Wasp nests

Of course, if the hornet population density is limited by the number of extra-thick hollow trees, then only to a small extent. They perfectly settle perfectly in human buildings (from the flimsiest guard boxes of gardeners to urban high-rise buildings), as well as in tree hollows with a diameter of only 30-40 centimeters. Here in the ground I have not met, probably, these are exceptional cases.

I got tired of this case before it really started.

That's right, Ezox, go to your megales, look for hornets, and preferably-right now, all the same, your pine tree has no chance )))
In the meantime, you are here-see what a real, full of life forest looks like, join the force

Pictures:

P6109702.jpg — (405.99к)


P5068905.jpg — (719.77к)


P5068907.jpg — (830.15к)


P5068898.jpg — (663.73к)

Of course, if the hornet population density is limited by the number of extra-thick hollow trees, then only to a small extent. They perfectly settle perfectly in human buildings (from the flimsiest guard boxes of gardeners to urban high-rise buildings), as well as in tree hollows with a diameter of only 30-40 centimeters. Here in the ground I have not met, probably, these are exceptional cases.

Yes I see, I see-vumny-vumny )) To repeat what was written after Carcharot - you don't need a lot of intelligence, but to give birth to a limiting factor is weak?

Undoubtedly, the feather wood is a force! I won't even argue.

Here, I found a picture of the meat-eating Setonia aurata, so that no one would doubt that bronzes are not pure vegetarians, and neither the digestive system nor religion forbids them to eat polist eggs:



Yellow mass - leftovers left over from fried fish. Moreover, beetles flew to the fishy smell regularly.

anal...vaginaldnoi... oral, too.

Yes you, Esox, pervert

That's right, Ezox, go to your megales, look for hornets, and preferably-right now, all the same, your pine tree has no chance )))
In the meantime, you are here-see what a real, full of life forest looks like, join the force

Here only in the third photo is a normal forest, but we also have a lot of them. On the first one, some pine trees were planted, which the foresters destroyed the steppe with. In our Crimea, this is called "Saki forestry", apparently from the word "sucks". The second photo shows a sedge meadow on the edge of something that is not clear (a park, a forest belt?), the last one shows a feather grass steppe near a forest belt or floodplain thickets (you can't see it).

You're a pervert, Esox

I'm just quite normal: I don't ask anyone to give birth, I don't write about laying anything other than eggs by wasps, I don't paw scolopendras, I don't persistently take an interest in cows...

Here only in the third photo is a normal forest, but we also have a lot of them. On the first one, some pine trees were planted, which the foresters destroyed the steppe with. In our Crimea, this is called "Saki forestry", apparently from the word "sucks". The second photo shows a sedge meadow on the edge of something that is not clear (a park, a forest belt?), the last one shows a feather grass steppe near a forest belt or floodplain thickets (you can't see it).

These pictures are all from Oleshkovsky sands, and the previous ones are local. By the way, I post pictures only from my surroundings, where you can easily and quickly reach-I can go to Pisky by train in 40 minutes +30 by minibus, and local landings in general are mostly accessible by bike.
Pines-especially for Ezox, so that he does not brag about his matches, there are trees that are more than a meter in diameter, and what kind of porcini mushrooms are there-with a plate))

Well, the rest of the pictures are peat forests in" oases " in the sand, and their surroundings-that is, all three pictures are such a forest inside, and on the outskirts, there are many different orchids growing there, there are ferns, grasshoppers, kstti-almost as tall as me., in our steppes I have not seen this, there are horsetails in which the stem is very thick and the height is like a good bush, this is a forest, and here, next to it, and not in Svyatogorsk, where probably photos of Ezox come from

And there are trees with hollows where you can get in, too, but I won't go there, there's a lot of cobwebs there ) we got such a steatode from there - I've never seen such things before )))

Pictures:

P5199183.jpg — (424.47к)

I-tog just

Yes, they already understood everything that you are-that you still need something to take, you lack something in the body ~ Well, or an excess, toxicosis, so to speak )) In a normal situation, people do not associate the words "give birth" and "suck up" with such things

