Photocameras

This is where high-speed flash drives come in handy. For example, I have no brakes at all with a 95 Mb/s card, and a couple of files (RAW+JPG), where RAW is written under 50 Mb at a time. With a burst of 4.5 frames per second, you can shoot a series of up to 20-30 seconds without pausing or slowing down.

So, probably, it also depends on the camera. You're not taking Powershot photos. I remember, Ropalacera.com, wrote that only top-end Kenon DSLRs are quickly removed in the rav, and those that are lower in rank are tormolzit. And what can we say about soap dishes, in which the recording of ravs is probably not provided for by the manufacturer for a reason.

Still, your position that only ultra-expensive equipment is suitable for macro photography seems incorrect to me. Although, of course, everyone understands the sufficient quality of images in their own way. In my opinion, professional cameras, such as all sorts of "Brands", are justified for professional photographers, that is, those who receive a monetary reward for their pictures. Entomologists, as a rule, are not such. To publish a small image, a bunch of megapixels and perfect low noise are useless. The second category is wealthy amateurs. I'm not one of them, and many users of this topic seem to be too. So this discussion IMHO - nothing, it's like a dispute between the owners of a racing car and "Lanos".

So, probably, it also depends on the camera. You're not taking Powershot photos. I remember, Ropalacera.com, wrote that only top-end Kenon DSLRs are quickly removed in the rav, and those that are lower in rank are tormolzit. And what can we say about soap dishes, in which the recording of ravs is probably not provided for by the manufacturer for a reason.

Still, your position that only ultra-expensive equipment is suitable for macro photography seems incorrect to me. Although, of course, everyone understands the sufficient quality of images in their own way. In my opinion, professional cameras, such as all sorts of "Brands", are justified for professional photographers, that is, those who receive a monetary reward for their pictures. Entomologists, as a rule, are not such. To publish a small image, a bunch of megapixels and perfect low noise are useless. The second category is wealthy amateurs. I'm not one of them, and many users of this topic seem to be too. So this discussion IMHO - nothing, it's like a dispute between the owners of a racing car and "Lanos".

You're right, even my soap dish is a G1X. The only thing it lacks is the lack of a real macro mode. Here the G1X Mark II has it, but buying another one just because of this is somehow not camilfo…

I had a D40 – it worked very quickly until it was buggy, and no service can understand the reasons… Otherwise, I would still be filming with them. I had to switch to D6 because of the full-fledged matrix, otherwise the staff members turned into portraitists… But I wasn't chasing a D5 Mark II or III. Although I see advantages in the latter, but somehow I don't see the point in paying twice for a carcass. I'm a researcher (with an appropriate budget), not a professional photographer. I don't print posters, and I don't get any special fees to cover my expenses.

So I'm not a fan of super-expensive technology when it comes to cameras themselves. I've seen very decent shots taken on the D450 and even the D350. I don't consider more primitive ones because, as a rule, there is no full-fledged manual control, which is just like air for macro photography.
Lenses are a different matter – here I am ready to spend even to the detriment of my budget, since I understand the difference. This is exactly what I was trying to convey - no self-made attachments can compare with a specially designed macro lens, in principle.

Self-made attachments - maybe, but with Soviet lenses (which are much cheaper than even nomal attachment macro lenses), attached to DSLRs (as an option - to mirrorless mirrors like Sony NEX), people take pictures only on the road! And if a normal photographer shoots through some" Industriar", and through the coolest modern macro lens (I don't know their models) - a crooked one who can't properly sneak up on insects, then there really is no question of any competition, the second one obviously lost. I've seen a lot, as you say? worthy[ of images taken with Soviet lenses. Posting links here, perhaps, will be superfluous, because there are a lot of them, and they are easily searched for. By the way, many switched to suitable Soviet lenses, already having expensive imported ones, who liked the GRIP more, who liked the scale, who liked the sharpness. After all, the Soviet industry managed to produce a lot of high-quality lenses for almost all occasions. The only negative is the lack of an autofocus drive, but some people somehow manage to fasten it. However, I personally do not see any great advantages in autofocus for macro shooting with my hands, especially if you shoot with a "machine gun". And if you pick up a lens with a large GRIP, then it will probably not even be necessary to look through the viewfinder (except for centering the object in the frame), and it's stupidly intuitive to focus on sharpness. I read that there is some kind of Soviet lens suitable for macro in with a GRIP from 20 cm to the leading edge...

This post was edited by ENO-04/05/2016 14: 29

Self-made attachments - maybe, but with Soviet lenses (which are much cheaper than even nomal attachment macro lenses), attached to DSLRs (as an option - to mirrorless mirrors like Sony NEX), people take pictures only on the road! And if a normal photographer shoots through some" Industriar", and through the coolest modern macro lens (I don't know their models) - a crooked one who can't properly sneak up on insects, then there really is no question of any competition, the second one obviously lost. I've seen a lot, as you say? worthy[ of images taken with Soviet lenses. Posting links here, perhaps, will be superfluous, because there are a lot of them, and they are easily searched for. By the way, many switched to suitable Soviet lenses, already having expensive imported ones, who liked the GRIP more, who liked the scale, who liked the sharpness. After all, the Soviet industry managed to produce a lot of high-quality lenses for almost all occasions. The only negative is the lack of an autofocus drive, but some people somehow manage to fasten it. However, I personally do not see any great advantages in autofocus for macro shooting with my hands, especially if you shoot with a "machine gun". And if you pick up a lens with a large GRIP, then it will probably not even be necessary to look through the viewfinder (except for centering the object in the frame), and it's stupidly intuitive to focus on sharpness. I read that there is some kind of Soviet lens suitable for macro in with a GRIP from 20 cm to the leading edge...

