Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-638.html)

Sorry,But I am curious.I have tried lense reversal with the mount I bought from ebay and also some macro close up filters.

Both pictures didnt come out well.Any I dea how to use these filters to get some good images?
Below is one image I tried to click with 18-55mm+ 20 closeup filter and one filter had '58mm macro filter' written on that.

I used shutter as 1/80,F5.6,ISO 3200.

Any Idea how to use those filters?

Since most of the kit lenses have crappy optical quality (Canon, Nikon, Sony whatever), issues like CA will show up in reversed macros. The macro filter should align perfectly with the lens. Then you need to use very narrow apertures to get some good depth of field, rather than focusing on a narrow region. That requires good lighting, for you to use faster shutter speeds. You can use a Pringles can to direct and diffuse light right in front of the lens.

I'd advice you to use a better macro filter like DCR250 on a good quality prime or 70-200 zoom lens to get quality macros.

The only thing I'd like to add is that magnification is independent of sensor size. It's a characteristic of lens and not the camera's sensor.

Which means, that the FOV with an APS-C sensor is 1.6 (or 1.5):1 when a macro lens like Canon 100mm is used at 1:1. And it's 2:1 FOV with micro four thirds cameras.

Yes HW, I didn't mean that it is related to sensor size at all. I used APS-C as an example because that's almost the size required to fill a bigger Ant at 1:1 magnification ratio

For full frame and 1:1, you need a bigger creature to fill in the entire sensor at 1:1 :D

Ha ha, nothing against what you said Clevermax :). I just wanted to add to what you had said. It took me a while to grasp this concept and why it is so. I used to think I was shooting insects at 1:1 FOV with my 350D, where as the FOV was probably around 1.6:1. Another easy of "gaining" (relatively) magnification.

In most of the articles,it was written to use the widest aperture possible.
So you say,a powerfull lighting with a narrower apperture will be better,right?

If you are using a macro filter, then you need to use narrower apertures in your lens. For example, to get a bee's round face and some more fully in focus, you might need to use an aperture like f/20 assuming focal length is about 100mm. Quoting this as an example because i saw a sample shot with DCR250 in flickr, and that had and exif like that..

"Use widest aperture possible" still applies here. You need to figure out which is the widest possible by checking the depth of field you are getting...With macro adapters, the widest possible apertures will be relatively narrower than apertures used for normal shots. I can't comment on the aperture values that normally can be used with actual macro lenses, may be HW can throw some light.

I am still to venture into macro photography, waiting for cheap gears to arrive :D

Diopters are useful if you can get the achromats like Nikon 3T (relatively difficult to find) or Marumi DHG achromats (easier). The Raynox DCR250 is supposed to be good at centre but really soft at corners. I don't have one though, so can't say much. Given a choice, I'd spend that $50 and get Marumi DHG achromats than the Raynox DCR 150/250.

And here's some more info I got from mu-43 a while back:

The above should give a fair idea about working distance.

The cheapest way to do macro work (AFAIK) is to reverse a lens. But you'd be exposing the back element, which can cause you to skip a heart beat or two ;). So, get a cheap 50mm MF lens from somewhere and reverse it :D. That way you might get aperture control too.

It depends on the magnification actually. But, usually f8-f11 do the trick. What surprises me most is that some macro gurus know the optimal apertures for a given scenario. They ensure that they get a smooth background and have the critter/flower sharp as well. A pretty difficult task if you ask me.

buy a dedicated macro lens; a tele or zoom would not give you the same functionality.
if for Nikon, you may look at Nikon 40mm f2.8 Micro, or Nikon 105mm f2.8 (probably the best lens).

What about coupling one 18-55mm with another 18-55mm in reverse?I came accross one youtube video where he did the same.I have ordered for the coupling ring now.

Normal lenses are optimised for large camera to object distance and have more distortion at closer distances. In contrast macro lenses are designed for short camera to object distance, hence for very close photography macro lenses will in general give better results.

Another method of increasing magnification of both macro and normal lenses is to have extension tubes. The tubes come in various lengths and can be combined to extend the length. Mind you good extension tubes are quite expensive, especially if they contain connections for autofocus and lense data. To get an idea of macro photography go to Nikon or Canon site and browse through the technical literature.

Need some advice from experts here. Between a new 550D and a used 50D, which one is a better buy. I am planning to change from a P&S to SLR. I have a Nikon Pronea 6i APS SLR, which i haven't used in a few years. The usage would be mostly outdoors. Thanks in advance.

Let me confuse you some more. It does not matter which camera model you are buying in the APS-C sensor sized models, APS-C variants are considerably smaller than 35 mm standard film which measures 36×24 mm. Sensor sizes range from 20.7×13.8 mm to 28.7×19.1 mm. Result is a ligher camera but smaller APS-C sensor effectively minimizes the field of view by about 1.5, so that a 300mm focal length lens has the same field of view as a 450mm lens on a 35mm camera such as Canon 5D MkII. While this crop factor is often called a focal length multiplier, it is important to note that there is no magnification benefit, only a smaller field of view.

So it does not matter wheather you go for 550D or 50D both use the same sensor size, only difference would be in the image processor. Though i have not used the camera for long but what I learnt in couple years of usage is its the "Lens" & ofcourse the photographer that creates the stunning visual. By the way i still use a Canon 1000D which i think is obsolete now. :)

You better buy compact SLR like nikon J1 OR V1. Which will be easy to take anywhere.

Or Nex 5N, if you want something slightly better.

But these are not SLRs. They can be called Mirror-less cameras.