Photocameras

For a year now, I've been shooting on a Canon 1100D DSLR (like Gennadich's) with a Tamron SP AF 90 f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 lens and almost 3 years on a simple Kodak Easyshare M320 soap dish. I began to understand more about the characteristics of photographic equipment. And during this time, I found the pros and cons of the DSLR for myself.

Pros: higher image quality compared to compacts; faster shooting speed; battery life lasts for a longer time.
Cons: it takes up more space than a compact; the need to change lenses if you want to shoot not a macro, but, for example, a landscape, which is firstly inconvenient, and secondly is fraught with dust on the matrix (cleaning costs 200 Ukrainian hryvnias in m-not "Paparazzi"); the device is subject to shaking, so you often have to put it on a tripod, which makes it difficult or impossible to shoot nimble flying insects.

As for the Kodak Easyshare M320 soap dish, I bought it without thinking. I didn't know much about photography back then. Then I learned that when choosing a compact camera, you need to look at the minimum focusing distance. However, at the Macro Club, I was told that this number shows the minimum distance at a wide angle, i.e. you can use optical zoom to get more magnification. However, the device focuses poorly when zoomed in. In not very bright rooms, it can not focus at all, and in nature it often does not get there.

Therefore, considering all the above, I thought and decided that the ideal camera for me would be a compact with a large matrix like APS-C or micro 4/3 and a non-replaceable lens. And fortunately, there were trends to increase matrices in compacts last year. So, the Sony RX100 camera has a matrix not 1/2,3 or even 1/1,7, but somewhere half of APS-C, but the Canon G1X is almost close to APS-C. Only here the first one has a minimum distance to the object of 5 cm, and the second 20 cm, so while they do not attract me. In general, of the new top-end compacts, I like the Panaonic Lumix LX7. The sensor is small, but it has a high-speed lens (F/1.4), which allows you to get a beautiful blur and a distance to the object of 1 cm. So if I was buying a CD right now, I'd take it. But I already have a DSLR, and even compared to it, judging by the tests, the LX7 makes more noise. So while somehow I'll take a picture with it, and then in 2014, maybe something interesting will come out of the compacts.

In general, you can also get good pictures with your mobile phone. Modern phones are capable of many things. The only question is what the details will be.

Well, I'll post a few of my cropped and slightly processed images (the original dimensions).

Kodak Easyshare M320:





Canon 1100D + Tamron SP AF 90 f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1:

Macro, this is first of all glass, and second of all light. And everything else is not critical at all.
Equipment for semi-professionals?

Light is always first. Glass to the second one. Even with an insanely high-light lens, you can't take a good photo in the basement gloom. At the same time, if you add a good macro flash to the basement semi-darkness, even glass with a small hole (f/4 - f/5.6) will "drag".

According to Canon's classification, a professional camera is a reportage camera, i.e. a camera that shoots more than 6 frames in seconds. Neither the pyatak nor the 7D provide this speed of shooting, whereas all brands shoot faster; they are semi-pros, they are not able to solve the problems of professional photographers, whose main bread is reportage shooting, but they are much higher than amateur cameras.

For a year now, I've been shooting on a Canon 1100D DSLR (like Gennadich's) with a Tamron SP AF 90 f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 lens and almost 3 years on a simple Kodak Easyshare M320 soap dish. I began to understand more about the characteristics of photographic equipment. And during this time, I found the pros and cons of the DSLR for myself.

Pros: higher image quality compared to compacts; faster shooting speed; battery life lasts for a longer time.
Cons: it takes up more space than a compact; the need to change lenses if you want to shoot not a macro, but, for example, a landscape, which is firstly inconvenient, and secondly is fraught with dust on the matrix (cleaning costs 200 Ukrainian hryvnias in m-not "Paparazzi"); the device is subject to shaking, so you often have to put it on a tripod, which makes it difficult or impossible to shoot nimble flying insects.

As for the Kodak Easyshare M320 soap dish, I bought it without thinking. I didn't know much about photography back then. Then I learned that when choosing a compact camera, you need to look at the minimum focusing distance. However, at the Macro Club, I was told that this number shows the minimum distance at a wide angle, i.e. you can use optical zoom to get more magnification. However, the device focuses poorly when zoomed in. In not very bright rooms, it can not focus at all, and in nature it often does not get there.

