appreciate the improved grip and ergonomics. The higher resolution of the Mark III can be helpful for cropping, which is useful in macro photography. Stabilization differences probably won’t be dramatic—unless you're using Pro lenses, where it can make more of a difference (I believe). That said, the Mark II is still an excellent first camera to learn on, especially if you are unsure if youll like the hobby. It includes more computational features than most people will ever need or use. Get a 3rd party screw on grip for it though. It can take years to fully outgrow it, and even then, the improvements in newer bodies may not feel significant (though I can’t say for sure, since I haven’t owned one). Ultimately, the lens is the most important investment in macro. For Olympus, the 60mm f/2.8 is the standout option. If you can get that lens, the camera body becomes less critical—you can always upgrade the body later. The 30mm macro is also a nice lens, but it's not ideal for insects. You’ll need to get much closer to your subject, which can be tricky, though it does offer a unique look I I fucking love it: see review: https://youtu.be/TGvTNzWYN6Q

>>4444562
>higher resolution
*higher mega pixel count of the sensor

>>4444368
Cute!

>>4443794
Sorry for still talking gear but the seller of the E-M5 is offering a mint condition Metz 52 AF-1 for 80€, should I take it? Couldn't find anything concrete about it other than one video where the guy complains that it fucking sucks the moment you take it out of auto zoom mode and that you can't use high speed sync if you don't have it dead straight or if you tilt it up too much. https://youtu.be/RYEYJYXjMDc?t=653
GN is 170.

>>4444645
(video says sony but apparently they made it for every hot shoe under the sun)

Sweat bee drying itself after a rain shower

I cannot seem to identify this bee despite the very clear markings on the face.

I cannot seem to identify this bee despite the very clear markings on the face.

>>4445418
>>4445416
bro casually discovers a new Hylaeus sub-species

>>4445452
Ive looked at a lot of these online and none of them seem to have a mask which only covers the bottom half. Most have white until the base of the antennas, at least, whereas in pic rel the white doesn't touch the antennas. Mine is also quite furry, which a lot of Hylaeus aren't.

>>4445463
exactly
might be an undiscovered one
use one of those sites where you can filter discoveries by region and see what comes up for yours maybe

>>4445464
Apis fera anonyma

>>4445470
kek
would be fun to make that the official name

>>4445473
Ive been skimming through this site recently to help identify bees. Its probably the highest quality collection of images ive come across regarding bees specifically: https://apidarium.de/

Could anyone deduce from the pictures what gear or work flow they are using? Are the photos stacked? Do they fucking tranquilize them so they hold still? Anyway the photos look fucking cash fr fr, no cap. When I say no cap I mean like, I have no cap. Do you know what I am saying? Like, I either use a bucket hat or sun brimmer hat...which aren't strictly caps...so..dont really...have a cap.... anyway....

>>4445452
>>4445473
So I looked into it a bit and it seems likely that its some kind of Andrena mining bee. Many males in the genus have this kind of white or yellow snout (clypeus).

>>4445603
https://www.wildbeestexas.com/andrena
looks like you are right
damn, learned so much about bees today

Not to turn this into a gearfag thread, but can someone help me understand why/when one might want to use bellows vs a dedicated macro lens (or even a macro lens AND bellows, is that a thing)?

>>4447123
Bellows allow you to calculate and use an exact magnification ratio. Most macro lenses only do 1:1.

>>4447123
Aren't bellows just a really fancy version of extension tubes?

Bumblebee

>>4447127
Yeah, I guess so, just with continous adjustments rather than the discrete steps offered by extension tubes.

>>4447127
Yeah and more compact. Rollei sells an adjustable extension tube for their 600x series cameras and a bellows accessory for longer extensions.

>>4447123
at least for my old ass film setup, my macro lens caps out at 1:1 with the extension tube (which I don't actually have for it, so its really a 1:2). meanwhile with my bellows and a regular old 50mm lens I'm able to get a theoretical maximum near 3:1, although in practice that's only going to be rarely possible. picrel was with a ~10" extension IIRC, which is somewhere between a 1.5:1 and a 2:1 ratio. I've tried to use my bellows with the macro lens but the depth of field is extremely narrow at any major extension and i've had little success with it. I'm sure part of it is just that I'm inexperienced and using ancient equipment, too.

