Photocameras

If soap boxes are considered, then it is for the "studio", when the efficiency of shooting is not critical, the object does not run anywhere, etc. The mirror has more advantages in the field, when you need to quickly aim and shoot quickly: you can always focus completely manually, and with the use of AF, while on soap, focusing on the same eyes in the field and even God forbid with a more or less mobile object — horror: no viewfinder, manual focus ring no (God forbid, if at all), no focus fixation, no AF.

I beg to differ. Did you take a lot of small things in the field with a DSLR? I'd like to see it... I've been out in the field with SLRs - they don't shoot small things at all. I agree that AF in the DSLR is faster, but this only makes sense for large scenes. In macro mode (with dynamics), you have to fix the focus by half-pressing and moving forward/backward to put the focus in the right place and at the same time move after the insect. Acc. you need a flash with a diffuser, it is clear that for dynamics, second exposures with the aperture held down are unacceptable. For a DSLR, this is a system of 2-3 spaced flashes with diffusers (long lens-acc. the light needs to be carried far ahead and spread out to the sides) - try to chase this bulky structure through bushes and thick grass for running beetles. Again-the focal lengths of DSLRs are usually longer, to catch a 5-10 mm area of the frame with a running beetle from a distance of 20-50 cm-I would like to see those who can do it...

That's right, and even this is not the main thing, just the bigger the bandura, the more it reminds you of itself, not only finances, the load of which is individual for everyone, but also the weight and size characteristics of the kit noticeably make themselves felt. It turns out that in a hike, even 0.5 kg after 30 km of travel can feel like 5 kg)))
Here, for example, are $ 100 camera shots-and all this fits in your pocket

Pictures:

wd1.jpg — (53.84к)

So it is-macros are quite good. But landscapes - the difference between any soap dish and a DSLR is huge. no depth of field, the sky is blurry

This post was edited by vicgrr - 11/20/2011 22: 34

Yes, well, sharpness has nothing to do with it, on the contrary, compacts can be very "sharp", just the dynamic range is not enough to photograph the cloud as we see it. Plus, the detail on compacts suffers because of the poor resolution of the object-there is no room at all, of course - piles of megapixels are sniffed out, which are not needed due to the fact that the object usually still "soaps"
But macro images are not so sensitive to this - the size of that spider over there is about 7mm, and it covers almost the entire picture, because the object can be zoomed in up to 1cm, and therefore the detail defects are not so noticeable just psychologically, and when there are a lot of small objects in the picture, then yes, but now there seem to be mirrorless devices with steep zoom lenses acc. of course the price, but compact to the point of impossibility.

For example, Canon G12 and Sony DSC HX1. I use them sometimes. When I bought Sony to my wife, the seller told me something like why DSLRs, when there is such a miracle, it doesn't weigh much, you don't need any TV cameras, the zoom is crazy, etc. All this is bullshit, there is no comparison with a DSLR for landscapes, portraits. I'm not saying that you can solve any creative tasks with DSLRs, but here is an average picture. And it doesn't matter that all the modes are also there, there is a priority of shutter speed and aperture, etc., it's still not the same.

It's a little off. I meant something like this
http://rozetka.com.ua/ru/products/details/97306/index.html

After all, the very concept of "DSLR" is an abstraction, it all depends on the specific object and on the matrix. Here in this model, the matrix is normal in size, replaceable objects, in the set of objects b. m. universal, and the price is even less than for G12. And most importantly-the weight is small, and the dimensions. Fasten a small wide-angle lens and it will fit in your pocket

I beg to differ. Did you take a lot of small things in the field with a DSLR?

Boris, we seem to have switched to "you" a long time ago...

I'd like to see it..

My maximum scale is 1:1. Is this a small thing or not yet?

In macro mode (with dynamics), you have to fix the focus by half-pressing and moving forward/backward to put the focus in the right place and at the same time move after the insect.

I agree. In the SLR camera there is a normal (eh, relatively, of course...) a viewfinder that makes it quite comfortable to track sharpness. And in the soap box?

Acc. you need a flash with a diffuser, it is clear that for dynamics, second exposures with the aperture held down are unacceptable.

Optional.

For a DSLR, this is a system of 2-3 spaced flashes with diffusers (long lens-acc. the light should be carried far ahead and spread out to the sides)

First, the lens doesn't have to be long. Secondly, at a scale of 1:1, even on relatively long lenses (FR 100mm), the built-in flash covers the entire area of the frame without any additional devices.