Therefore, considering all the above, I thought and decided that the ideal camera for me would be a compact with a large matrix like APS-C or micro 4/3 and a non-replaceable lens. And fortunately, there were trends to increase matrices in compacts last year. So, the Sony RX100 camera has a matrix not 1/2,3 or even 1/1,7, but somewhere half of APS-C, but the Canon G1X is almost close to APS-C. Only here the first one has a minimum distance to the object of 5 cm, and the second 20 cm, so while they do not attract me. In general, of the new top-end compacts, I like the Panaonic Lumix LX7. The sensor is small, but it has a high-speed lens (F/1.4), which allows you to get a beautiful blur and a distance to the object of 1 cm. So if I was buying a CD right now, I'd take it. But I already have a DSLR, and even compared to it, judging by the tests, the LX7 makes more noise. So while somehow I'll take a picture with it, and then in 2014, maybe something interesting will come out of the compacts.

In general, you can also get good pictures with your mobile phone. Modern phones are capable of many things. The only question is what the details will be.

Well, I'll post a few of my cropped and slightly processed images (the original dimensions).

Kodak Easyshare M320:





Canon 1100D + Tamron SP AF 90 f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1:

Now compare with the photos taken by Mark 2 on a Canon 100 mm Macro USM lens (not L):

Good photos, compared.

I liked the caterpillar the most.

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 02/18/2013 18: 34

Good photos, compared.

I liked the caterpillar the most.

photo without processing - only resize.

Light is always first. Glass to the second one. Even with an insanely high-light lens, you can't take a good photo in the basement gloom.

Based on personal experience-glass in the first place. If the glass is not very good, then no light will help.
However, the criteria for good/bad may vary from person to person.

 
As for the Kodak Easyshare M320 soap dish, I bought it without thinking. I didn't know much about photography back then. Then I learned that when choosing a compact camera, you need to look at the minimum focusing distance.

For example, I can't imagine macro shooting with a compact camera without a macro converter. You don't need to look at any focusing distance. Even those that focus at 1 cm will not do much in the "naked" form - it is almost impossible to actually shoot from such a distance simply because the light is blocked.

barry, to be honest, I didn't even know about this until recently.

Before that, it was very close to the objects. Unless of course they left

Are these macro converters different for different cameras?

barry, to be honest, I didn't even know about this until recently.

Before that, it was very close to the objects. Unless of course they left

Are these macro converters different for different cameras?

No, they are universal (in terms of cameras). There are different degrees of magnification. This is usually Raynox and they are usually all with universal adapters (52-67mm).
http://raynox.ru/index.php?Itemid=34&categ...s&product_id=63

Put at least on a DSLR with a whale and get a macro. In optical terms, this is naturally a little worse than a macro lens, but in principle, DSLRs sometimes put on macro lenses for greater magnification.
It is suitable for almost all compacts, if there is something to catch on to (52-67mm).
I really don't like this universal nozzle, there are spring-loaded legs with which it clings. It holds up rather weakly, if you move abruptly or if you get caught in bushes or branches, the glass may fly off. I have threaded adapters (ordered from the turner). Although some comrades, on the contrary, prefer a universal adapter for its efficiency (it is quickly installed/removed).
I have the most popular Raynox CM-3500 right now. There are three panes of glass (6x, 12x, 24x) that cover all the needs.
http://raynox.ru/index.php?page=shop.produ...emart&Itemid=34

Good stuff, but not cheap. But at least it's cheaper than a macro lens.
You can take a full-frame CD (Sony RX1, if money allows) with these attachments, and do not suffer.

Or mirrorless...

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 19.02.2013 17: 35

I advise everyone to see how the new Sigma DP3M shoots
(there is a Macro mode, but you can probably still put on an additional macro nozzle)

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/camera/dp3_merrill/#/gallery

I have a somewhat peculiar question. Can a regular "soap box" shoot in a kind of "daggerotype" mode - that is, record everything that happens for one frame for 30-40 seconds? The fact is that I want to find a cheap tool for recording the position of the body of straight-winged birds in a jump. Since video equipment with ultra-fast shooting is clearly not affordable, and even 50 frames per second is clearly not enough, the idea came up to combine the camera with a strobe light. I have no doubt that it would have been possible with a film machine. But with the "figure" how: is there such a possibility in principle and will the matrix hold?

I have a somewhat peculiar question. Can a regular "soap box" shoot in a kind of "daggerotype" mode - that is, record everything that happens for one frame for 30-40 seconds? The fact is that I want to find a cheap tool for recording the position of the body of straight-winged birds in a jump. Since video equipment with ultra-fast shooting is clearly not affordable, and even 50 frames per second is clearly not enough, the idea came up to combine the camera with a strobe light. I have no doubt that it would have been possible with a film machine. But with the "figure" how: is there such a possibility in principle and will the matrix hold?

We take a DSLR. You can use the simplest one.
We set a lower ISO
Shutter speed, say, 30 seconds.
We focus
, launch your strobe light, and press the shutter release.
But everything will be on 1 frame

Although there is another option. Start full-HD video shooting with reduced ISO and your strobe light. You can at least cut it frame-by-frame.