The use of Soviet-made lenses has its pros and cons.
Of the minuses, in my opinion, the main one is that they have not been produced for a long time. And this means that you have to use optics of 20 years of age, at least. Not only has the global lens industry made a huge leap in terms of calculating optical circuits and simply producing lenses, but old lenses (copied from German Leeks and Karl-Zeiss and made on the same pre-war equipment) tend to age – become covered with micropatina or simply darken or turn yellow (in the production of Soviet optical glass they used lanthanum, which kills them over time), and the grease gets trite thick. And they didn't really think about enlightenment at all. Hence another disadvantage of Soviet lenses - being sometimes quite passable in b/w photography, they are no good in color.
However, among the Soviet lenses, sometimes (!) there were really interesting samples. For example, Industriar-61 (but not Helios-44 in any way-it completely sucks, suitable only for self-made shifters, one plus is the price), as well as some Jupiters. For example, in that other life, I even used lenses from large-format enlargers! And they were very good. But it was all good for its time.
But I can only say that neither the Germans nor we produced real macro lenses at that time. So I had to get out of it with shifters on rings or furs. There was a true MS Wave-9 50 mm f / 2.8 (positioned for "technical" shooting and considered the best), which allowed shooting in 1:2 scale (shifter – in 1:1), but the design, like the others, is Soviet.

As for autofocus, in macro photography, this feature, in my opinion, is generally of dubious value. Especially when the animal shows no desire to pose. I, for example, hardly use autofocus, switching the lens to manual mode and focusing it with the movement of my own body.
A more significant drawback of third-party lenses, including Soviet ones, is the lack of coordinated work with flashes. It is good when shooting in the field with sufficient light, but if it is under the canopy of a forest? That's where flash helps. The lens is in manual mode, the desired zoom, aperture and shutter speed are set in advance, and everything else is done by a coordinated flash. And no brain overload… But since the flash works in conjunction with the lens, optics without such capabilities are very limited.

Finally. Why don't you try to get an old Soviet Zenith or Diamond somewhere? Is the answer clear? So why is everyone so attracted to the lenses of that time, the quality of which is no better than cameras, i.e. corresponding to that (!) time?
I assure you that any modern (!!!) a macro lens (not some budget zoom with the Macro label, but one that was developed specifically for this purpose) will do any (!!!) Soviet in all respects by orders of magnitude.

Link to the Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro Lens test and discussion
http://prophotos.ru/reviews/15012-test-mak...-5x-macro-photo

Link to the Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro Lens test and discussion
http://prophotos.ru/reviews/15012-test-mak...-5x-macro-photo


Well, yes, but who is this link intended for here? You can't put this thing on a CD...

P.S. This was my extreme makrik. It works - you can't compare it to anything else. It's a pity Minolta has sunk into oblivion - they had something similar, though only up to 3: 1.

Gee-gee… I would like to see your "homemade" lens with clear lenses made of low-dispersion glass or fluorite and aspherical.

Gee-gee-gee is of course yes ) The object of my view is certainly not presentable, but nevertheless today I have refined the scale a little more, now four positions are available , obtained by combining the components of the nozzle

1 with a frame area of 2.5 to 1.5 cm, focusing distance of 15 cm effective aperture 0.77, number of lenses in the nozzle-7, weight 180g.
2 with a frame area of 6 to 2 cm with a focusing distance of 40 cm, effective aperture 1.2, number of lenses-3, weight 70g.
3 with a frame area of 4 cm and a focusing distance of 65 cm, the coefficient of aperture 0.8, the number of lenses-4, weight 150g.
4 with a frame area of 15mm to 6mm, focusing distance of 5 cm, the coefficient of aperture 0.61, the number of lenses-9, weight 230g(this is the maximum weight of all components).

where the aperture coefficient is the shutter speed at the same state of the lens, aperture, and illumination without any attachments, divided by the shutter speed after installing the attachment.

Photos using the 4th option, full frames + 1 crop (ISO 100 aperture 5, in the setting sun)

Pictures:

P4050689.jpg — (427.74к)


P4050681.jpg — (419.61к)


P4050685.jpg — (475.74к)


P4050629.jpg — (486.9к)


P40506821.jpg — (511.96к)

Link to the Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro Lens test and discussion
http://prophotos.ru/reviews/15012-test-mak...-5x-macro-photo

Ow! There's a CC in the picture! I also made my own KC harness, although my KC is a little off the system, but it will go)

Watch CC, full frame, size 2500X

Pictures:

P4050698.jpg — (307.8к)

The Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens in Ukraine costs$ 970 - 25.000 UAH.
Who knows how, but not many people can afford it, and with the current standard of living, even more so.