- try to chase this bulky construction through bushes and thick grass for running beetles.

That's why I don't use a bulky system, although the light can be controlled more freely there.

Again-the focal lengths of DSLRs are usually longer, to catch a 5-10 mm area of the frame with a running beetle from a distance of 20-50 cm-I would like to see those who can do it...

Boris, why such huge distances? The FR is larger, well, the duc is there and the matrix is larger, so the distances are not so great (although sometimes it would be nice).

That's right, and even this is not the main thing, just the bigger the bandura, the more it reminds you of itself, not only finances, the load of which is individual for everyone, but also the weight and size characteristics of the kit noticeably make themselves felt. It turns out that in a hike, even 0.5 kg after 30 km of travel can feel like 5 kg)))

I agree with you there. I usually miss interesting places, not technical equipment. But in terms of price / quality ratio (or size / weight/quality :-- ) I consider a perfectly balanced system from an amateur DSLR like Canon 550D and a 100mm macro lens (for myself, I consider the Canon 100L to be the ideal choice, but for most, 100 without L, which will be somewhat smaller/lighter, will do quite well). Refused external flash units and accessories. Although sometimes you want 300mm with a marker for large butterflies, but this is a specific option for relatively large objects (of which there are few), and it weighs and costs a lot. So I haven't mastered it yet.

Here, for example, are $ 100 camera shots-and all this fits in your pocket

Well, yes, I also sometimes shoot with my mobile phone when I'm not fishing. But there is no quality in your (and my phone) images.

Using manual focus when shooting insects is nonsense, I think
With a soap dish, you can shoot at arm's length, focusing on the screen, while the butterfly does not fly away, unlike crawling to it with the whole interface, inserting the camera both in the eye and in the hands)))

Yes, well, sharpness has nothing to do with it, on the contrary, compacts can be very "sharp", just the dynamic range is not enough to photograph the cloud as we see it.

Hmm. So there is no sharpness on the dipper, despite the smaller matrix and, accordingly, kakbe greater depth of field. Well, and DD, essno, no.

Plus, the detail on compacts suffers because of the poor resolution of the object-there is no room at all, of course - piles of megapixels are sniffed out, which are not needed due to the fact that the object usually still "soaps"

There is such a thing.

But macro images are not so sensitive to this - the size of that spider over there is about 7mm, and it covers almost the entire image, because the object can be brought closer to 1cm, and therefore the detail defects are not so noticeable just psychologically, and when there are a lot of small objects in the picture, then yes,

IMHO, macro images are also quite sensitive. Although sometimes people have less requirements for them (they say that they don't need artistic or detailed design). As for small objects — the spider has quite an interesting skin texture, but you can't see it in your picture :--)

but now it seems that there are mirrorless devices with cool zoom lenses in acc. of course the price, but compact to the point of impossibility.

As a rule, steepness means multiplicity. And highly multiple zooms, popular with the people, are very lousy...

Everything is correct, there is no quality in my pictures, I just don't shoot quality, and sharpness too
It's like the famous saying-people listen to music, and audiophiles listen to clicks and distortions.
It's the same in photography - someone takes pictures of animals, and someone takes halftones, details and sharpness. Everyone has their own )))

Using manual focus when shooting insects is nonsense, I think
With a soap dish, you can shoot at arm's length, focusing on the screen, while the butterfly does not fly away, unlike crawling to it with the whole interface, inserting the camera both in the eye and in the hands)))

Uuu... Apparently, we are talking about a different result, which can be considered acceptable.
Take a look at this photo: http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/10376/
This way you won't be able to shoot at arm's length, guided by the screen. And if, God forbid, the background is a little more contrasting, then there are not many chances to get a soap dish at all.
Plus, you won't be able to separate the object from the background with soap (with the classic small matrix size), but this is already a lyric.

Everything is correct, there is no quality in my pictures, I just don't shoot quality, and sharpness too
It's like the famous saying-people listen to music, and audiophiles listen to clicks and distortions.
It's the same in photography - someone takes pictures of animals, and someone takes halftones, details and sharpness. To each - its own )))

Well, okay, okay, I did not talk about quality without any collisions. And, as I wrote above, I myself am not chasing some mega-ideal, and my goals are in most cases very, very applied. But still.
Using my photos as an example: if only here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/9904/ the eye was in focus, the photo would have been more pleasant. Nevertheless, I posted it in this form.
For example: right here http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery/9299/ the eye is in focus, and the photo is generally more pleasant.
But I agree that it's not just about sharpness and detail.