PVOzerski, maybe I have a fix for the olympus UZ510, for example. shutter speed, it is better to use it with a separate button that is in the on section, because a fixed shutter speed works while you hold the button. And so up to 30 seconds. I think so.
In general, the idea is interesting
Analogs of this Olympus now cost about $ 170, but I think in other devices there are at least 30 seconds. shutter speed and "eternal" shutter speed, you need to search in the parameters.
This is how it turns out I can do up to 1000 shutter speeds and even higher! You can take a picture of a mosquito flying or some other "vector" process, class!

"We take a DSLR. You can use the simplest one."
Oligarchs on the march ))))
And why is ISO lower? Here it is just necessary to make the aperture smaller.

And so up to 30 seconds. I think so.
In general, the idea is interesting
You can take a picture of a mosquito flying or some other "vector" process, class!

The idea is fundamentally wrong. At 30 seconds of exposure, only stationary and blurry sedentary objects will be visible. There will be no moving ones. No mosquito flight, of course, will not be visible either.

You don't understand the idea, it's in the PVOzerski message.
Everything there will be seen normally. on one frame there will be a sequence of flying objects.
Here glanvoe set the desired speed of rotation of the disk.

I have a somewhat peculiar question. Can a regular "soap box" shoot in a kind of "daggerotype" mode - that is, record everything that happens for one frame for 30-40 seconds? The fact is that I want to find a cheap tool for recording the position of the body of straight-winged birds in a jump. Since video equipment with ultra-fast shooting is clearly not affordable, and even 50 frames per second is clearly not enough, the idea came up to combine the camera with a strobe light. I have no doubt that it would have been possible with a film machine. But with the "figure" how: is there such a possibility in principle and will the matrix hold?

Recently, for interest, I read about the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS. There is a slow-motion mode (up to 240 frames/s). I don't know if it will suit me or not, I didn't hold it in my hands, what's really there, whether it will fit...
http://market.yandex.ua/model-spec.xml?mod...59281&hid=91148
http://www.onfoto.ru/review/Canon-PowerSho...50-HS/2055.html
I even found an example video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RAJJ-f4Srw

As far as I remember, there are some photos of jumping/flying straight-winged birds on the Macroclub website, if you are interested, I can search.
And another thing-a couple of years ago, I once looked at the site of one fan of "flights", he shoots through an electronic infrared sensor, i.e. when an insect crosses the beam , the shutter is triggered. There are quite a lot of flight photos, but I don't remember about the right winged ones. There is a description and photo of the motion sensor, everything is basically "soldered on the knees". I don't remember the site address anymore, but I can dig around if it makes sense.

Thank you for your advice - we already have some material to think about. The main thing is that it is clear that the matrix can withstand this and that there are standard modes for such work. The option with a DSLR is not suitable for me: this is not an ordinary purchase for my budget. That is, it is at home, but my spouse will not allow me to endanger this device, respectively, 240 fps does not shine for me. In reality, my graduate students and I tried 50: for a large locust, we got 9-10 frames for one long jump, for small cricket larvae - 3-4. That's not enough for me. My task is to track the position of the body along the entire trajectory, including landing. It is necessary to finally close (or, as horned is not joking, still confirm) the hypothesis about the aerodynamic role of differences in the shape of the head in geophilic and phytophilic locusts. Full-scale and simulation models say that there is no special influence, but we need, so to speak, the "last chord"

The option with a DSLR is not suitable for me: this is not an ordinary purchase for my budget. That is, it is at home, but my spouse will not allow me to endanger this device, respectively, 240 fps does not shine for me.

This is not a DSLR, this is a compact, if we are talking about the SX50 HS. As I can estimate the price is about 400 euros, not so much. In addition, the CNOS matrix, factory RAW (although I have been shooting on the "hacker" CHDK RAW for several years). Super-strong Zoom, although I personally do not turn on too much, but in principle a good plus on occasion. If it was a couple of years ago, and I didn't have three compacts by now, then I would probably choose this one... but my hands still itch... Of course, you need to study well, read articles, reviews, look at photos before you specifically advise someone, but especially the CMOS matrix inspires hope.

>the price is about 400 euros, not so much
Aha, exactly my one and a half docent rates together with the degree allowance

The idea is fundamentally wrong. At 30 seconds of exposure, only stationary and blurry sedentary objects will be visible. There will be no moving ones. No mosquito flight, of course, will not be visible either.

I didn't just write about ISO.

okoem, if I understood Stas correctly, he means that there will be no intermediate smears on small ISO and no amount of light, and at the time of puffing, the normal image will remain. And so on several times in a row on the same frame...