Well, yes, but who is this link intended for here? You can't put this thing on a CD...

P.S. This was my extreme makrik. It works - you can't compare it to anything else. It's a pity Minolta has sunk into oblivion - they had something similar, albeit only up to 3: 1.

For all comers.

By the way, I took a closer look at the Canon MP-E 65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro scheme on the page http://evtifeev.com/6432-canon-3.html#mpe65 it is clear that they worked on it according to the calculation of optics (probably), but in fact this is the same "shifter"
This is a 1:1 scale diagram

according to the scheme, a large lens in diameter faces the matrix.

At a scale of 5:1
, the diagram "moves apart"

An interesting solution, there is no point in unraveling the purpose and influence of optical components (based only on drawings), but it is very similar to a "shifter" with a nozzle (or vice versa)

This post was edited by Yuriy352-05.04.2016 20: 58

Yes, nothing happened to the vast majority of lenses stored in cabinets sold at flea markets from time to time. It is more likely to find scratched, with erased enlightenment, then the real problem. And what do you mean, "You didn't think about enlightenment"? Since the 50-furry year in the USSR, photo lenses without enlightenment were not produced at all! Yes, its composition is not the same as that of modern ones, and the color is different (more glamorous), but it works quite well to this day (unless, of course, the previous owners stripped it).

This is where high-speed flash drives come in handy. For example, I have no brakes at all with a 95 Mb/s card, and a couple of files (RAW+JPG), where RAW is written under 50 Mb at a time. With a burst of 4.5 frames per second, you can shoot a series of up to 20-30 seconds without pausing or slowing down.

On the DSLR? I believe... we're talking about compacts.

Yes, all macro-prospects are arranged in the same way, but what else will there be? )) Engineers from the Watering can are sitting inside, chtoli)))
A macro lens is simply a long-focus lens with a "nozzle lens".
The effect of flipping conventional lenses is achieved due to the heterogeneity of the scheme of most of them - the focal length of the lens depends on which side the light enters it from. The simplest example is binoculars, and turning them over
But the macro-object is not just an inverted ordinary object, then the MDF will be very small, and for macro-objects MDF from 30 cm and above is needed. To do this, the main component of the objective is calculated as a long-focus one, and an additional element is added to it, correcting the RF in a smaller direction, while keeping the grip and MDF at an acceptable level.
The most trushnaya scheme for simulating a macro-objective is just a "zoom" soap dish + a nozzle lens, or a group of lenses to it. That's all the optics, everything else depends solely on what lenses you can get and use as a nozzle, and of course from the camera.

And macro rings are a terrible thing, the fact is that the GRIP depends of course not on the size of the matrix, and not on the objective, but primarily on the working segment, MDF also depends on it, and the further the rear lens is from the matrix, the smaller the GRIP and MDF. That's why DSLRs also have problems with GRIP, where the mirror and shutter do not allow you to reduce the PO, and on soap dishes the PO is calculated in millimeters.

  
In addition, it weighs half as much as the miracle yudo lens of Pan Hierophis.

And how much does the camera on which these images were taken weigh?
At our flea market in three places, I saw these vegs, and in one-for 10 UAH, but as a nozzle, this object does not fit the word at all, when applied to Olympus, it only gets muddy, because this in itself is already a macro-object.

By the way, this is another choice for Odessy13, although I wrote it a long time ago - Industriar 61 L / D is recommended everywhere, this is the same as Vega 11U according to the scheme, but it is considered to be cooler. And the cost of both objects on inetbaraholkah-from 200 UAH come across constantly.

This post was edited by Hierophis-05.04.2016 22: 35

I don't know about the latter, the rest, I think less canoe pan (and with the latest version of the nozzle - significantly less), this is Sony NEX. But in general, those images were cited as a counterargument in a discussion with AVA on the applicability of Soviet lenses in modern photography. He'll have a much heavier camera.

   Everyone has their own niche.

The laws of optics just say that on large matrices, the GRIP drops, which forces you to do stacking and, accordingly, efficiency is lost. You will not remove the running beetle.

But here I disagree categorically. The GRIP does not depend on the size of the sensor, but on the lens. And stacking is a special topic of conversation. It is akin to studio shooting, so it is rarely used in open nature. But sometimes it is still available. You just need to choose the moment when the objects are not fussy (early morning, for example).