>>4447218
Firstly you need to account for bellows compensation. If your bellows is 2x the length of your FL you need to add 2 stops of exposure. There's calculators online for this.

Second most lenses are not optimized for high magnification, although some are.

Third most focusing methods on smaller cameras are not precise enough to focus with sub mm dof. You need magnification to focus properly. Try using f5.6-f8 dof preview when focusing. It may help some.

Thirdly diffraction is greatly increased at higher magnifications, so you need to use the sweet spot aperture, or you'll get very soft images.

Fourthly you must use an extremely rigid setup because vibration is greatly exaggerated.

With ultra thin dof you need to tailor your photography to account for it. Shoot flat things, or really tiny things to start out or you'll end up fruatrated with the result. One fun thing to shoot is dehydrated crystals on glass. You make a salt water solution then let it evaporate on a piece of glass.

Pic is one of my 8x10 macro shots using a specialized 25mm lens at over 10x magnification.

>>4447218
Can you spot the tiny little bug? :D

>>4447226
>Pic is one of my 8x10 macro shots using a specialized 25mm lens at over 10x magnification.
1.3x on 35mm btw, not even as close as the dragonfly.
>>4447218
You should ignore the large format studio photography advice and learn to use a powerful flash and small f stops. Handheld 2:1 is totally doable on 35mm with practice. My old dragonfly book was shot on film and the author used a MF macro lens fixed at known magnifications picked for the subject and flash. They wrote that they'd focus by moving the camera and would learn focus distances by feel over time. Calculate your DOF in advance at certain magnifications (I hope this is marked on your lens) and get rough estimates for your subject depth.

>>4447288
And?

little fucking freak was in my pubes sucking me. coin is 2cm

kind of wish macro was easier you cant really take good quick snapshits
my keeper:trash ratio is really bad compared to other wildlife/birds
tried the gearfag route and got autofocus lens and ring flash but didnt make much diff
when hiking i just put them in a bug jar then take the macro at home, which isnt ethical but ive killed 1000s just by walking
i dont bother unless its a very colourful or interesting bug though

is there anything that makes it easier/faster?
i already got the 60mm AF olympus lens which people have described as "basically cheating"

>>4447340
Based pube enjoyer. That tick knows whats up.

>>4447340
that's how pube enjoyers look like, disgusting insects

>>4447723
>>4447590
You may enjoy tick orb anon on /an/

TTD!

>>4447725
Fucking love tick orb anon (as well as pubes). Although he still owes us an actual orb. As far as i know, he hasn't come through on his promise yet.

I got the EM5 and the 60mm macro today, unfortunately the courier slamdunked the 60mm on the floor before I could tell her to be careful and the package didn't have any bubblewrap either inside. Whatever. It seems to attempt to autofocus for about half an eon before failing, I can't tell if it's broken (again, literal slamdunk), if the camera's broken (I doubt it, it looks like it was barely taken out of the box) or if my depth perception is really so poor that I can't tell whether I'm too far or too close. Probably the last one, repositioning usually solves it.

>>4447779
I think I'm having a massive skill issue too. I'm trying to shoot as close as I can while things are perfectly in focus, I press the shutter while staying perfectly still, release aaaand slight blur as if I've moved ever so slightly. I switched from full Auto (yeah yeah I know) to just Auto Aperture + Auto Shutter Speed and enabled Anti-Shock at 0 seconds like every single video suggests but it basically didn't make a difference (yes it's on while shooting, I checked)
What am I doing wrong?

Bitch literally broke your product. As if there isn't some recompense for the several hundred dollar lens

>>4447818
How can I make sure it's actually broken? Another courier also just threw the 14-150mm on the floor as if it was nothing (same company) a few days ago but they seem fine. I got it from eBay so it's not like I can demand the seller to reimburse me because the courier fucked up (he doesn't accept returns eitherAs far as I can see there aren't any dents/cracks and it doesn't seem to rattle.

