Shooting macro with the 105mm and 2xTC

Hi Rand,

You're drivin' me crazy man!!

Where do I have to go to buy snoot funnels for my Ike strobes??

Let me guess; Fort Lauderdale??

I took the 105 out for it's first swim the other night.

Bloody great dive, vis was that bad that I swam into the same pylon TWICE!!!

Got the abrasions on me nut to prove it!

Woody's diopter is on its way.

Hooroo my friend,

Bruce

Here are two shots I took with a 105mm +2x+4T diopter. You can do some cool things but there is a lot of o-rings used with extension rings

The key is to be stable. I'd bet that Rand had a stationary position for which he could stabilize his movement. It is almost impossible to use this setup using pure bouyancy, in fact I'd say it is impossible. Searching for the animal through the viewfinder is a bitch, so you often have to peer over your housing to get a general idea of subject location. Both of the these images were shot at Catalina Island in California. The hermissenda nudibranch is artsy, while the hermit crab is to show how close you can actually get. This little guy was really small, and his eyes are actually inside of its shell, peering around the corner. I had to use my aiming light, of course.

Joe

Nice shots, Joe.

I have never used a teleconverter on digital, so out of curiosity I had a look through my pygmy shots to see how they compare for magnification.

I use a simple 105mm and +4 dioptre for my shots. This was actually shot with the D100, but the important point is that it clearly shows a lower magnification than Rand's shots. The other thing I'd like to add is that the polyps are out in this shot - demonstrating that I don't touch the seafans when shooting these guys

The only advantage I see in not using the tele is that it makes it easier to hand hold long exposures, to burn in a blue background. This image was also taken with the 105mm and +4. Exposure was 1/4 of a second. Handheld while free swimming! There are advantages in being an immobile lump!

Note that the polyps are retracted in this shot. Sometimes they just are when you turn up, even if you don't touch the fan!

Both images are NOT cropped at all.

Alex

Alex,

I love that shot with the polyps out. That adds so much value to that image. Here is one I shot with a 60mm using woody's diopter. There is no crop and I got VERY lucky because I have both eyes AND the little finlets. I could only imagine a head shot like Rands with two eyes and finlets. No polyps on my shot

Joe

Joe, the shot of the hermit crab is nuts sharp. All falls away if the eyes aren't in tack focus and this is a great example. I see many people post some great macro shots that would jump to extrodinary had the eye been there. Beauty.

And, my new challange in April, no shots unless the Polyps are out. I've got enough with them closed. It's probably no secret that if it weren't for the guides to find them, we would have very few Pygmy shots. But I paid attention.

Joe, I'm not sure if you're implying that the only way for me to get these was to wedge myself into the reef. There's no way to prove otherwise of course but I didn't. Yes, stuff lives on the reef and yes, I've used the two finger method to hold steady to it. But to get a shot at any cost, no.

Anyone who's shot the fan at Nudi falls is aware of the convenient finger hold on that wall I'm sure. But I've also come up with a way to acquire my subjects quicker B) which makes it doable to capture them free hand if there's no current. By doable I mean one shot might be in focus, but sometimes one's enough.

When I put the port extension on the Subal, and the TC on the 105mm, the front end becomes tippy and both hands are needed to stable-ize the housing. So at times, it was a bi*ch. Much cursing and knashing of teeth. One handing the housing, requires good hand strength. That might be an issue for some.

Alex, your shots remind me of the size results from the 105mm and the Woody combo. But I'd give a percentage (no, I'm not going to actually use a number) increase to your set-up. But this may be more reasonable set for shooting them with the polyps out.

Rand

Rand,

Not at all implying that. In fact I think this forum has discussed reef crawling enough times that we all are more cognizant of our surroundings and how we use the reef etc. for stability. I use what I call the two finger cross-over method. That's when I take my left arm and cross it over to my right side and put two fingers on the reef (if that's the direction I need). Then I use the left arm as a platform for my right arm and camera. If there's no bottom in sight, I kick my fins to propel me and my fingers more securly onto the reef, thus improving my stability. That seems to give me amply stability as long as I am shooting 60th and above on shutter speed. Shooting the other way is next to impossible because housings are built for right handers, so shooting with my left hand doesn't work. I suppose I could turn the housing upside down .

I know that seafan at Nudi falls all too well. It is fairly user friendly for shooting pygmys. Here's one of mine from that sea fan. Maybe it's the one in your pic??

Joe

There were 4 Pygmy's on the fan at Nudi Falls. We'd go from one to the next as it seemed to stress them after a few shots. I could see them turning down and away in the viewfinder. Something about that bothered me so I'd move on.

The arm under method works well on another site that the Yellow ones were on. There it seemed that the bigger around their mouth got, the harder they were breathing. So I'd wrap it up if I saw that as well.

Rand

I recently found a fan at Wakatobi with 17 pygmees. I was asked by Wakatobi not to tell where it was, as it's actually on the house reef and unfortunately people do quite a bit of damage to the fans. What's cool is that at dusk they get together to 'greet' eachother, and I saw up to 7 of them hooked together. The moment your light shines on them they seperate, so I unfortunately dont have any really sharp images of that many.

A trick Julie and I often use when there's nothing to hold on to is hold on to eachother. One hovers and the other shoots while holding on to the person hovering. I love being a part of a photography couple

Another interesting thing Julie and I recently noticed is in our tripreport on our latest Solomon Islands trip. We found a denise on a totally different fan than it's usually on, and to me it looked significantly different than what the denise normally looks like. It doesnt quite show in the image, but it looked almost like what I would think a juvenile bargibanti would look like. We figured it must have come from a nearby real denise-fan, so on a second dive I looked around and found a fan with 7 or so denise pygmees, that did look like your normal denise. I have heard a theory once that denise and bargibanti may even be the same species.