What do you strongly disagree with? With a running beetle, which as an object is not fussy? These are your words. You need not just fussiness, but complete freezing at least for a few minutes.
By efficiency, I mean shooting on the go. What is called "Reportage shooting"in large-scale photography. For example, I peel the bark from the trunk, there is something running - I take the camera on my neck with my other hand and click... I dig into the detritus, there's something swarming - I immediately click. I don't care if he runs, moves, or sits... And he won't be sitting there if I just dug him up... That's what I call efficiency. You strongly disagree... I don't dispute that everyone has their own niche.
"Early morning"... well, that's also a question. If we drive, for example, to the right places for 100-150 km, then it's not very cool to limit ourselves to one hour of shooting. And in the neighboring garden all the time to shoot... well, it somehow gets boring in a few years...
Your shoot consists of models in a photo studio, which you put in the right poses and place on the right background... My shooting is life, it's a reportage, it's a pole vaulter... it's a car tumbling through the air...
I'm not saying that DSLRs don't shoot beetles at all. I said they don't shoot running beetles. And I said about efficiency (meaning Reportage) - this is also not available to DSLRs. I can shoot both stacking and unhurriedly from a tripod when I need it and have acc. conditions.
But you can't make a report... I bring photos of several dozen species that I have encountered in one shooting day. For a DSLR, one photo in a week is already a big success. Yes, it's perfect, but it's not a reportage.

Hmm, finance sings romances… I saved a whole year for my extreme macro lens… And I don't regret it.

Not that they sing, I'd find a way if I wanted to... but what's the big point? Financially, this hole can be closed only by weddings, but the question is what does macro and beetles have to do with it...
My compacts cost close to used DSLRs... I could buy it... but this is a conscious choice, because I shoot a report. A DSLR in a macro reportage is, alas... a complete zero... Although... I'll think... for a large-scale survey , this is even very good.

  
What are you talking about, about some level of compacts? Can you name a decent compact camera that shoots without delay and at a rate of 5-10 frames per second?

What is it about? Why so much? I didn't mention it... As for efficiency, I meant shooting on the go, reporting. One frame is enough for me, if there is a hit in the focus/angle.
Although the rate of fire is very useful for flights. But this is a separate topic... there are also hardware solutions in this direction.

What is it about? Why so much? I didn't mention it... As for efficiency, I meant shooting on the go, reporting. One frame is enough for me, if there is a hit in the focus/angle.
Although the rate of fire is very useful for flights. But this is a separate topic... there are also hardware solutions in this direction.

Reportage doesn't work with compacts. Even with the fancy ones. They need 2-3 seconds or even more from switching on to the first frame. "To warm up," so to speak... And DSLRs work instantly.
As for the rate of fire, yes, they exist (or did they exist?). I came across these (Olympus, if memory serves, since I haven't seen them for a long time) with a speed of almost 60 frames / sec. True, to call this typewriter compact somehow the language does not turn - the dimensions are like those of a DSLR with an average TV set.
Once I held in my hands a very exotic Rico, which worked out macro quite at the level, but in normal mode it was simply no...
That's a lot to worry about.

and PowerShot as a nozzle it is suitable: http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/lowcosmf.htm. The only trouble is. that you still need to make some kind of perkhodnik attached to the body, which is not so easy, since the only suitable protrusion has a conical shape. Directly on the lens, as I do now with my 16-gram magnifying glass, even 100 g of additional weight is sworn to cling.

By the way, the device depicted has an interesting design element that was used in this device, this is a bayonet for attaching afocal attachments( my A60 had the same one). In your case, it is possible to fix the "pipe" to the standard tripod socket or glue one of the extension rings from Zenith(as was the most common earlier) around the lens (just on the plane of the cone-shaped protrusion), although the task is technologically difficult (the gluing area is small, and the load "on the kink" is large).




Photo from http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/lowcosmf.htm

This post was edited by Yuriy352-06.04.2016 00: 41

For foreign currency exchanges
Here I found this
https://www.flickr.com/groups/31085767@N00/...57625408114251/


This post was edited by Yuriy352-06.04.2016 14: 51

What do you strongly disagree with? With a running beetle, which as an object is not fussy? These are your words. You need not just fussiness, but complete freezing at least for a few minutes.
By efficiency, I mean shooting on the go. What is called "Reportage shooting"in large-scale photography. For example, I peel the bark from the trunk, there is something running - I take the camera on my neck with my other hand and click... I dig into the detritus, there's something swarming - I immediately click. I don't care if he runs, moves, or sits... And he won't be sitting there if I just dug him up... That's what I call efficiency. You strongly disagree... I don't dispute that everyone has their own niche.
"Early morning"... well, that's also a question. If we drive, for example, to the right places for 100-150 km, then it's not very cool to limit ourselves to one hour of shooting. And in the neighboring garden all the time to shoot... well, it somehow gets boring in a few years...
Your shoot consists of models in a photo studio, which you put in the right poses and place on the right background... My shooting is life, it's a reportage, it's a pole vaulter... it's a car tumbling through the air...
I'm not saying that DSLRs don't shoot beetles at all. I said they don't shoot running beetles. And I said about efficiency (meaning Reportage) - this is also not available to DSLRs. I can shoot both stacking and unhurriedly from a tripod when I need it and have acc. conditions.
But you can't make a report... I bring photos of several dozen species that I have encountered in one shooting day. For a DSLR, one photo in a week is already a big success. Yes, it's perfect, but it's not a reportage.
Not that they sing, I'd find a way if I wanted to... but what's the big point? Financially, this hole can be closed only by weddings, but the question is what does macro and beetles have to do with it...
My compacts cost close to used DSLRs... I could buy it... but this is a conscious choice, because I shoot a report. A DSLR in a macro reportage is, alas... a complete zero... Although... I'll think... for a large-scale survey , this is even very good.