What's so special about that photo? First of all, this type of butterfly can be removed without an outstretched hand, they usually do not fly away. Here is such a fly not at arm's length take a picture, bringing the bandura close, then we'll see
The only thing is that it is sometimes difficult to shoot at arm's length when the light falls at an undesirable angle, you can not see who you are shooting, but this does not happen so often.

This post was edited by Hierophis - 11/21/2011 00: 56

What's so special about that photo?First of all, this type of butterfly can be removed without an outstretched hand, they usually do not fly away. Here is such a fly not at arm's length take a picture, bringing the bandura close, then we'll see

I don't quite understand what you're talking about. Or has membometry already started at this stage?)) I showed you an example of a picture that is difficult to make with soap with the right focus. Even with an outstretched hand. You showed an unsharp shot of a fly without details, which you can use a mirror to shoot sharp and normally detailed. And you don't need to approach it by 1 cm to do this. In general, I do not catch up with the meaning of this post of yours...

This post was edited by Asar - 21.11.2011 01: 01

The only thing is that it is sometimes difficult to shoot at arm's length when the light falls at an undesirable angle, you can not see who you are shooting, but this does not happen so often.

Again, the question is what we want to get. In most cases, for normal perception of an object, the focus should be on its eyes. With an outstretched hand on the autofocus, you can only focus this way by accident. With a non-stretched one, it is difficult in the case of soap dishes and less difficult in the case of a mirror (the average camera/lens pair). At the same time, the mirror allows you to focus manually (a universal option) and on autofocus, with subsequent manual refinement if necessary (less universal, but also not bad).
At the same time, people often send me pictures on the site where the AF of the soap box clearly worked on the wings or something else. And it does what it sends correctly. Because such photos are better than nothing. But it is very gratifying to see when a person moves to a higher level of shooting (including equipment), and his photos are literally transformed.

This post was edited by Asar - 21.11.2011 01: 11

The point is, I already wrote that such butterflies usually do not fly away. I know this from my own experience, but these are the flies that fly away. It's just that I also didn't understand what's so special about taking a picture of such a butterfly in terms of the fact that it's better to shoot shy insects with a small camera and at arm's length. And all the other details are details.
Here's an example of how I took off this fly-I was walking along, I saw that beautiful tahini had gathered on the mouse pea, I just sat down at arm's length, took out a soap dish, reached out, took a few pictures, put the soap dish back and went on
That is, the process of shooting is quite transparent. And the DSLR?

PS
About focusing on the eyes, and so on-yes, but usually kst most often it turns out that it is the head part that is in focus, just the angle is trying to be appropriate, and the GRIP is usually sufficient for a soap dish if something is wrong.

This post was edited by Hierophis - 21.11.2011 01: 20

Here's an example of how I took off this fly-I was walking along, I saw that beautiful tahini had gathered on the mouse pea, I just sat down at arm's length, took out a soap dish, reached out, took a few pictures, put the soap dish back and went on
That is, the process of shooting is quite transparent. And the DSLR?

He crouched down at arm's length. I didn't hold out my hand, I took it off just like that. Depending on the lens, I cut it off more or less. I got a frame that is either as good or better than yours. If the fly didn't fly away, but you want a better picture, I tried to get closer and take a better picture. Maybe it will work, maybe not (the fly will fly away).
P.S. I will repeat once again, you can not argue much about such pictures as you give as examples — you can get them using a variety of techniques. But if you need the same objects, but sharper, more detailed, with a more or less structured composition, then it makes sense to talk. For yes, there are people who are very good at shooting macro shots and using soap dishes.

This post was edited by Asar - 21.11.2011 01: 21

About focusing on the eyes, and so on-yes, but usually kst most often it turns out that it is the head part in focus, just the angle is trying to be acc.

Examples would be for a more substantive conversation...

yes, and the GRIP is usually sufficient at the soap dish if something is wrong.

Yes, in macro there is a problem with small GRP. And yet, a good picture is not the one with everything sharp, but the one with sharp things that are needed and not sharp things that are not needed...

So, I only thanked you for the process of shooting with a DSLR, I just have the opportunity to try it out

As for the fact that if you need more detailed and compositional pictures, then the question arises-why are they needed There is still such a thing as imagination, and in general-a well-known postulate-a picture has completeness mainly only for the person who took it, since it evokes the environment that the author of the picture remembered at that time the moment, for the rest in any case, it's just a bug, regardless of the patronymic

So, I only thanked you for the process of shooting with a DSLR, I just have the opportunity to try it out

:--)

As for the fact that if you need more detailed and compositional images, then the question arises - why are they needed?