>the price is about 400 euros, not so much
Aha, exactly my one and a half docent rates along with the degree allowance

Well, a slow-motion compact, for the price of a good compact, it's not so expensive. Is science in Russia in such a decline that associate professors are forced to buy equipment for their salary? It didn't even occur to me... okay, we have a revolution in Ukraine, then something else...

I will, of course, probe the soil for the purchase of cathedral money. But not the fact that anything will come of it. In fact, this is a habit that has already developed - not to rely on government funds, but to find cheap solutions at my own expense-since the days when I worked at the IEFB. Naturally, not without reason.

And the decline-it is, of course. Because with the availability of export raw materials, the state is not up to science and education. You do not even think about how happy it is in Ukraine when the country simply cannot afford to live off the export of raw materials.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 24.02.2013 17: 04

Share your experience — who shines with what when they remove money from collections?

Share your experience — who shines with what when they remove money from collections?

Well my way I hope you know
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/barrylbm/view/35346?page=0

Share your experience — who shines with what when they remove money from collections?

I had to shoot collectible insects. I'm shooting beetles now. I suffered a little until I found the optimal varant. I got the best results in terms of resolution and color when using a flash with a diffuser, but there is a negative point - shadows. I switched to shooting with a combined vision.
The object (beetle) is placed on a piece of white paper. Illumination from the window (from the head) and illumination of the shadow side with a daylight lamp through a diffuser. The location of the lamp is determined visually by the shadows.
Technical parameters:
Original date/time: 2013:02:19 14:07:16
Exposure time: 20/10
F-stop: 16.0
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 90.0000
Focal length (35mm): 90
Flash: Not fired
SONY DSLR-A850 Tamron SP Di 90 mm macro 1:1

Pictures:

1DSC05794.jpg — (173.14к)

Share your experience — who shines with what when they remove money from collections?

ring lum.lamp+tripod

Share your experience — who shines with what when they remove money from collections?

Recently, the lamp consists of two cold-white lumens. 18w tubes each. With a non-starter electronic starting device: I consider this mandatory (significantly reduces the flickering of lamps due to the high frequency). Well, to the soap dish a small tripod.

Well my way I hope you know
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/barrylbm/view/35346?page=0

What's the difference with non-collection photography?;

The object (beetle) is placed on a piece of white paper. Illumination from the window (from the head) and illumination of the shadow side with a daylight lamp through a diffuser. The location of the lamp is determined visually by the shadows.

Butterflies will be on pins, and maybe even in boxes. Accordingly, there will be shadows on a white background. It is treated with a dark background or a significant distance of the object from the background, as Anatoly once suggested to me.I.e. beetles seem to be different in this regard?

ring lum.lamp+tripod

And what is this ring lamp? Didn't flash?

Recently, the lamp consists of two cold-white lumens. 18w tubes each. With a non-starter electronic starting device: I consider this mandatory (significantly reduces the flickering of lamps due to the high frequency). Well, to the soap dish a small tripod.

What about the shadows?

Also, what's wrong with a black background? I see that very few people use it here, and foreign photographers just do not disdain it. In general, it seems that photographers go to black, and biologists go to light.

What about the shadows?

I try to keep it to a minimum (twist and turn). Actually, in the plans to make a joke ring lamp type such following the example of Svyatoslav (apparently he has a similar one in mind).
PS In fact, this is an ordinary tube only "rolled up in a ring".

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 02/28/2013 13: 29

dada, just like that!

Butterflies will be on pins, and maybe even in boxes. Accordingly, there will be shadows on a white background. It is treated with a dark background or a significant distance of the object from the background, as Anatoly once suggested to me.I.e. beetles seem to be different in this regard?

And this is an example of shooting on a dark background using a flash lamp. The pin is easily clogged in FSH.
Original date/time: 2011:08:11 12:39:02
Exposure time: 1/80
F-stop: 22.0
ISO speed: 250
Focal length: 85.0000
Focal length (35mm): 85
Flash: Fired
SONY DSLR-A850 Sigma 75-300 and and positive lens +3

Pictures:

Nymphalis_xanthomelas_2011.jpg — (316.65к)

Also, what's wrong with a black background? I see that very few people use it here, and foreign photographers just do not disdain it. In general, it seems that photographers go to black, and biologists go to light.

White background is a requirement for images intended for identification purposes. And it is best to shoot (and look) on a gray background. In this case, you can set the color quite accurately.

What's the difference with non-collection photography?;

Why should I care?

Yes! Smaller devices with larger matrices are slowly appearing! True DSLR, but still:

Canon EOS 100D — the smallest digital SLR camera in the world

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 23.03.2013 18: 30