Someone misinformed you about the work style of SLRs… Who told you a fairy tale about a single photo in a week? This may be the way portraitists work, but not field entomologists.
When I work with wasp nests or just free-flying wasps in the summer, I take up to 300-400 shots a day. Even if I work with a single socket. Isn't this a report?
I make" staged " photos with stacking only when I need them for work as illustrative material for publications. Otherwise, the same report – a lot of images per day with subsequent filtering of garbage.
Here all winter, while there were no insects, I took pictures of waterfowl and other birds. With the same performance. Yesterday, for example, I fired more than 1,600 shots at the lights on the span. Isn't this a report?
So, get rid of the myths about the impossibility of reportage shooting on SLR cameras. Everything is exactly the opposite...

Reportage doesn't work with compacts. Even with the fancy ones. They need 2-3 seconds or even more from switching on to the first frame. "To warm up," so to speak... And DSLRs work instantly.

Again a mismatch... You take the conversation aside and generalize on the topic of DSLRs in general. I don't deny Reporting in DSLRs at all. I'm talking about a macro report of small, mobile beetles that don't physically fit into your mirror GRIP. Instantaneous activation is not important to me, I would have 10 seconds. in this sense, they arranged it. I see where the bug is crawling or running, I turn on the camera (even if it's 2-3 or 10 seconds) and click it running.. Although I have, when I feel the moment, the camera hangs around my neck already turned on.
You just can't physically remove it, all you need is a stationary beetle. You just won't mess with running beetles, you'll just miss the bulk of the species that come across - here's your mirror report...
Your "instantaneity" begins with deploying your system for stacking. Setting up a tripod, twisting the rails... It's good if you carry it on yourself, and many people don't bother and just go light looking, and then climb into the trunk of a nearby car and start getting all the junk out. This is where your mirror INSTANTANEITY begins. I've been shooting with SLRs for years, and I can clearly see their methods of shooting and their instantaneity. And an extensive reportage with a wide range of products is clearly not working out for them...

Show me at least one of your reportage days, with two or three dozen small beetles... You don't need to show my photos...

Who told you a fairy tale about a single photo in a week?
Yesterday, for example, I fired more than 1,600 shots at the lights on the span.

Well, I can probably take off a thousand cool aunts in a day, too, and not really straining, as long as they don't mind.
Otpolemette me please for the day 1600 frames on small running beetles that do not physically fit into your grip. For me, this is a normal phenomenon, a typical shooting day... What does this have to do with birds?

Again a mismatch... You take the conversation aside and generalize on the topic of DSLRs in general. I don't deny Reporting in DSLRs at all. I'm talking about a macro report of small, mobile beetles that don't physically fit into your mirror GRIP. Instantaneous activation is not important to me, I would have 10 seconds. in this sense, they arranged it. I see where the bug is crawling or running, I turn on the camera (even if it's 2-3 or 10 seconds) and click it running.. Although I have, when I feel the moment, the camera hangs around my neck already turned on.
You just can't physically remove it, all you need is a stationary beetle. You just won't mess with running beetles, you'll just miss the bulk of the species that come across - here's your mirror report...
Your "instantaneity" begins with deploying your system for stacking. Setting up a tripod, twisting the rails... It's good if you carry it on yourself, and many people don't bother and just go light looking, and then climb into the trunk of a nearby car and start getting all the junk out. This is where your mirror INSTANTANEITY begins. I've been shooting with SLRs for years, and I can clearly see their methods of shooting and their instantaneity. And an extensive reportage with a wide range of products is clearly not working out for them...

Show me at least one of your reportage days, with two or three dozen small beetles... You don't need to show my photos...

Hmm, that's weird. You don't deny reportage shooting with DSLRs in general, but for some reason you deny it in macro shooting. It's not clear to me, because that's what I do all the time. A flash camera is always ready. "My" flying objects are no less mobile than yours. We can say that they are even more mobile, since they move in three planes, and not in two. And catching them in the frame is much more difficult. Well, yes, I rarely shoot beetles – only on occasion. I'm just not really interested in them. Most often, these are more or less large and attractive species on plants, trunks, or the ground. But I also had to shoot some staphylinid trivia (now I don't remember the species, but someone from Zyras) in the nests of Lasius fuliginosus ants or funny Stenus “in free flight”. And no problems...
When shooting at 1:1 scale with an aperture of 16, my macro lens gives a GRIP of almost 2.5 mm. This is quite enough for a beetle of this size to be almost completely in the zone of sharpness in profile or from above. And when shooting with a flash (and how else to remove the contents of the nest in the trunk of a tree?) with sync delay (in my case – 1/160 sec) I “stop” almost any runner.
Therefore, your doubts about the possibility of DSLRs in shooting small moving objects are completely incomprehensible to me. If your colleagues can't or won't do it, then that's their problem… I suspect you're just fixated on criticizing stacking. And it is just a special case that has its own goals and limitations. Normal field macro photography is performed without it, in one frame, and in the case of moving objects, also in series. And here DSLRs have great opportunities, including for " reportage”.