Of course, it depends on the photographer. I wrote about it above — if you are satisfied with the level of images that are published above,then you can not really worry about the technique.

a well-known postulate is that a picture is complete mainly only for the person who took it, since it evokes the environment that the author of the picture remembered at that moment, for others in any case it is just a bug, regardless of how old it is.

Due to the availability of equipment, they are now shooting a lot, yes. Of course, most of the images are not interesting to outsiders. But there are photos that are interesting aesthetically or have an applied value. I shoot more with applied photography, but I try to make sure that the pictures are not ugly when possible. Because there are few beautiful objects around us. And it's good if there are more of them.

My maximum scale is 1:1. Is this a small thing or not yet?

I understand the theoretical aspect... And I will repeat once again - I do not dispute that the AF in the DSLR is faster, and I do not dispute that theoretically in the DSLR the resolution on the frame is higher (in ideal conditions, you can get almost pixel-by-pixel detail). And the dynamic range is also mentioned - of course, the DSLR skips. And the noise on the DSLR even at high ISO is much less than in the compact at low ISO.
Even the cheapest DSLR (such as the Canon 1000D) takes a close-up better than the most sophisticated compact (such as the Canon G12).
In the DSLR, there is a larger theoretical margin for quality, and even in a large macro (not to mention the usual large-scale shooting), it is often ahead of the compact. But in practice, with small macro shots, all this advantage of DSLRs usually turns into zilch...

I would like to see DSLR images of fairly small moving objects taken in the field... Of course, with comments on what equipment it was shot with (with voicing the amounts) and how it was shot (I suspect it will not do without a mat).
Here for example are my Tingids:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/showimage...ed&category=840
Ciids:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/showimage...d&category=3389
Cerilones:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/showimage...d&category=2759
Kolembols:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/gallery/showimage...d&category=2423

Where are the SLR heroes who will take the risk to shoot this?

I agree. In the SLR camera there is a normal (eh, relatively, of course...) a viewfinder that makes it quite comfortable to track sharpness. And in the soap box?

In dynamics, there is no question of hitting the focus "in the eye", the reaction is simply not enough. A series of images is taken on a moving small object (even a lazy crawling one), and then a more or less normal image is selected from them...
I usually roughly fix the focus with a half-press, then use distance to bring the focus roughly to the desired area, often adjusting the angle and taking a shot. When everything in the frame is changing dynamically, there is simply no time to aim accurately. I.e., in reality, 90-95% of frames go to the landfill...
And in this mode, shooting with a flash at short exposures (like 1/1000) is just the way out, it doesn't matter if the beetle crawled into the shadow or somewhere in the gap, whether we covered the sun with the lens or not...

Acc. you need a flash with a diffuser, it is clear that for dynamics, second exposures with the aperture held down are unacceptable.

Optional.

Well, how to say it... If we consider shooting moving objects in practice (cloudy, forest, we are in the shadow zone, etc.), and not in theory (where the sun is shining brightly)...
Here we are, for example, with Liparus, digging somewhere in the forest, turning off a piece of bark - there Cerylon crawls... I go a hundred meters to a clearing where the sun is shining bright, spend 20 minutes on it, or I immediately click a few frames in half a minute - and we dig further... Your choice-maestro?
That is, the flash will often save a lot of time and allow you to shoot something that we will never shoot in practice in the field without it. If we suddenly come across a rare bug that we've been looking for for five years - and so want to remove it.... but bad luck, no sun, what a bummer... Well, let's wait for the next five years...

For a DSLR, this is a system of 2-3 spaced flashes with diffusers (long lens-acc. the light should be carried far ahead and spread out to the sides)
First, the lens doesn't have to be long. Secondly, at a scale of 1:1, even on relatively long lenses (FR 100mm), the built-in flash covers the entire area of the frame without any additional devices.

Well, 2-5 cm or 10-20 cm are still different things, different distances that the light from the built-in flash travels. Acc. shadows in the mirror version (with a simple diffuser from the built-in flash) are much sharper. It is not for nothing that self-respecting macro-SLR specialists make a lighting system from 2-3 spaced flashes, there are enough such structures in the technical section at the macro club. Maybe it's because of a big stupidity, or people have nowhere to put their money... Still, I think they want to have normal light...