>>4447849
>I got it from eBay so it's not like I can demand the seller to reimburse me because the courier fucked up
You will probably need to send everything back so it might not be worth it, but it's an option. Working for a parts seller (in automotive) in the past, if this shit happened we would eat the return then bill the courier we used; lots of shops have contracts where we'd get cheaper rates depending on how many issues we logged.

>>4447855
I'm gonna mess around with it for a day or two before giving the seller shit, I don't even know how to tell if it's actually broken or not. It seems like the international shipping center might have repackaged both lens, the seller swears he packaged them in bubble wrap but the actual packages had *zero* packing material, it was just the original box shoved into a slightly bigger box and taped shut with no packing material. He could absolutely be lying but how stupid do you have to be to ship them like that and hope the buyer doesn't complain?

The thistle bushes are in bloom and the bees are around. That makes me happy.

>>4436265
That's sick. Dragonflies seem impossible to get good shots of most times.

>>4444338
You're using the 30mm? Damn, makes me feel like I could have saved a couple bucks getting that instead of the 60mm (which is a great lens but damn am I not skilled enough to make full use of it yet). Definitely have to make a diffuser too, I've got some weird stair-stepping artifacting along the bee's hairs that I can only guess is related to reflections of the harsh camera flash.

>>4447779
>>4447815
Check the dial on the side of the lens, it's easy to knock it to the wrong setting by accident. It's got three plus one settings, one for close focus (0.19m to 0.4m, or about 7 inches to ~2 feet), one for general use (0.4m to infinity), one for "I don't know how far two feet is exactly or I'm shooting stuff at an unknown distance" (the whole range, 0.19m to infinity, this one has the label in a white box), and a 1 to 1 quickset that focuses as close as possible then returns to close focus mode. When it's in the whole-range mode it does focus SLOW because it has to hunt a loooong way with how precise it is up close, and in the other two modes it's sometimes easy to miss focus because what you're looking at is before or after the two-foot threshold.

>>4448840
Also, on an EM5 1 or 2 focus is naturally gonna be spotty and slow even on good lenses since you only have contrast detect AF, no phase detect like a DSLR or newer mirrorless cameras.

>>4448840
When I do get things in focus and they're actually sharp it looks odd, it's as if the focus point is triangle?ish?-shaped and very narrow. The seller of the EM5 gave me some advice and said that maybe the impact knocked the lens out of alignment.
The seller of the lens said I can just return them and he'll reimburse me, I'll probably end up doing that (and buy a replacement from the guy who sold me the camera - which arrived in immaculate condition - for about the same price)

also i can't for the life of me remember if I heard the courier throw the telephoto on the floor too a few days earlier

>>4448843
>it's as if the focus point is triangle?ish?-shaped
up close the focal range will indeed be very arrow (think fractions of an inch) but that sounds like a decentered lens for sure then if one corner is way worse than the others, wouldn't be the first time a delivery service ruins a perfectly good piece of equipment. you could do the brick-wall test to see how bad it is but if it's bad enough that you've already noticed it, the only real choice is to send it back because you WILL keep noticing it going forward, unfortunately. such is the biggest problem with buying camera gear online: drivers that see "ebay," "MPB" or "FRAGILE" on the box and decide to do their best kobe bryant from the truck door

>>4448843
Bro just take a picture of a wall or poster woth you camera parallel to it. If your lens is fucked it will show up easy.

>>4448844
Yeah I'll just return it. Funny thing is, the HLD-8 I got from MPB arrived safe and sound. I'm taking both lens to a friend of mine tomorrow (she's a professional photographer, probably doesn't know much about macro but she'll probably be able to tell if the telephoto is also busted)
I'll probably end up returning both and getting them from MPB instead, at least they'll have a warranty.