Well, I can probably take off a thousand cool aunts in a day, too, and not really straining, as long as they don't mind.  
Otpolemette me please for the day 1600 frames on small running beetles that do not physically fit into your grip. For me, this is a normal phenomenon, a typical shooting day... What does this have to do with birds?

Birds, because there are no insects yet.
What makes you think that" Your "small beetles" physically do not fit" into the GRIP of my ojektiva?
At F=16 - 2.5 mm (1:1), 6.5 mm (1:2), 13 mm (1:3). And if you consider that I have an FF matrix, then later I have the opportunity to" cut " pieces of the frame of almost any zoom.
So, something you're misunderstanding, IMHO.

Birds, because there are no insects yet.

Well, not right now. Show me some old macro report for the day, in which you have there, like, a dozen species of apions, or a dozen species of ants, a dozen species of small subsurface beetles... I don't know what you prefer... Show me just a typical day of your...
Mine for example are all here:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/show_articles.php
And who among us actually shoots a macro report?

What makes you think that" Your "small beetles" physically do not fit" into the GRIP of my ojektiva?
At F=16 - 2.5 mm (1:1), 6.5 mm (1:2), 13 mm (1:3). And if you consider that I have an FF matrix, then later I have the opportunity to" cut " pieces of the frame of almost any zoom.
So, there's something you're misunderstanding, IMHO.

I may have misunderstood something in the theoretical wilds, but I have a real result that I can show.

Yuriy352, thank you. I would also like to know what the thing on the far left in the first picture is made of and how it is made. But the principle is clear, I didn't think of it myself, although my ring reflector is also attached to that socket. If I get a Soviet lens, I'll try to do something similar.

barry, I looked at your macro reports (3 pieces) for interest, macro-there, at most-half (even less), the rest is just reports. But I was more surprised by something else: all the small insects sit exclusively on the purest white sand, despite the fact that, judging by the landscape photos, it's clearly not happening in the dunes at all. There was some cognitive dissonance with the statement about small beetles that you regularly "beat" on the run. Where are they? Not 1600, but at least five or ten pieces a day? Of course, I haven't looked at all the reports, perhaps they are hidden somewhere in others, but there is a strong feeling that this does not happen as often as you have stated here (or with not so rosy results that they should be published regularly).

Today, by the way, I "reported" quite well (although without human portraits). I don't take staged photos at all, and I don't understand why this is necessary. You can't shoot in nature, but you really need to-catch and fix it, and then you are guaranteed to get a good picture. And the statement, where the insect is supposedly in natural conditions, but in fact simply planted by the photographer where, perhaps, it would never have climbed itself, is already meaningless from a scientific point of view, moreover, it is harmful, since it introduces misinformation.

Here's what happens when you shoot an insect on the run with wiring:




By the way, I was not happy to meet on any macro clubs and their like photos obtained in a similar way.

Of course, if this ant was not sitting properly, the photo would have turned out much better, but try it, make it!

Very large (as well as scenes with several medium-sized actors), as I have already said, it is better to take pictures of the A550 without attachments at all, then the GRIP is huge, and the aperture is good, and the autofocus almost does not smear:




A little smaller is possible and so and so:










Well, very small ones - no options:




Everything was shot in natural light, and what's through the nozzle is at ISO 200, so it's very noisy. But there is no point in lowering it - immediately the wiggle immediately climbs out. No additional processing, except for pruning (and in the case of an ant - also re-sizing). In general, there are no numbers of successful photos of today, but since the forum members expressed dissatisfaction with the transformation of this branch into a gallery, I will keep the rest to myself.

This post was edited INO-06.04.2016 19: 59

Canon 700d + EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Bought this object for full-length photos of insects ...

Pictures:

Maladera_holosericea__Scopoli__1772____10mm_02.08.15_Bibione__VE__Italia_45__38_34.2N_13__02_19.7E.jpg — (119.64к)

 

For me, as a viewer, this photo seems very successful, a little bit of the composition did not come out (the ant has nowhere to run), and so very, very good.

..but since the forum members expressed dissatisfaction with the transformation of this branch into a gallery, I will keep the rest to myself.

INO, why do you react like that, you understand perfectly well what the conversation was about, I just always thought that to illustrate any technical technique (solution), just one or two examples are enough and then, if there is a desire to share photos, then there is a whole section for this on the forum.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-06.04.2016 20: 50

Yes I reacted quite normally: you asked me not to post too many photos, so I stopped, no offense. In my understanding, to demonstrate the capabilities of the equipment, one photo is not enough, you need some of the sample. Otherwise, you can find one successful photo among thousands of photos, post it and shout at every step what a wonderful equipment you have, and how brilliant you are yourself, because you were able to create it with your own hands. And, the fact that the remaining 999 photos are slag will remain out of the picture.