Here, instead of being clever, you would have attached a lens to your megadevice, become a real mokrushnik, and at least do something with your hands)
The main joke is that with a lens in order to make such pictures 1) you do not need to poke the object directly into the osu, since the distance to the object of shooting to the lens increases to 10 cm or more, and the larger the zoom, the greater the distance! 2) do not need autofocus, as the GRIP is very large, more than MBS with a similar multiplicity 3) you can take photos with any zoom.
Just take aim with your hands and you're done, that is, all the photos below were taken in the room and with your hands without any fuss))

Pictures:

P1010003.jpg — (185.71 k)


P1230172.jpg — (135.78к)


P1230208.jpg — (162.87к)


P1230206.jpg — (159.95к)


P1230229.jpg — (371.34к)


P1230113.jpg — (264.15к)


P1230222.jpg — (323.74к)


P1230072.jpg — (327.59к)


P1230109.jpg — (288.98к)


P1230077.jpg — (212.72к)

I think that on the makrushny forum for this quality of pictures, Pan will be thrown tomatoes. In any case, the viper without the lens of that clearly would have turned out better.

Ezox, this is also the most common soap dish, everything else is attached, with your hands, Ezox, you need to work with your hands))
Well, it's clear that those photos were the first results, now I can just go into the bath and take a picture of the hay eater on the wall even with acc. or a baby theodoxus 1mm in diameter, well, or a "viper", which" bez lynzy " would hardly have turned out to shoot like this, especially better, because the viper would have bitten the snimmer))) Distance is the main point here.

And not "Babel" is not any willow, Taikh weeping willows I did not see there at all, this is one of those trees that are in the picture with a feather grass and a meadow, I do not remember which one.

However, artificial plantings, which are plentiful on the territory not controlled by Kiev, including in the green belt of Donetsk, continue to grow and gain strength (there are already oaks in one and a half of my girth, and I do not suffer from dwarfism), while in Nikolaev they were not, and will not be.

Ixpert

The device is cool, it's worth trying to make one. But the photos still turned out to be nothing (I would have deleted most of them before resetting them to the computer), although this is more likely to depend on the photographer.

Is this what Pan understands as a forest? Rzhunemagu! I just looked at satellite images of Nikolaev - there is no forest there from the word at all. Moreover, it is not at the distance of a one-day walking distance from Nikolaev (except for some uniform beds of small trees on the svo-zapda from the city, but that is probably a garden). We have oaks in one and a half girth grow not in front gardens at the entrances, covered with whitewash, but in the forest, covered with lichens, deer beetles and other interesting animals, surrounded by a large number of their own relatives. If Pan doesn't understand the difference, I'm sorry. But I can't help you. I advise Pan to accept the complete treelessness of his region and live with it, and not fall into derealization.

Hmm, I'm much better at taking pictures without any lenses. The hay eater and theodoctus are so generally taken off on a mobile phone.


Here-this kayak-soap box? Probably for a very large bar of laundry soap. By a soap dish, I mean when the lens is completely pushed inwards and the entire camera fits in the palm of your hand. There is no need to "attach" the nozzle there. Is that stupid to screw to the front end with screws. But I will leave this lesson for those who are particularly pro-moved "mokrushniki".

But since Pan went to such tricks with such ambiguous results, I understand that Olypus has a very bad experience with native macro photography. And they write after all that it is quite at the level.

Here's how I shoot with my soap dish without any tambourine dancing (if you can do everything in a measured and slow way):







But this is still one of the cheapest soap dishes. And how to shoot Panasonic Lumix pan better not know at all, otherwise he will not be able to sleep well with his "suspicious pipe".

Yeah.. Esox is not a reader explicitly..
First of all, whether a soap box is used or not is determined primarily by the type of matrix, which is no better on that Olympus than on your soap box, non-replaceable objects, etc.
My soap dish weighs not much more than "flat" - 400g, and the nozzle is luminescent with one lens, weighs 90g, and it is removable essno.
Lenses are attached to any soap dish, without any screws, this is generally elementary, you make a tube of cardboard according to the diameter of the protruding part of the object, look for a suitable lens at the baro market and go ahead.
And once again - the advantage of the lens is that the distance to the object of shooting increases, and the insect is not so afraid + GRIP + aperture, as the relative hole increases and the detail will certainly fall if the lens is not very good + distortion at the edges + I photographed in the room because the light and blur, on the street alas, the invasion of permafrost Otherwise, I would have taken a picture of flies...