>>4448837
>You're using the 30mm
Yeah, but the 60 is objectively better for insects, especially if they are moving; sharpness should be the same. The nice thing with the 30 is, you can easily hold a leaf and the lens in one hand because it's so short, syncing your movement with the plant.

recently got a macro lens and took a few shots i kind of liked
It is hard, most of them came out pretty blurry or the depth of field was too shallow but i was able to rest the camera on a stump here and it was alright

Kind of what i meant about too shallow focus depth and i was probably moving a lot
It is really giving my leg muscles a good workout trying to squat in strange positions while being perfectly still

I wish I had steadier hands, lol

>>4448964
Use a tripod.

>>4448966
This and a powerful flash.

>>4448964
flash + faster shutter

>>4448966
>>4448971
>>4448973
I do when I can, but I'd love to be able to do handheld focus stacks

Wind was making web move a lot and I forgot my flash but managed to get some decent pictures.

>>4450328
are the red things eyes too

>>4450336
I think these are called ocelli and they are simple eyes that measure light intensity.

Stellaria graminea flower. Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 macro with 50mm extension tube. APS-C sensor.

does it count as macro if i used a telephoto
have a bee anyway

i have been playing around with a canon sx100, arranged a bunch of stuff to be able to put filters on it and got some aliexpress diopters, used them for a while then also pulled out the front elements from a 80s zoom lens (duplet but got separated since the epoxy was bad) and put that stuff at the front, what do you think, I am kinda impressed that i got no strong aberrations thanks to the duplet, I might start taking a look at those olympus pen cameras so i can reveal this little bastard eyes, you know the little mesh like stuff you can see on its eyes. quality is of course not great but I am having lots of fun

i should have used the flash and a smaller aperture on the wasp, i made a flash hood with a diffuser but it wont stay attached.

big boi

why not

>>4450328
spectacular work

>>4450352
GREAT! so would those insects be great photogs or we will evolve into them ?

>>4450328
Gear?

E100, Minolta f/4 100mm Macro

in the most recent turn of this hobby, I've taken to snapping bugs. I never realized that macro lenses have relatively short focal lengths. This is shot through an old canon 300mm zoom through an adapter to my z50ii. Anybody take bug pics with a telephoto?

>>4459027
Telephoto macro is particularly popular on mft, where many tele lenses approach 0.5x magnification (appearing as 1x). The Oly 40-150 f/2.8 and f/4 and 300 f/4 are particularly well regarded for this.
I'm not into bug macro but for certain species it makes a lot of sense. For me I often find myself wishing I had a wider fov, not narrower. Wide angle macro gives a lot of dimensionality that I find fun.

fun stuff thinking about getting a proper camera now

>>4459027
you basically have to for anything that will fly away if you get close
nowhere near as much detail as a macro lens but you can still get nice shots

>>4459180
that looks great! maybe could use some contrast. what did you shoot it on?

>>4459383
canon sx100 and aliexpress diopters plus the front elements of a manual vivitar zoom i dissasembled, everything is put together with tube adapters, i run chdk on the thing for raw and remote shutter, missed a nice pic here, chdk shat the bed and for some reason i had set jpeg size to s so i did not capture the jpeg at full size nor the raw file, just experimental stuff, don't feel motivated enough to get proper equipment, been looking at getting a m43 but i am only planning to to this on sundays two hours at most

>>4459933
pretty damn good for a cobbled together set up

>>4457188
thank you
>>4457562
>Gear?
microscope objective connected to the camera via a hollow tube. All of this mounted on a stacking rail

>>4460457
That's sick. Would love a webm tour if you get bored

Come here you SLUT.

i dont really do macro but seen this dragon fly was just sitting there asking to be photo'd

Couldn't quite get the reflections in her eyes

I know fuck all about photography in general but I'm interested in Macro, so dumbass question incoming.

I see macro lens that are a single zoom level and then I see lens with a zoom range with 'macro', I assume the macro on those will be complete shit compared to a proper macro lens?

I ask because I see a few of those for sale (for example Tamron 18-200 3.5-6.5 macro or 28-90 macro) for not too expensive but I assume those are going to be a total shit for any actual detail, right?

>>4462510
It usually means they focus closer than other lenses but anything under 1:1 isn't real macro.

>>4459027
I've gotten some passable pics with my 150-500mm. Trying to be more patient and not spook them.