With the ant, it's almost a full frame, and the run was very fast. In such conditions, there can be no question of any artistic coverage of the scene, the insect got into the frame entirely (except for the top of the right antennae) - already luck! The species is called Camponotus fallae and is quite recognizable even from this image. This is the rare case when it is not necessary to study khetom and other microscopic details.

barry, I looked at your macro reports (3 pieces) for interest, macro-there, at most-half (even less), the rest is just reports. But I was more surprised by something else: all the small insects sit exclusively on the purest white sand, despite the fact that, judging by the landscape photos, it's clearly not happening in the dunes at all. There was some cognitive dissonance with the statement about small beetles that you regularly "beat" on the run. Where are they? Not 1600, but at least five or ten pieces a day? Of course, I haven't looked at all the reports, perhaps they are hidden somewhere in others, but there is a strong feeling that this does not happen as often as you have stated here (or with not so rosy results that they should be published regularly).

Recently, most of the work on screening has been going on (there comes a time when it gets boring to shoot all sorts of banal stuff). Therefore, everything is sorted out and removed at home. But nevertheless alive and running in the vast majority. And the process of shooting is practically no different from the field, except that the probability of losing rare and interesting species is reduced to almost zero. All this is then left to clarify the definitions and transfer to the museum. I don't just shoot beetles. Among them, sometimes there are the first finds for the region, or some isolated ones that were found 50-100 years ago.
Work on chalk (Novomlinsk) is a refinement of the list for NPP "Dvurechansky", I had to shoot and transfer the material...
1600 ... Well, I think AVA meant the raw volume taken in a day. Otherwise, I don't understand why he needs 1600 photos of one duck (or whatever it is), and again - even if these are the final photos, then what does the ducks have to do with it, if we are talking about macro. In any case, I personally meant the total raw volume for the day. Well, if he needs 1600 photos of one duck, then I'm wrong. With this statement, I officially admit that I was wrong (! but it is not about ducks, global problems of the issue under discussion that this does not apply) ...

In my understanding, to demonstrate the capabilities of the equipment, one photo is not enough, you need some of the sample. Otherwise, you can find one successful photo among thousands of photos, post it and shout at every step what a wonderful equipment you have, and how brilliant you are yourself, because you were able to create it with your own hands. And, the fact that the remaining 999 photos are slag will remain out of the picture.

I disagree on this point, if there are several high-quality photos (in the lens+matrix system), then the system is functional, but 999 marriage is already the wrong hands, or you need to get a better night's sleep or use other technical means for tremor (for example, a tripod). If the photographer misses in sharpness, then what does the equipment have to do with it?
And in order to make sure of the quality of the equipment (and this is what is discussed here, not the photographers), when shooting in the same light conditions, it is not necessary to show the entire series of images, you must agree.

For example, a person showed the result of their system, one frame, everything is clear.

Canon 700d + EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Bought this object for full-length photos of insects ...

This post was edited by Yuriy352-07.04.2016 02: 07

Information to think about.
An example of the operation of the old Canon PowerShot A60 (which I already mentioned, it has a bent matrix), in its own Macro mode.
So there is only a 2MP matrix (maximum frame is 1600 x 1200)
I show you an example, since such matrices are now rare.
Reduced full frame, and a fragment of 100% (in pixels), all without adding sharpness.


Fragment of another frame 100% (in pixels), in the corner view of the full frame, without adding sharpness.


What I liked about this device was that the resolution of its lens corresponded to the resolution of the matrix, and all further models with an increase in the number of Mp, with almost the same lens, were mostly of commercial significance (unfortunately). And now, when 100% of the "soap box" claims a matrix of more than 10MP, the thought immediately arises, and not by interpolation such super Mp values are achieved, with such a small matrix size, and just the size of the frame in JPG at the output is stipulated, and not the physical Mp of the matrix.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-07.04.2016 02: 05

I can't agree, it differs very much. Including exactly what you said - a near-zero probability of losing an instance. In other words, if it didn't work out once, then you can try again until it doesn't work out. As a rule, this option is not available in the field. If the first attempt was missed, the beetle ran away.

I do not mean loss in the sense of a lost frame, but the loss of a scientifically interesting instance of the species for the collection. If I see a small item of interest, I immediately take it for home shooting, because there is a high probability that it will climb somewhere while I am trying to shoot it.

In addition, beetles and bedbugs on the sand clearly do not run.

Even if they just toss and turn, this is already a problem for the SLR. He won't be filming it. But it happens in different ways. Hummingbirds and apions, for example, are non-stop runners. Catch and leave the house in a container with the same sand... Most weevils now run, then crawl, then spin, sometimes sit. Bedbugs of different families also behave differently... I'm just saying that in my case, there's no problem shooting people running or tossing and turning.

An amateur entomologist (if we are considering the discussion in this forum) needs more than just pictures of random beetles sitting motionless. They need images of exactly the right views, no matter what they do or how they behave. And with a DSLR, it will have a lot of hemorrhoids for this purpose. On a compact camera with a flash, he will succeed, if of course he catches the frame and gets into foreshortening. focus... That's all... I want to convey exactly this idea...