About the hay eater and theodoxus cool-Ezox, and you try to shoot the hay eater with your camera? Or theodoxus with a diameter of 1 mm through the glass? ))) Let's see what happens. Because all the animals that you posted-compared to my animals-are gigantic, do you have any idea the size of these flies (figs with it-sedge ) and beetles?
Yes, and the cactus came out some strange )))

Pr oaks - everything is as usual, Ezox said garbage and makes excuses, oak trees were planted here-a lot, just because of the high density + climate: all the oaks are frail, but there are enough of them. And the essence was that megaikspert declared that such (big) oaks in Nikolaev are not present and will not be

Pictures:

P1230323.jpg — (504.76к)

Here are the demonstration shots - two shots with a nozzle - with a small zoom and medium, and a control shot in supermacro without a nozzle.
The size of the shooting object is clear )))

Image parameters-
control - distance to the object is about 1 cm,
nozzle-small zoom-distance to the object is 8 cm
nozzle-medium zoom - distance to the object is 12 cm.

The lighting is the same, the shutter speeds/apertures are the same..

Everything is noticeable - the increase in light intensity, but also the loss of detail with increasing zoom.

Pictures:

P1230405777.jpg — (301.54к)


P1230407.jpg — (270.12к)


P1230413.jpg — (257.72к)

Well, cropped areas.
As for me-the picture through the nozzle with a small zoom even wins in detail, but at the maximum, of course, alas. But there are no miracles)

A picture through MBS - of course I didn't try very hard, it could have been better - but the fact is significant - the GRIP on MBS is very small, the focus is on the eyes, and the ass is already completely out of focus, and this is at this size and magnification of only 28X

Pictures:

P12304041.jpg — (34.73к)


P12304072.jpg — (71.45к)


P12304133.jpg — (137.76к)


P101005502.jpg — (282.72к)

No, whatever one may say, some kind of dregs comes out, and not a macro photo. Maybe if you give the light away and try to focus it all the same not with your hands, it will be better? I would try to remove the hay eater, but the trouble is, they are not found in my apartment. All the collections are in a reliable sealed package, and those that were not without it, those have long since turned to dust, and the animals that turned them, died of hunger. But the nutcracker that sits on your finger is also a creature, to put it mildly, not big. I'm not arguing that Pan's "suspicious tube" gives more magnification than my soap dish, I'm just saying that the quality of the pictures from under it comes out very, very shitty. Again, this objective fact must be accepted and accepted, as well as with the fact that since the times of the evil and terrible Russian Empire, the situation with oaks in Nikolaev has become much worse. Or do not put up with it, but show ingenuity and eliminate this problem (and with oaks as well, it would be necessary to heed the order of Peter the Great).

The last picture, judging by the measuring scale, is already under MBS. This one's not bad. The rest is bullshit. The actual level of detail has not increased compared to the reference image. The larger magnification is more than compensated for by blurring. You might as well take photos without a lens, crop them, and then artificially inflate the resolution. And yet, yes, the macro mode on Olympus is very good. So, in my opinion, Pan suffers from garbage from an excess of free time and a lack of suitable ideas on how to fill it.

This post was edited by ENO - 23.01.2016 23: 08

  
So nature must have made it somehow strange, because in the picture it looked exactly as it was seen by the eyes, only with more detail.

Dya Well, where is the detail in your picture? This picture is called-sandpaper on the eyes Like the others, that's for sure what could have been better..

The last picture, judging by the measuring scale, is already under MBS. This one's not bad. The rest is bullshit. The actual level of detail has not increased compared to the reference image. The larger magnification is more than compensated for by blurring. You might as well take photos without a lens, crop them, and then artificially inflate the resolution. And yet, yes, the macro mode on Olympus is very good. So, in my opinion, Pan suffers from garbage from an excess of free time and a lack of suitable ideas on how to fill it.

It's kind of surreal

Ikpert calculated the detail by eye
At the same time, Ikpert did not realize that the essence of the lens is not in detail, but in distance
That is, in order to take such pictures as in the photos before, I literally had to shove the object right next to the poor flies, and so - with virtually the same detail, I can take a picture of them from 10 cm, baz zoom, or by applying zoom, I will lose the detail but I will take a picture from an even longer distance.
+ increasing the aperture also means a lot of things, if I can take such photos of hay eaters in the room, then this already says a lot )))
And what does this have to do with hay-eating collections, Ezox? And hay eaters to kolekktsiyami?
They live in every apartment, IMHO, in the bathroom, you need to look more closely at the walls..