I shoot with a Sony A-850 (24 Mp) camera with a cheap Sigma 75-300 lens and a DCR-150 macro lens. I use a flash with a diffuser. All images were taken in the" field " with hands. Aperture priority and autofocus mode, point focus (otherwise you can focus on the most contrasting part of the image). The distance to the object is about 30-35 cm. Variable focus allows you to quickly change the zoom level. Standard set of metrics :
Original date/time: 2011:08:03 12:49:46
Exposure time: 1/125
F-stop: 25.0 (better to shoot at 18-22)
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 250.0000
Focal length (35mm): 250 (varies depending on the scale)
Chrysolina_fastuosa-about 4 mm
. Pentatomidae-2-3 mm .

This post was edited by gumenuk - 21.11.2011 11:38 am

Pictures:

Chrysolina_fastuosa.jpg — (214.24к)


Cicindela_campestris_2011.0.jpg — (203.92к)


Pentatomidae_2011.07.jpg — (402.41к)

Using manual focus when shooting insects is nonsense, I think

We are talking about shooting small moving insects (somewhere from 5-7 mm or less), when everything changes dynamically in the frame. Well, I already wrote - a series of chaotic images is taken, garbage is filtered... This can only be removed with manual fixation, there is no time or reaction for conscious guidance...

By the way - large butterflies compact with a good zoom (such as Canon SX30) takes at maximum zoom from a distance of about 2 meters and almost the entire frame and without any additional optics. In my opinion, the ideal option for purely "butterfly lovers".

I use a flash with a diffuser. All images were taken in the" field " with hands.

Leaves in my opinion strongly glare. Maybe you should try some more dense material for the lens...

Leaves in my opinion strongly glare. Maybe you should try some more dense material for the lens...

Yes, there is a place to be a matter not in the diffusor, but in the angle of illumination. In this case, the flash is mounted on a standard mount. It is necessary to move it sideways and the picture changes. The best option is two flashes from both stronons. Saving up for the second flash

Yes, there is a place to be a matter not in the diffusor, but in the angle of illumination. In this case, the flash is mounted on a standard mount. It is necessary to move it sideways and the picture changes. The best option is two flashes from both stronons. Saving up for a second flash

Actually-here is Asar's answer about the built-in flash on the DSLR (why use 2-3 external ones, and do not use the internal one) ...

I shoot with a Sony A-850 (24 Mp) camera with a cheap Sigma 75-300 lens and a DCR-150 macro lens.

I also like the Sony A850 device, but as far as I remember (I may forget), the macro photos from Canon looked a little better at you. I attribute this to the fact that Canon used different optics (more expensive and more special?) .

I also like the Sony A850 device, but as far as I remember (I may forget), the macro photos from Canon looked a little better at you. I attribute this to the fact that Canon used different optics (more expensive and more special?).

I've never owned anything other than a Sony phone. All the photos that I put up here and on photo sites or specialized sites are made by Sonka. What does the photo look like (better, worse) largely depends on the subject of the photograph

In general, as always, the choice of equipment depends on the goals. My goal is to get decent pictures of as many butterfly species as possible. Well, and preferably not without pleasure in the process. I use an amateur DSLR and a 100mm makrushnik, plus a built-in flash if necessary. Yes, sometimes there is not enough freedom in setting the light, sometimes you want more magnifications or a greater distance to the object. But much more often I miss the objects themselves — new and interesting ones. When searching for such items, extra tsatskis interfere with their cost, size, and weight. On the other hand, shooting what I found on soap, without focus control and without normal background blurring, is not a thrill for me either in the process or in the results.
It goes without saying that people with a different photo experience, habits, with different goals/objects, the amount of time and finances may be relevant to other options, including extreme ones — both "macro-club" with three-flash raskoryakami and stacking, and "molbiolovsky" with shooting on a mobile phone. P.
S. A couple of details:
2 barry: Boris, I didn't mean that flash is optional, but that an external one with a lens is optional at a scale of 1: 1.2
gumenuk: Vitaly, but when Vlad and I visited your dacha a couple of years ago, you were a strong supporter of the built-in flash, because external ones interfere with shooting on the wall, for example. And now you are going to take the second external one. Here's how goals change over time;--))

This post was edited by Asar - 21.11.2011 14: 30

I've never owned anything other than a Sony phone. All the photos that I put up here and on photo sites or specialized sites are made by Sonka. What does the photo look like (better, worse) it depends a lot on the subject you are shooting

Sorry, so I got it all mixed up.

