Observations in nature: insects. Stavropol Territory

Next time I advise you to try putting a decaying banana (after a day in a warm room in an open state) or at least the peel from it. There will be a lot more visitors. And clean the lens, there is some kind of byaka.

16.08.2017, approx. 17h30 min-19h30
Forest, near the city of Stavropol.
On the remains of mackerel soaked in brine (slightly salted) and bread soaked in water, the following insects flew (see photo) - the food object was put up specifically-to see who would "arrive".
During the observations, 4 wasps, several green and 2 brown flies fed on the food object. If someone is interested, I will write the details and give you a photo.
Another forest dweller was also photographed)
But such hollows in trees with lakes inside are an invertebrate habitat that deserves a comprehensive separate study.
I would be grateful if you would indicate the species names of the invertebrates photographed.

SAM_4936.JPG -WORKING WASP VESPULA VULGARIS

Not very productive.

The fish would like to die out well, then it will be more interesting.

And time is needed, because the flies throw and fly, and later on their larvae will be filled with all sorts of toddlers, staffs, etc. animals, this is much more interesting.

I support the idea of a banana, although, in principle, apples, pears,plums, etc. in a fermented state are also very good.

You can just wet a rag in this mess and tie it to a tree, sometimes watering it - everything flies perfectly.

And the lens is still yes, specifically stained...

This post was edited by xoshAmadam - 08/27/2017 23: 13

Banana is generally much better than apples and pears. The latter in abundance attract only wasps, beetles and butterflies - weakly. There are, of course, exceptions, but they only confirm the rule. "This mess", namely, the brew still needs to be properly prepared, which is a delicate and non-trivial matter, even I get out every other time, and here I am just a novice insect photographer. Therefore, IMHO lying down for a day in the heat of an open banana is the easiest way to attract something interesting and diverse in this case. And any necro and copro is already for the highly advanced, because it stinks cruelly, and there is a chance to catch the infection.

I won't tell.

I feel that the smell works more there - the stronger, the better; on a banana of any degree of smelliness, I flew in the middle lane, but somehow not very much.
Either the smell is unfamiliar, or something else.

In Southeast Asia, rotten banana-papayas planted on a tree gave amazing results, although not on the animals I was hoping for.

And here on the apple and plum bait-from what was lying around-flew better, and just butterflies do not interest me from the word "at all".

As for the subtlety and non-triviality of fermentation-also, in general, it is not so difficult, although it is very casual.
Yeast greatly helps the process.

About copro-necro:
I wouldn't say that cow/horse/buffalo manure stinks so much, it's not so disgusting. Manure and dung; don't eat it.
Human-yes, it is instinctively unpleasant , and there is also a reluctance to dig in pork-but they are really for aesthetes

Carrion normally works on something interesting in an already dried state, previously there were only flies, everything else sits on the periphery and waits - either for the maggot to come out, or until it dries up.
And a dried-up rat, frog, or hedgehog-sized slug is not so bad.

This post was edited by xoshAmadam - 28.08.2017 13: 25

Of course, you can, click the "Advanced Form" button.

after catching insects from the corpse with an exhausterwith a mouth drive, he received severe stomatitis.

That's really lucky, I could have picked up something worse. With a fatal-in field conditions-outcome...

I went a couple of times with highly non-Russian specialists on all sorts of sabzhev inhabitants - they were purely manual, no company ones.
Plus goggles, respirators, and gloves...

at lower temperatures, a rotten banana may not even smell the same.

Bananas are also different.
More odorous varieties, less odorous...

In any case, its superiority is somehow not very obvious to me.

Yes, you have already thrown out this dirty door peephole, if it really does not wash. When viewed directly, seasickness begins.

The last photo shows the backside of a cricket, which, judging by its burrow, is probably a field cricket in the larval phase. On the penultimate one, somewhere to the side, it seems that the halicts are mating, but only the male is clearly distinguishable. Another complaint about the photos: 90% of the area (in two cases-a little less) had to be cut off.

Beetle on 4962-Carabus (Megodontus) exaratus Quens., 1806.
And not the fact that the peephole is "not washed": it is very possible that it was washed, but using an abrasive...

I can't even imagine what kind of abrasive it was supposed to be, sand or sandpaper? From a rag made of any material, such a quiet horror does not happen in the pictures, even if the surface of the lens leaves much to be desired. Although another question is what kind of lens, maybe plastic, which is easier to kill in the trash than a steamed turnip. I didn't consider it necessary to frame Opatrum, but it's a sacred thing to clean out the exifs...

Strange, I have this forum is filled in and then back downloaded always with exif. It's not a speck that you can suffer with, but a full seam. If this is not a removable lens, then put the device in the furnace. Although here one pan managed to replace the native lens of the soap dish with a Soviet microscopic one, after which the quality became almost like that of a DSLR, but there, in his own words, "R & D is heavy". A second-hand soap dish that will shoot incomparably better than this disabled person of yours can be bought for 500 rubles, is there really not so much? In this case, it is better to collect an entomological collection, because with such photos that are being obtained now, there is no use not only in artistic, but also in scientific terms.