Where are the advertised photos on the run on a natural substrate?

Natural shooting has already ended in its pure form a long time ago, because recently there is a selective view survey. Just shooting without the ability to identify and add to collections doesn't suit me for a long time...
Well here for example is a purely field survey:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/article.php?id=69
Here is a mixture of field and home
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/article.php?id=73

I can't even understand how this can be done in a digestible quality. Even if shooting is carried out with the shortest shutter speed (there are, they say now, such long-burning flashes that allow you to synchronize with the shutter even at 1/1000 s or less), and a GRIP of several centimeters, the main problem is something else - catching such an insect in the frame.

EXIF is there almost everywhere (maybe with rare exceptions in old photos). Basically, I shoot at 1/1000. For the compact, there is no problem with flash synchronization, it seems to have an electronic shutter, although I didn't really delve into it, maybe I'm talking some nonsense... in general, it doesn't have a synchronization problem. The flash there generally puffs either 1/10 000, or 1/40 000, but again - I will not insist, this is somewhere very long ago something like this flashed, I did not dive deep into this issue... In general, the reality is that this works fine and gives me the result I need.

About being caught in the frame... that's why I prefer to shoot at home running and tossing lately, because let them run on the sand to victory... I need to shoot not just anyone, but those who are of interest.

After all, normal macro photography is when an object occupies at least 1/4 of the frame area. A millimeter of camera displacement to the side, the angular second of lens rotation, and that's it, at best, only the top of the abdomen is shown in the picture,or, conversely, only the antennas. Or, say, just the foot of the right hind leg. And here, that soap dish, that mirrors-one Fig. So still the statement about. that you don't care if the beetle is sitting still or running I dare you to question it.

Dozens of shots are taken on bouncy runners, most of which go to the landfill... But nevertheless, they are still removed. I have shot a lot of live species that in the mirror version exist only in a straightened form (or do not exist at all). Of course, they are shot perfectly, with a huge degree of detail - here I am not a competitor, I wash my hands of it...

Well, not right now. Show me some old macro report for the day, in which you have there, like, a dozen species of apions, or a dozen species of ants, a dozen species of small subsurface beetles... I don't know what you prefer... Show me just a typical day of your...
Mine for example are all here:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/show_articles.php
And who among us actually shoots a macro report?

I may have misunderstood something in the theoretical wilds, but I have a real result that I can show.

I watched some of your episodes. In general, I understand exactly what you meant by "reportage". It looks like an illustrated diary. Only macro photography is not the main thing there.
I'm sorry, but I don't do such prekts. I usually have a specific goal, rather than documenting my "travels".
Unfortunately, I am a principled opponent of social networks, and I don't have a personal page. And I don't like to show pictures just like that, when there are no questions. In addition, I don't have enough time to figure out how to insert my photos without a URL.
So, sorry, the demo won't take place.

PS Although, somewhere in the Network there are a series of my old (because with blunders) pictures, in my opinion, among the resources of the Central Bank.

I watched some of your episodes. In general, I understand exactly what you meant by "reportage". It looks like an illustrated diary. Only macro photography is not the main thing there.
I'm sorry, but I don't do such prekts. I usually have a specific goal, rather than documenting my "travels".

I don't blame your approach at all. You also need a high-quality mirror photo. I immediately started the conversation with the phrase-Everyone has their own niche.
Here the conversation is mainly in the context of shooting by amateur entomologists, whose main goal is still fishing, and photographing is usually done in the background and should not cause much unnecessary trouble. And they need selective shooting for their group with which they work, and not shooting any abstract bug, or any butterfly. They need to shoot the right view, the right specimen, no matter what mental state it is in, whether it's a morning, or a hot lunch, or a dark night...
I just wanted to say that my approach is more in line with these goals. The equipment is not particularly burdensome and allows you to shoot, albeit not perfectly, but without special requirements for lighting conditions.
For an amateur entomologist, just an early morning isn't enough... And even if we consider the mirror version with flashes - this is usually a couple of hung on the sides (otherwise, what is the point of contacting DSLRs at all). And with this design, I can hardly imagine an entomologist with a net in his hands...
Yes - "pure" macro-SLR cameras do this sometimes and go with it, but they do not systematically catch beetles. They are immersed exclusively in macro shooting. They choose a random object and get "one photo per week". A photo that is worthy of a DSLR, justifying a lot of invested funds... not just a raw, soapy version.
If tens of thousands of pupaars are invested, then the output must match the quality - as I understand it...
Of course, I can perfectly imagine that a DSLR POTENTIALLY gives a much better frame than a soap dish. I get my result for the day, corresponding to my costs, and my quality.
With a DSLR in practice, get ITS result that corresponds to ITS costs, ITS wall quality... and without complaints , it is very difficult... But I need to start the morning... and here it moved... but here there was a strong wind and everything staggered... but here the sun has set behind a cloud... or vice versa - and here the sun came out and shone...

  
Today, by the way, I "reported" quite well (although without human portraits).

By the way, the bug is cool-Perillus bioculatus. Imported from the North. America to control the Colorado potato beetle.