Shooting macro with the 105mm and 2xTC

Rand -

Those were from Indonesia. You would never see them (like the pygmies) unless someone pointed them out or you knew to look for them....they were actually all over the place...like an infestation in some areas... The Berkley White photo was acutally hanging in one of our cabins on the ship. It took about 2 dives to acutally get 1 or two decent photos of these guys.

This picture was taken with d2x, 2xtc and an external Inon wet diopter.

M.

Michael, if you don't mind, I'd like to save that photo and show it to the dive guides. I'm returning in a couple months and since I've gotten the Pygmy bug cured, I'd love to try for some nice shots of these guys next.

Rand

Rand and others -

Don't think amphipods are limited only to the warmer waters of the South Pacific and Indonesian area.

I've had the chance twice now to spot amphipods in colder waters at the Channel Islands. The first photo is full-frame at San Miguel, the second a cropped photo from Anacapa (I think you were out of the country when I found this one, Rand, size is roughly 6mm). Both photos with the standard 100mm...think of the >1:1 possibilities.

Another Wetpixel member, Will Chen, has spotted tiny shrimp on the local hydrocorals and octocorals...

Feel free to visit

~Matt Segal

Outstanding images Rand...

I too love the supermacro... you are making me want to spend money i don't have....

One point I made on the front page of WP is that the D2X is well suited to this type of photography because of the DOF advantages of a smaller sensor for a given subject size in a frame.

I like the fact that you are playing to the strengths of your camera and pushing a technique forward. Oh, and I really appreciate you sharing your views.

Alex

Hi Rand,

Geez man. Forget the pigmies, I can't believe the detail of your starfish pic.

Ima crankin' up me shooter to S/M, an goin' huntin'.

That image, to me, is a definate wall hanger!! Well done.

Hooroo my friend

Bruce

And thanks Alex for highlighting the thread.

To me, it's a perfect example of how digital cameras allows us to blow off 100's of shots perfecting a techinique that probably took years with film, especially for the casual U/W photographer.

The D2X is a big part of this as well and I should have mentioned that. I just hate to get into the camera thing as it seems to go a certain direction when the comparisons are made.

In any case, I looked through my shots for an example of something more people might have seen in the past and relate to the subject size relative to the frame. Here's one of those little Hairy Crabs that are fairly common in Indonesia. I just find it fascinating to see the details and the fact it's almost too big in the frame:

Full Frame, 105mm 2xtc.

One point I made on the front page of WP is that the D2X is well suited to this type of photography because of the DOF advantages of a smaller sensor for a given subject size in a frame.

 

I like the fact that you are playing to the strengths of your camera and pushing a technique forward. Oh, and I really appreciate you sharing your views.

 

Alex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate to beat an old dead horse, but I would disagree that a smaller sensor has a DOF advangtage in macro shots. The limitation is the smallest aperture you can use before diffraction degrades the image resolution and a larger sensor allow you to use smaller apertures for a given resolution and that more than makes up for the longer focal length lens needed for the same field of view.

The last times we discussed this was here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9702

and here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9568

I would rather not hijack Rand's thread for another go round on this topic. Please add comments on this topic on one of the old threads.

Herb, I think the initial thrust of the thread has run it's course. And I'd like to see examples of FF sensor camera using the same or similar (I know, Canon has the 100mm vs the Nikon 105mm) set up.

Not as a Canon vs Nikon so much as to actually see the differences in field of view and DOF on similar subjects. It's of interest as I've heard much about the ff sensor covering a larger FOV,

I've no argument with your statements regarding diffraction. You've stated them clearly. But I must ask, since at f25 with the 105mm racked all the way out and with Teleconverter, DOF is almost nil, what are we talking here? 25% 50% better DOF with the FF camera? My point would be, 25% more of nothing is still basically nothing. So are you talking multiples of increase in DOF? 100% or higher?