>>4462510
>I see lens with a zoom range with 'macro', I assume the macro on those will be complete shit compared to a proper macro lens?
The image quality you get ouf of a lens is up to a lot of factors, but some broad assumptions are generally correct. Namely here, a prime lens (the macro lens that has a single "zoom" level) will generally win out against any zoom of a similar age in technology. Dedicated Macro lenses are also capable of 1:1 magnification, which there are (i'm fairly certain) no zoom lenses that exist and can do that; it's just asking too much from the optics. You'll likely only get 1:2 magnification (half) from any zoom claiming Macro.

Because of their intended purpose, actual macro lenses are also normally very sharp and free from abberations that can rob you of details. A zoom lens with a macro designation has the normal concessions almost any zoom does: distortion, chromatic abberations, lacking corner sharpness etc.

Now, 1:2 mangification is pretty good for a lot of things and is already way better than most other lenses. But if you actually want to do macro photography and do it well / a lot of it, a true 1:1 macro lens is well worth the money.

>>4462523
>>4462551
Thanks, might get one of the zoom 'macro' lenses just because they're cheap, and get a real macro lens in the near future.

>>4444108
>>4444444

>>4462510
What kind of macro are you interested in?
Asking because I myself am kinda new to "proper" macro photography, I only bought true macro lens this spring (Canon RF 100mm) and so far had limited success with it, having few opportunities to practice because summer was quite busy.
Before that, I occasionally shot bugs with my old Canon EF-S 55-250 STM, which isn't really considered a macro lens at all, but I would say it actually has a number of advantages over a much more expensive "true" macro RF 100, and it's a lot easier to get a decent shot of a medium and larger insect (anything bigger than a fly) with it, especially if you are new to photography.
Its light, versatile and lets you comfortably take pictures of small subjects from almost a meter away, without disturbing them.
Here's a pic I took with it mounted on canon 600D quite some time ago.

>>4464966
And another one.
No flash, no macro rings, just the basic camera + lens setup.
So yeah, depending on what you want to shoot, you might get away with buying non-macro gear that will be a lot cheaper and easier to use.
Of course, some people ITT probably wouldn't even consider these shots macro at all.
There are some really cool close-ups of smaller insects posted here, that would be very hard to achieve even when I finally get good with my current 100 RF.

>>4464970
And one with sugma 150-600

>>4464971
Which by the way has minimum focusing distance of almost 3 meters.
You are basically a world away from your subject, and still get some nice details.

>>4464972
As for RF 100, well, here's a pic with it.
The subject is much smaller than a bumblebee, or even a drone fly, so I probably wouldn't be able to take it with either 55-250 or 150-600, but the shot itself is rather mediocre.
And it took (comparatively) a lot of effort to make.
Had to get really close to the subject, to the point when a slight sudden movement from me could cause the plant to shake and little dude to fall off the leaf.

What about watches? do any of you do watch photography? it's difficult.

>>4464966
>>4464970
>>4464971
>>4464972
>>4464983
I ended up buying a Tamron 18-200 lens because it was dirt cheap, which so far I'm not super happy with but I haven't used it too much so too early to say, and a Pentax 55-300 which I bought for taking photos of birds and stuff but I may aswell try it out for macro photos aswell.

There's a handful of Pentax 100mm AF Macro lens for around $200 AUD from Japan, and a few manual focus ones for cheaper so I might just get a proper one if I'm not gonna be happy with what I've got

>>4464983
The 100mm macros are only worth it if you're trying to take photos a 0.5x mag lens can't do. My 100-400 can get 0.42x @ 200mm but it's kind of unimpressive for total IQ versus the 100mm I own. Kind of depends on your subject size.
>>4465003
I channeled my inner Ken when I bought my first nice watch and it was surprisingly annoying to get a shot I enjoyed. Even with off-camera flash I felt like I either had far too much diffraction or the light was too harsh.
>pic rel EF 100mm Macro IS USM @ MFD @ f/8 with a tripod

man I wanna get a better lens for this shit cos mine does not work super good for this