Pictures:

P9210150.jpg — (410.57к)


P9250319.jpg — (614.89к)

Basically, here is a very good test that shows the operation of the attachment lens without zoom, part of the Wikipedia article about attachment lenses is photographed
The first photo is without a lens, the distance to the screen is approx. 3cm, the second with a lens - the distance to the screen is 15cm.
The gain in distance is significant, and the quality IMHO with the lens is even better.

Pictures:

P1230457.jpg — (709.31к)


P1230459.jpg — (694.37к)

Well, acc. using zoom.
The distance is of course generally fantastic, at such scales up to 25 cm, but alas, distortion. In fact, you can only use a small zoom with cropping the central part of the frame. But the possibility does not hurt, especially since without a lens there is no such possibility at all.

Pictures:

P1230469.jpg — (412.74к)


P1230470.jpg — (488.9к)

  

I tried a long time ago to take pictures through a magnifying glass (the same lens), I didn't notice any particularly significant gain in distance, as I took pictures from 3-5 cm, and I take pictures. There is a gain in magnification, which is compensated for by "fog" and distortion. "Stick it in the wasp", my camera doesn't allow it anyway. And at 10 cm, probably, my 4x zoom is not enough, well, okay, because it's hard for me to believe in such a mutually exclusive miracle of technology as TV macro photography. But there is one feature - autofocus does not work at all, I do not have a manual one, and moving closer and further, it is very difficult to catch the moment, that is, you need to take a dozen pictures, and if you are lucky, one of them will be in focus. In general, as I already said, the hemorrhoid is still the same. And it would be understandable if this hemorrhoid led to a really high-quality result, but no.

Again, ixpert is just the same "picky mokrushniki" take pictures as a rule (if they have of course) in tele-mode with their DSLRs with macro lenses for thousands of pupaars, which is nothing more than an ordinary telephoto lens + this very "lynza", but of course, licked so that it does not give noticeable distortions in any modes.
See Wikipedia article "macroobjective".
In the same place, see what is the difference between the "macro mode" of soap dishes and trush macro photography - exactly the shortest distance from the object to the object of the shoot.
In animalistic shots, this is a big minus, animals are shy..

Yes, I forgot what exactly is measuring in MBS-e, because I only used this ruler once. As for the broken eyepiece in the binge, I recommend that Pan again moderate his fantasy. I don't have MBS-a at home at all, but at uni, where I can go if I want to take such a photo, everything is intact and works fine

I decided to repeat the experiments with a magnifying glass. Found out the following:
1) my sovdepovskaya[/s]defense [/s] magnifier "plastic 4X" at a price of 60 kopecks (plastic only means the case) distorts much less than the lens. bought by Pan at a flea market.
2) to immediately crop the edge of a highly distorted area, it is advisable to use a digital zoom;
3) the distance to the object should be observed no more than 1 cm;
5) there is no GRIP, even shaking hands knocks down clarity, ideally you need a tripod;
7) autofocus is useless.
7) if I shot in nature, the object would have already escaped 100 times and flown away.



The "front sights" are comparable in size to the one shown by Pan, the detail is noticeably better than Pan's (but still insufficient to determine the species), but the depth of field is less than at MBS (in fact, only the leg of one insect is in focus (or rather, only the shin and foot) and the ass of the second. Like pan's theodoxus photographed through glass and water alcohol. Zoom 4X (my maximum), flash was present.

Pine needles (the shooting conditions are the same, but without alcohol).



Control, without a lens, but in macro mode:



These are the best shots out of a couple dozen, most of which turned out just disgusting.

The verdict. If the stars are placed correctly, it turns out a little better than regular macro photography (but several orders of magnitude more hemorrhagic). This method is suitable for ersatz photographing of still objects if you don't have access to the MBS. You can safely forget about using it in the field. The definition of such images is also a big question.

Perhaps with Olympus it's all somehow different, I can't check it out.

This post was edited INO-24.01.2016 14: 26

As for the broken eyepiece in the binge, I recommend that Pan again moderate his fantasy. I don't have MBS-a at home at all, but at uni, where I can go if I want to take such a photo, everything is intact and works fine

Hyy )) We read between the lines-MBS at Ezoksa is not at home, but binge drinking still happens)) Note that I didn't mention anyone personally in my message earlier

I can almost also remove it without any nozzle.