Rand

I've no argument with your statements regarding diffraction. You've stated them clearly. But I must ask, since at f25 with the 105mm racked all the way out and with Teleconverter, DOF is almost nil, what are we talking here? 25% 50% better DOF with the FF camera? My point would be, 25% more of nothing is still basically nothing. So are you talking multiples of increase in DOF? 100% or higher?

Hey Rand -

Running the DOF calculator for the Canon 1DsMkII versus the Nikon D2X (1.0x crop versus 1.5x crop) for a 100mm (Canon) and 105mm (Nikon) macro lens at 12in subject distance yields the following:

1DsMkII:

f/22, DOF=0.33in

f/32, DOF=0.47in

D2X:

f/22, DOF=0.20in

f/32, DOF=0.28in

Significant in my mind.

~Matt Segal

Rand, I have a couple of questions:

Why did you specifically choose f25? Is that the smallest apperture on the 105mm? ( sorry I am a Canonite)

Secondly, did you ever get to try the 105 without the teleconverter but with Woody's diopter? I would be intersted in how your results compare. Theoretically you should have a larger DOF with this setup, although, as you say, x% of buggerall is still buggerall!

thanks, Andre

Rand....I think your pictures are worth a thousand numbers

Karl

All this talk about racking has me in a daydream

Sorry I couldn't resist...now back to our regular scheduled program.

Andre, f25 was a compromise between DOF and the diffraction at the higher f stops Herb mentions. Follow the links he posted and you'll see the conversation from some of my earlier efforts with the 2xtc.

I use the 60mm for macro if I'm not using the 2xtc as the working distance is reduced. Here is a shot using the 60mm with the Woody and yes, the DOF is much better:

1DsMkII:

f/22, DOF=0.33in

f/32, DOF=0.47in

 

D2X:

f/22, DOF=0.20in

f/32, DOF=0.28in

 

Significant in my mind.

Significant, and i suppose it means you have a slightly higher chance of achieving sharp focus. But once you have sharp focus with either the 1dsmkii or the d2x I doubt it really matters.

Very nice pics rand! I love supermacro myself, although my wife is the real artist there between the 2 of us when it comes to supermacro. I think a tc is useful for other things than just racked out to maximum though. There's lots of interesting subjects between the range of a normal 105 (or 60, I actually use a 60+2xtc a lot also) and a 105+2xtc at maximum (assuming you try and do some composition in the camera). Or you could stay at for instance 1:1 and create a bit more distance between you and your subject to get more natural behavior. Or maybe I misunderstood you, as english isnt my first language.

Regards,

Cor

cor, your wife indeed is very talented. I checked your website. Very nice.

I agree, with you. There are others ranges to be explored with the Teleconverter. My goal, and the main subject of this thread, was getting maximum magnification with the specific subject, Pygmy Seahorse.

Rand

Hi Rand,

While I love your Pics, and I truly do! I'm simply 'busting a gut', holding my breath waiting for Matt Seagal to convert his calculations into real images so that we can all go from theory room to the real world and check the images for these so called "significant differences". I hope he can prove it coz I am ready to sell my Nikon setup if he is right! Bloody Nikon, ripping us off like that!!!

Hooroo,

Bruce

I'm simply 'busting a gut', holding my breath waiting for Matt Seagal to convert his calculations into real images so that we can all go from theory room to the real world and check the images for these so called "significant differences".

Two years or a significant monetary donation from you now and I'll have the results. James should be able to provide examples from the 1.6x crop 20D and 1.3x crop 1DMkII.

Hooroo!

~Matt Segal

All the credit to the technical creativity but implentation is really what matters at the end of the day and man you really put the two together. The "bartender" is just perfection.

Sarah shot the 20D with the 100mm and the Woody's. I'm not sure if she shot it at the minimum working distance.

I shot the 150mm with a 500D diopter both with and without the Macromate.

I'll post some examples when I find them.

Cheers

James