And yet, are you 100% sure that these are scratches, and not some kind of dirt?

Opatrum, what kind of machine?

I can't even imagine what kind of abrasive it was supposed to be, sand or sandpaper? From a rag made of any material, such a quiet horror does not happen in the pictures, even if the surface of the lens leaves much to be desired. Although another question is what kind of lens, maybe plastic, which is easier to kill in the trash than a steamed turnip. I didn't consider it necessary to frame Opatrum, but it's a sacred thing to clean out the exifs...

On a soap dish, enlightenment can be annulled by anything. And tear off the lens with an unkind look.

I was lying around for a long time some Sonka of shaggy years, where there was a bald spot in the half-lens-I just tried to remove some formic, poured the lens, the acid ate the enlightenment.

Exifs, as I understand it, are cleaned up by the forum engine...

Really so! But before there was no such dirty trick, I took a lot of photos with exifs from here.

You have a biased attitude to soap boxes, in fact, the lenses in them are very high-quality (compared to whale lenses of DSLRs or Helios-44), because to allow a tiny soap box matrix is not a big deal for you. And in most cases, a protective filter is also built into the lens. But formic acid is such a powerful thing that even a gun can be ruined, let alone enlightenment. However, even a lens with no illumination at all on the front lens will shoot much better than what we see here.

This post was edited by ENO-01.09.2017 00: 18

About permission, etc. - this is so low for old soap dishes in itself that you can do without a door peephole.
And the filter, apparently, also plays a role in this mess.

But about "what we see here", somehow it occurred to me that this is hardly the front lens-this is either a sticker inside, or even an ass.
Because yes, even with a vaseline-soaked filter, the picture turns out better.

  
And this miracle of nature was photographed yesterday in the entrance, on the windowsill: however, it was already dried up... What kind of view?

Cydalima perspectalis

Most important: take models with fully manual shutter speed and aperture controls

This is of course, but where can I get such models? I have the impression that they are no longer produced at all, and those that are produced at a price close to DSLRs. Or did I miss something?

Now even the cheapest modern cameras have a manual mode. Specially looked in the outlet, sorted by price-even at the price of 2000 UAH and the appearance of the most cute soap dish - there is a manual mode.
This is at the beginning of 2000, when manufacturers did not want to lose customers of their own DSLRs, they deliberately did not make these modes, now that the market is saturated with DSLRs, this has lost its meaning
DSLRs, new, now cost $ 400, which is a little more than what I bought my soap box for in 2005)
And such a fotik as the author has, we have on slando costs about $ 30, of course fully working, and the appearance is like new with a box and everything that is supposed, and with izyanami there is also 20.

You don't need to look at the socket - the current can reach the frontal lobes. In fact, the market is full of modern soap dishes, both with and without manual modes. There will even be more of the latter. And you need to look at the mode selection wheel, if there are letters "A" "T" and "M", then you can take it, if at least one of them is missing - it's not worth it. To the credit of modern soap dishes, I must say that their auto mode, as a rule, is also completely demolished, but for its predecessors, for example, my Canon A540, turning on "Auto" is a sure way to screw up the frame even in ideal conditions.

Now even the cheapest modern cameras have a manual mode. Specially looked in the outlet, sorted by price-even at the price of 2000 UAH and the appearance of the most cute soap dish - there is a manual mode.
This is at the beginning of 2000, when manufacturers did not want to lose customers of their own DSLRs, they deliberately did not make these modes, now that the market is saturated with DSLRs, this has lost its meaning
DSLRs, new, now cost $ 400, which is a little more than what I bought my soap box for in 2005)
And such a fotik as the author has, we have on slando costs about $ 30, of course fully working, and the appearance is like new with a box and everything that is supposed, and with raisins there are also 20.

Can you give me a link? So that at the price of 2000 UAH - manual mode?

I'll write the name, but I don't recommend buying it
Nikon Coolpix A10
For the same 2000 UAH you can buy a BU mirrorless Olympus with an objective and a full set. documents.

It is not entirely clear what is surprising here, the manual shutter speed and aperture mode does not require any improvements or unnecessary production solutions at all, it's just a change in the firmware and that's it. Now this mode is not the same as in photos but also in smartphones there are

Yes, where is it there, this manual mode? I don't see him directly.
UPD I downloaded the manual - I still don't see it.

This post was edited by KM2200-02.09.2017 22: 04

Taki Pan khvotograkhv looked too long into the socket-the frontal lobes were seriously damaged. In the named model of the camera, there is not only a manual mode, but even an aperture! I was not too lazy to download the manual. I can't imagine why, instead of his favorite "Olympus", he remembered about the ugly Coolpix line, did he ever use it himself? Apart from the most ancient models and superzums, these are all single-drop soap dishes with a terrible watercolor run. In general, "Nikon"!, like no one else, is famous for software cuts in functions even in non-top DSLRs, it was very strange to expect a soap dish with normal control from this office.