I'll put it this way, Pan decided not to remove the dust from this unfortunate hornet (I'm not even talking about a tire iron on a pin with a label) until complete victory over the world's evil. About the shovel to burst, you should probably suggest someone in another topic, I have no idea who it is. I don't even rule out the possibility that I once fed such a spider or eublefar (I harvest them indiscriminately).

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1475462
Egyptian power! It was necessary to remove the photos (for which, by the way, pan was thanked by as many as two people) from the post after so many years! And most importantly, why? To hide the fact that during these years of "careful storage for future generations", the specimen broke off part of the antennae? As you like to say there, ganba! In this case, it would be better to remove the ban already and this - and the question of the habitat of Vespa orientalis in (in) Ukraine will get a logical conclusion.

This post was edited INO-24.01.2016 19: 00

I can almost also remove it without any nozzle.

So where's your name? Proofs to the studio, otherwise I see that for "almost the same"

Oh, I'm tired of waiting for a master class from Pan the photographer, so I'll post what I originally wanted to save as a response to a portion of his really high-quality macro photos, which never came. I found the same most that neither eat real flies, without any quotes, and live. Oh, and it was difficult to aim at them, alive, but after a number of fruitless attempts, I managed. In general, finishing off:




Perhaps, with my, if I may say so, equipment, this is the limit. You can probably improve a little more by using a tripod and playing with the light, but this is not today. And most importantly: moving, even at a speed of only a millimeter per second, the object, as I expected, to photograph this method was almost impossible. Both fruit flies appeared in the photo only because they sat completely motionless for several minutes.

This post was edited INO-24.01.2016 19: 01

Ezox, you would still have room flies nafotkal would ))
Your blackbirds are quite large compared to all my "flies" and beetles, I'm not talking about hay eaters
Yes, and I found one of the flattened ones on the Internet, ok 3mm size is also a lot.

And yes - the most funny thing is that I "do not play with the light" and take pictures of crawling flies, beetles and hay eaters, by the way, too
The thing is, Esox, that I develop pribluda for practical use in hiking, that is, in dynamics when you need to quickly take a picture and go further.
And your pictures, as your beloved Carcharoth would say, are muddy

Pictures:

P1240743.jpg — (393.9к)


P1240744.jpg — (478.09к)


P1240746.jpg — (398.56к)


P1240756.jpg — (303.56к)


P1240762.jpg — (286.16к)


P1240765.jpg — (361.1к)


P1240769.jpg — (233.61к)

But the screen should still look like this somehow

Pictures:

P1240670.jpg — (435.41 k)


P12406632.jpg — (552.9к)

What kind of lens, these are the pictures. And in pan, they are not only muddy, but also with all sorts of"aberrations". And those where these "aberrations" are invisible are clearly made with too little magnification (and then cropping). There is also a lot of noise there - you need to give more light. In Olympus, after all, the flash is on a significant takeaway, it should work even with this "suspicious pipe". Still, it's interesting that the hay-eaters are eating in Pan's bathroom.
And the fruit fly is still yes, slightly smaller in size than an elephant.

I have a 24" 1920 x 1080 monitor , so Ixpert will pass me by again

Here is this beetle, Stegobium paniceum, just photographed (live))), a little more than 2 mm in size. But, such beetles, alas, are very poor photogenic, and the fact that they are parasitized is half the size, and they are also black. Here drozdofila would be, yes, it would be possible to take a picture, but if hay eaters with a size of about 1mm are obtained, then drozdofila would come out, and this is the point..

I'm not talking about the fact that bez lynzy megaikspert and close to similar photos did not make on his soap dish, and now ixpert can still pick up a normal lens at the flea market and not the same strong one to take pictures in nature
Personally, I already have MBS to take pictures and watch very small animals, and Esoxic, if he knew how to work with his hands, would have made a tripod and an object table long ago and would take pictures through the lens, with a competent approach, it will be no worse than MBS.

Pictures:

P1240770.jpg — (243.66к)


P1240775.jpg — (291.51к)


P1240785.jpg — (242.23к)


P1240786.jpg — (444.92к)