BUG RIDERS LOVE THE 20D !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, May 1, 2005.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Ken Tough Guest

    Ken Tough, May 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    paul Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:

    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42768262



    Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you
    will see what I'm talking about. I got a shot with an inverted lens on a
    tele but the quality is awful.
    paul, May 1, 2005
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you

    >will see what I'm talking about.


    Now where am I gonna get one of those?
    Annika1980, May 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    paul Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:

    >>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you

    >
    >
    >>will see what I'm talking about.

    >
    >
    > Now where am I gonna get one of those?



    What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :)
    Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    some major vingetting):
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
    paul, May 2, 2005
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Guest

    In message <>,
    paul <> wrote:

    >What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :)
    >Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    >some major vingetting):
    ><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    >I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    >with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.


    http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > paul <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :)
    >>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    >>some major vingetting):
    >><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    >>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    >>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.

    >
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original



    LOL OK you win!
    (I didn't use flash though <grin> and was yours hand held?)
    90mm macro on what?
    Paul Furman, May 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Stacey Guest

    paul wrote:

    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >>>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you


    > Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    > some major vingetting):
    >

    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    > I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    > with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.


    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg

    100% crop

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, May 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    Stacey wrote:

    > paul wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Annika1980 wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you

    >
    >
    >>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    >>some major vingetting):
    >>

    >
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    >
    >>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    >>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.

    >
    >
    > http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg
    >
    > 100% crop
    >
    > http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg




    OK, I'm beat, what's your specs?



    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Stacey Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:

    > Stacey wrote:
    >>
    >> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg
    >>
    >> 100% crop
    >>
    >> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg

    >
    >
    >
    > OK, I'm beat, what's your specs?
    >
    >
    >


    E-300 w/ manual focus OM 80mm F4 macro lens on a bellows, no flash f8 @ 1/2
    second. I have to say your shot handheld is amazing for that magnification
    without a flash. I'd never -even- attempt that!

    You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a longish zoom
    and aren't that expencive.
    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, May 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Stacey <> writes:
    > You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a
    > longish zoom and aren't that expencive.


    Do the 5T/6T work ok on lenses that take 52mm accessories (e.g. 80-200/4.5)
    if you use a 52-62 step-up ring? The 62mm stuff is more expensive but if
    it works on both sizes of lens then it probably makes more sense to just
    get it.

    Also, how much does the max magnification of, say, a 200mm lens with a
    6T depend on the close focus distance of the unadorned 200mm lens?

    Thanks.
    Paul Rubin, May 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Stacey Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:

    > Stacey <> writes:
    >> You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a
    >> longish zoom and aren't that expencive.

    >
    > Do the 5T/6T work ok on lenses that take 52mm accessories (e.g.
    > 80-200/4.5)
    > if you use a 52-62 step-up ring?


    Yep.

    > The 62mm stuff is more expensive but if
    > it works on both sizes of lens then it probably makes more sense to just
    > get it.


    That's what I figured. I use it on my 50-200 ZD zoom and also on a 55-110
    zoom on my mamiya 645. Both of these are 67mm so have to use a step down
    ring which is no problem focused this close. Also have used it on the ZD
    50mm which is a 52mm size and it works fine.

    >
    > Also, how much does the max magnification of, say, a 200mm lens with a
    > 6T depend on the close focus distance of the unadorned 200mm lens?
    >


    It does depend on how close the native lens focuses, but my mamiya lens
    doesn't focus very close at all and I can get really good flower closeups
    with it. The best part of these good types of closeup lenses is you don't
    lose any light like a ext tube does and it will work on any camera you ever
    own.

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, May 3, 2005
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    Stacey wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >>
    >>OK, I'm beat, what's your specs?
    >>

    >
    > E-300 w/ manual focus OM 80mm F4 macro lens on a bellows, no flash f8 @ 1/2
    > second. I have to say your shot handheld is amazing for that magnification
    > without a flash. I'd never -even- attempt that!



    Well I took it out in full sun & the lens was leaning on the table so
    not exactly hand held.

    >
    > You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a longish zoom
    > and aren't that expencive.



    I've got a +2 Canon 500D diopter 77mm thread. It didn't occur to me that
    when zoomed in, I could use a smaller filter with a step down ring.