KM2200, approximately every second Kenon soap dish has a fully manual control and a mount for attachments, it is recognized by the letters I have painted on the wheel (brand specifics: instead of A and T - Av and Tv) and the button for shooting the mount cover under the lens. Examples: A530, A540, F570 IS, A610, A620, A630, A640, A650 IS (this one is especially recommended by makrushniki), it seems to be all G (but just in case you need to look at each model). All listed, except G, are much cheaper than 2000 UAH.

Yes, judging by the manual - there is no such thing, but on sales sites they write what they have. Strange, why do this?)

https://all-service.com.ua/catalog/4775-fot...k-vna981e1.html
http://market.mabila.ua/catalog/digitalcam...olpix-a10/spec/

Here in this exactly there is a Nikon Coolpix A300, but it is 4000 UAH.
For 3000 UAH, there are hints of manual mode from Sony cybershot. And in those that 2-3 thousand really do not exist according to the manuals, although on some sites they write that there are) But those that are from 5000 UAH, there are almost everywhere, they already have the appearance of a DSLR made.

In modern models, the resolution of the matrix is comparable to modern DSLRs, but the pixel density is several times higher. Therefore, the optics must be several times sharper than the DSLR, so that the level of" soap " of the image is comparable.

You're overplaying things a bit.

This is about the same as comparing a tractor and a car, making a conclusion about the fundamental suitability of the former for F1, and the latter for skidding and burying.

Just different classes of equipment.

The soapboxes, including the current top-end ones (there was a third ryksa in the straight - up boot...), of course, have very strong optics, but they are fundamentally not designed for prints larger than 10x15, nor for processing rav.

Therefore, the task "several times sharper" is not something that has not been solved - it did not even stand.
The IQ itself is quite suitable for them-for compacts-but this is not an APS-C or even an m43.

Where, in Ukraine of course!
https://www.olx.ua/uk/obyavlenie/fotoappara...html#f8415eef44
But alas, in the occupied territories, this can only be dreamed of

And about kolpix, after all, our mega-expert sat in a puddle, the fact is that these photos are creepy, even expensive, so I wrote that I do not recommend it, but still the Nikon Coolpix A300 has manual modes, if cho, I read the manual))

Well, this is from the very first generation of their mirrorless cameras. That is, with the noisiest matrix, not much better than that of soap dishes. And in view of the advanced age, the number of shutter actuations is of particular interest. It's better to have a Nikon 1, which will at least take the speed.

Yes, this time I still got into a puddle due to inattention, because I read the manual from kolpix P300 It turns out there are some, I remember that a friend had exactly kolpix, and with manual modes.
Canon Powershot SX530HS exactly with manual modes-from 5000 UAH, as they say, in the socket - 6000.
Interestingly, I remember that in the mid-2000s, photos with manual modes also started at $ 250, and now the same thing in fact. But now the zoom is already 50X, a lot of bells and whistles, a different matrix, more pixels)

In general, yes, Olympus rules, here are a couple of today's pictures on Olympus C-480, a bird from 50 meters, and a butterfly from half a meter, and there are no manual modes there )))))

Pictures:

P1011414.jpg — (50.67к)


P1011438.jpg — (116.9к)

yes, and there is a chance to catch the infection.

Hygiene must be observed!

SX-this is generally tin, the local compact-super-smart lens is so compromise that at a wide angle, in order to avoid not just vignetting, but the view from the bottom of the well, the camera cuts off the edges, and then resizes in a larger direction, without informing the owner. Deception of sales was revealed only with the help of CHDK. For macro photography, the SX series is the worst of the Kenans.

Oh how! I just recently used a Kenon soap dish, and noticed that the quality of macro photography is worse than ever. This must have been it.

In general, it is clear that manual settings start at 6000, which is still close to DSLRs.

And by the way, I read on some site that as a rule, the larger the zoom, the worse the image quality. And this is understandable, the laws of physics can not be deceived.

Yes, our ixpert gives heat)) To buy a new kenon series A, a person first needs to buy a time machine somewhere
They have not been produced for a long time, and the question was about new cameras.

Yes, I meant the new ones, and those kenons are already out of production.

Yes, our ixpert gives heat)) To buy a new kenon series A, a person first needs to buy a time machine somewhere
They have not been produced for a long time, and the question was about new cameras.

You need to look less into the sockets! Serie A is the most lively of all the living. Only, it seems that she has turned all into one-button clones of Ixuses. At least, I didn't manage to quickly find a new camera in it with the cherished button under the lens. But why do you need a new one? So that photos weigh several times more than the old one with comparable or worse quality? The secondary market is full of almost unused old power shots with manual controls for a lot of money in a hurry. First owner syndrome in our time of crisis must be mercilessly eradicated.