See somewhere towards the end of our tripreport for the image, and for instance here for a denise image.

Arent they fun?

Cor

ps: sorry I cant include the actual images, im on a r e a l l y slow link right now, and up/downloading any image of almost undoable.

Very nice. I've just started try the 105 with the macromate. Nothing like that to brag about. It takes my breath away though how sharp my 105 can be when used properly.

Rand,

Have you considered a buoyancy collar for your long port? I know from experience that it will help you shoot super-macro a LOT.

Cheers

James

That's a great suggestion, James.

You can read more here: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9619

Cor, that's an interesting idea. While not shooting help support you dive buddy while they shoot. So simple yet I had never thought of it.

Cor, that's an interesting idea. While not shooting help support you dive buddy while they shoot. So simple yet I had never thought of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You think Rand will enjoy you fondling him underwater!?!?

This reminds me of a story about a sea lion that was trying to assist a buddy taking a picture.

Needless to say the buddy was rolling, laughing while he watched as the sea lion keep ...well, ...from behind, pushing/humping his buddy with the camera into the wall. And apparently the guy facing the wall with the camera thought his buddy was playing a joke on him.

Glad I wear a drysuit that's all I can say. Man I'd love to see a picture of that.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it fair to run those two calculations at the same distance? isn't the nikon more like a 150mm on the cropped sensor, so to make it apples to apples, I'd change the distance or change the lens, just for the calculation.

But the point really is, yeah, the nikon has less depth of field, but it has more power, and power matters. The nikon is not giving up something and getting nothing in return.

And even if it was, some people are going to like shallow depth of field. I really like it on the images with the polyps out.

I'm having trouble with the quoting, but people have done this with film, I think Chris Bangs has. His macro canon needs a weight belt, not a bouyancy collar.

Chris Bangs' rig

Chris Bangs' anemone fish eggs at 8or9:1

Chris Bangs gallery

an old description of his rigs I saved:

Cameras used, Fuji -S2 ,Nikon F-5,N-90,or 8008

Aquatica housings, Ikelite was used with the N-90 for up to 5:1

custom ports built using multiple extensions

Lens - Nikon Macro lens 105 mm or 200 mm

Kenko PRO 300 teleconveters ( 1.4x/2x/3x. single or stacked )

Multi element diopters as required for magnification

Note: your images can only be as good as the glass you use on the camera, the camera itself is not nearly as critical!

Strobes, Dual Ike 50, or Nikon SB-105 ( full manual mode )

Is it fair to run those two calculations at the same distance? isn't the nikon more like a 150mm on the cropped sensor, so to make it apples to apples, I'd change the distance or change the lens, just for the calculation.

 

But the point really is, yeah, the nikon has less depth of field, but it has more power, and power matters. The nikon is not giving up something and getting nothing in return.

 

And even if it was, some people are going to like shallow depth of field. I really like it on the images with the polyps out.

 

I'm having trouble with the quoting, but people have done this with film, I think Chris Bangs has. His macro canon needs a weight belt, not a bouyancy collar.

 

Chris Bangs' rig

 

Chris Bangs' anemone fish eggs at 8or9:1

 

Chris Bangs gallery

 

an old description of his rigs I saved:

 

Cameras used, Fuji -S2 ,Nikon F-5,N-90,or 8008

Aquatica housings, Ikelite was used with the N-90 for up to 5:1

custom ports built using multiple extensions

Lens - Nikon Macro lens 105 mm or 200 mm

Kenko PRO 300 teleconveters ( 1.4x/2x/3x. single or stacked )

Multi element diopters as required for magnification

Note: your images can only be as good as the glass you use on the camera, the camera itself is not nearly as critical!

Strobes, Dual Ike 50, or Nikon SB-105 ( full manual mode )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chris Bangs' shot has the EXIF info posted below the pic.

It's shot with a S2 pro, 105mm lens at F/16. Assuming you are correct about the Kenko teleconverter (a 2x), that would make the actual F-stop F/32. At that F-stop, the aperture ( the little hole in the diaphragm ) is the optical element that is the limiting factor not the glass, any of the popular macro lenses will have about the same performance. Also, you are right that the camera is not as critical, a 12M pixel D2X would not show higher resolution than the 6M pixel S2 pro.

Larger format helps, but only a little. I posted an anlysis here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?act=S...t=20#entry80286

It's a tradeoff between DOF and resolution. It's interesting to note that the focal length of the lense does not affect the outcome. That is for a given magnification, you'll get the same DOF at the same F-stop independent of focal length.

Chris Bangs' anemone fish eggs at 8or9:1

Hi Roger,

Could you explain how you got 8 or 9:1 for that picture ?

Thanks

Claude

Claude, Herb, the link titles and the bottom block of text are all from Chris Bangs. His rig always fascinated me and I've saved a couple clips on it and links to it, just thought I'd paste them in here. THe 8 or 9:1 calculation is his, the quote on lenses is his.

Herb, doesn't focal length matter in one parameter: you can stay farther away form the subject with a longer lens to get that same magnification of DOF, or am I missing something?

Herb, doesn't focal length matter in one parameter: you can stay farther away form the subject with a longer lens to get that same magnification of DOF, or am I missing something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. If you use a longer lens you have to move further away from the subject to get he same image for the parts in focus. Longer lens have less DOF for a given distance from the lens but DOF increases with subject-lens distance and the two cancels.

I've got a Canon 100mm macro on a 5D body and am considering the Canon 500D Close-up Lens on the front of this for super-macro.

Any opinions???