In general, as always, the choice of equipment depends on the goals. My goal is to get decent pictures of as many butterfly species as possible. Well, and preferably not without pleasure in the process. I use an amateur DSLR and a 100mm makrushnik, plus a built-in flash if necessary. Yes, sometimes there is not enough freedom in setting the light, sometimes you want more magnifications or a greater distance to the object. But much more often I miss the objects themselves — new and interesting ones. When searching for such items, extra tsatskis interfere with their cost, size, and weight. On the other hand, shooting what I found on soap, without focus control and without normal background blurring, is not a thrill for me either in the process or in the results.
It goes without saying that people with a different photo experience, habits, with different goals/objects, the amount of time and finances may be relevant to other options, including extreme ones — both "macro-club" with three-flash raskoryakami and stacking, and "molbiolovsky" with shooting on a mobile phone. P.
S. A couple of details:
2 barry: Boris, I didn't mean that flash is optional, but that an external one with a lens is optional at a scale of 1: 1.2
gumenuk: Vitaly, but when Vlad and I visited your dacha a couple of years ago, you were a strong supporter of the built-in flash, because external ones interfere with shooting on the wall, for example. And now you are going to take the second external one. Here's how goals change over time;--))

Thanks to the constant care of our beloved party, the welfare of pensioners is steadily increasing. I think I'll save up for a second flash by spring. Of course, there is a lot of fuss and inconvenience with remote flashes, but the A-850 does not have a built-in one, so you have to get out of it. I take most of the pictures "at home" - I turn on the light, they (butterflies, beetles, bedbugs, mosquitoes, riders, etc.) and arrive. This is much more productive than wandering around in search. In the clearing, I shoot tracks and day tracks, and day tracks, given the camera's capabilities, can be shot without rings and attachments. I, for example, shot makhaonov using a 150-500 mm lens.

We are talking about shooting small moving insects (somewhere from 5-7 mm or less), when everything changes dynamically in the frame. Well, I already wrote - a series of chaotic images is taken, garbage is filtered... This can only be removed with manual fixation, there is no time or reaction for conscious guidance...

By the way - large butterflies compact with a good zoom (such as Canon SX30) takes at maximum zoom from a distance of about 2 meters and almost the entire frame and without any additional optics. In my opinion, the ideal option for purely "butterfly lovers".

Well, yes, but if I shot collemballs, ants, then I also used autofocus with half-press, but I don't see the point in manual focusing - the camera is aimed at a part of the substrate with autofocus, much faster and more reliable than in manual focus mode, and mainly because of the large GRIP, probably not so many misfires. And if the animals are stationary, then autofocus works all the more perfectly.

I also shoot with zoom, but there is one thing here - you can't focus from certain minimum distances at certain zoom values. And different soap dishes are different. At me at a distance of 50 cm it is possible to use up to 5X, and at 30 cm already only 2X. And of course, it turns out a little worse - the detail drops very much, because the zoom affects it decently.

Who has used Raynox's DCR-150 and DCR-250 macro converters? my fotik panas g10 macro does not pull at all. I decided to buy this thing. is it worth doing this or are there better options (there are better ones anyway, but the question is the price, I was advised to use a watering can (lens) at a price higher than the carcass itself, but this is not a solution). what I want to get from it-bm high-quality (so that you can see the details) photos of beetles, in nature and collectible, at least 5 mm in size.

I've been shooting with these macro lenses for a long time. I used it on various SONY cameras - from 707 to 850, that is, with built-in (non-replaceable) lenses and with transformers. For macro photography, the solution is cheap (the lens costs about 2000 rubles) and acceptable in terms of image quality (it does not reduce the resolution given by the lens and does not introduce distortions in the form of aberrations). Depending on the focal length set on the lens, it allows you to get a different zoom level. The disadvantages include a strong drop in the depth of field, as a result, you have to strongly aperture the lens, which will require the use of a flash (preferably with a diffuser). All the images that I put up on this site (including in the section "Identifying beetles") were taken using the DCR-150 macro nozzle.
I also shot beetles about 2 mm

By any chance, did anyone shoot on the Pentax K-5 + Pentax 100 Macro WR?..

I still took the 1100D. I chose it at the very last moment. I'm still working out.

I still took the 1100D. I chose it at the very last moment. I'm still working out.

soapy poop. they took

Wave Storm, don't believe it, it's to troll, 100%
And what is the object/s, this is the most important thing, and what min. distance?