    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>,
    >> paul <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :)
    >>>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    >>>some major vingetting):
    >>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    >>>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    >>>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.

    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original

    >
    >
    >LOL OK you win!
    >(I didn't use flash though <grin> and was yours hand held?)
    >90mm macro on what?


    The rig went like this:


    550EX

    20D Canon1.4x 36,12,20mm_kenkos TamronSP2x Tamron90mmf/2.8

    F5.6, 1/250, flash, lying on a corkboard, bill propped up by spring
    clamp.

    The pixels are original pixels, cropped from the full 8MP image.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
    >>>>some major vingetting):
    >>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro&PG=2&PIC=6>
    >>>>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
    >>>>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original

    >>

    >
    >
    > The rig went like this:
    >
    > 550EX
    >
    > 20D Canon1.4x 36,12,20mm_kenkos TamronSP2x Tamron90mmf/2.8



    So 90mm macro on multiple extension tubes &/or teleconverters if I'm
    reading that right. Thanks for that & the settings. I guess that lens
    ain't too bad if it does so well at 5x magnification wide open. I needed
    to stop down to f/45 LOL! yeah 45, no decimal missing there.


    >
    > F5.6, 1/250, flash, lying on a corkboard, bill propped up by spring
    > clamp.
    >
    > The pixels are original pixels, cropped from the full 8MP image.




    --
    Paul Furman
    http://www.edgehill.net/1
    san francisco native plants
    Paul Furman, May 3, 2005
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, May 4, 2005
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:

    >>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill,
    >>you will see what I'm talking about.

    >
    >
    > Ok, how's this?
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42926050/original



    Damn you!

    It is pretty soft at full pixels but still I think you win the
    competition given the texture of the paper fibers, even shrunk to match
    JPS' shot. JPS's is really nice but has some of that over-active
    highlight stuff that I was seeing wide open (sparkles on black ink), I
    dunno maybe his is close to winning.

    Brett (20D with killer micro specific lens):
    http://jiki.pbase.com/u14/bret/upload/42926050.fiver.jpg

    JPS (20D with 90mm macro & extension tubes):
    http://k41.pbase.com/u10/jps_photo/upload/42881886.5dollarmacro.jpg

    Stacey (Oly with 80mm macro on a bellows):
    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg

    Paul (D70 with something like 25 elements jerry rigged, full sun):
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-super-macro/_DSC2422c.jpg>
    Paul Furman, May 4, 2005
    #17
  18. "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    > >Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill,
    > >you will see what I'm talking about.

    >
    > Ok, how's this?
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42926050/original


    Try using it to take a shot of a sharp Velvia slide and compare that to what
    your Minolta 5400 produces.

    (At 5x, that's 2400 x 5 dpi or so, which is a lot more magnification than
    the 5400 provides. Of course, you don't get the whole frame without a _lot_
    of work<g>.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, May 4, 2005
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Stacey Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:

    >
    >
    > I've got a +2 Canon 500D diopter 77mm thread. It didn't occur to me that
    > when zoomed in, I could use a smaller filter with a step down ring.
    >


    That and being focused closer both make it not cause any problems..

    --

    Stacey
    Stacey, May 4, 2005
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    >So 90mm macro on multiple extension tubes &/or teleconverters if I'm
    >reading that right.


    Yep. 68mm of extension, 2.8x of TC, and a 90mm macro. It's as long as
    my 100-400 zoom fully extended!

    >Thanks for that & the settings. I guess that lens
    >ain't too bad if it does so well at 5x magnification wide open. I needed
    >to stop down to f/45 LOL! yeah 45, no decimal missing there.


    Well, who knows what 45 on the ring turns out to be in the overall
    optics.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , May 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. \Mighty\ Mike Blues

    Re: Love Bug Problems

    \Mighty\ Mike Blues, Jun 30, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    816
    \Mighty\ Mike Blues
    Jun 30, 2003
  2. janet_princess_2k
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    466
    janet_princess_2k
    Aug 9, 2006
  3. Annika1980

    BRIDES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    466
    mark_digitalĀ©
    Oct 19, 2004
  4. A bug catalogue for bug lovers!

    , Sep 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    501
  5. wewa
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    690
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page