Shooting macro with the 105mm and 2xTC

Hi,

Could someone give some advice on where to get diopters to fit an aquatica macro port, which size(?) or number is a good one to start off with. I shoot with the 105mm and 2x Tele a lot but really struggle at night, especially with lighting. I use 2 ds 125 strobes with manual adjustment. Any hints?

Thanks a lot

Ivan B)

Email Aquatica direct.

What you need is a Woody's wet diotper (Ryan from Reef Photo sells them and he is a site sponsor) and Aquatica have a custom made piece that fits the front of the Aquatica macro port with three set screws to secure it to the port face.

Pm me also if you need further assistance after emailing them.

Todd

Thanks a lot, will contact you if there are any other questions

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I posted the answer to some of your questions here:

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

Hi,

Great shots from Lembeh, especially the bartender shot. I love the composition! I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question but here goes: while Rand mentioned that he cropped his image, I come across photos of super macro images in discussion groups and when I hear how the shot was taken I realize it is probably not possible to shoot them the way the photographer says he did.

For example I have seen pygmies from Indonesia and they look greatly magnified. I have no problem with what people do to their photos. It is their work afterall. But when I hear someone say an image is not cropped, only to find out it was taken with a 60mm lens, a 2xtele and digital camera and it is extreme supermacro, it makes me wonder how the shot was taken. How does one achieve such magnification on an image when you really are limited by certain parameters such as your equipment in this case. You can only get so close with certain equipment which will dictate your final output. Are they cropping and not telling?

Even if they are, I still love all the work I see and it does not matter. It just helps keep discussion of such things on the right track. I know Chris Bangs has done lots of super macro both on film and digital and I have seen lots of his work from diving with him. I also know he doesn't do much cropping and I consider him an expert in this field. Perhaps he or someone else can shed some light on the matter and even do the math for the closest distance one can get with the 60mm 2x tele and a nikon digital SLR for example. I am just curious. In any case keep up the great shots everybody! I love all the macro and have been to the Lembeh Straight 3 times myself last year. It is awesome. P.S. Sorry if I put this in the wrong place but I wanted to mention it.

Doug

How does one achieve such magnification on an image when you really are limited by certain parameters such as your equipment in this case.  You can only get so close with certain equipment which will dictate your final output.  Are they cropping and not telling?

 

Perhaps he or someone else can shed some light on the matter and even do the math for the closest distance one can get with the 60mm 2x tele and a nikon digital SLR for example.

 

Doug

Hi Doug, I just happen to have my rig set up with a 60mm and 2xTC (I use this instead of a normal 105mm as it gives me more options). No formulas, but some emperical information.

If I rack this out as far as I can, my minimal distance is 6 cm (about 2.5 inch). This is not only dictated by the minimal focus distance of the lens, but also by the physical attributes of the port. I have done this often under water, so I no doubt someone can get that close. Ive even done this with pygmees, without touching anything. All it takes is buoancy control and a mind melt with your housing That close though a lot of critters dont behave normally. A 105 with 2xTC is a better choice for something like a pygmee if you wanted maximum magnification.

The image I get with this setup is about 1.3mm wide, and about 9mm high (give or take a bit, i was just quickly measuring by holding a ruler).

My wife just happens to have a 105+2xTC set up. It's not a surprise that the minimal distance for that setup is 12cm. Again slightly dictated by the port. It's got some outer edges for protection that I think should be taken into account. The image size should be the same if her camera was a D2x also, but since it's an F100 I wont bother measuring.

Also remember that a bargibanti is quite a bit bigger than a denise, so even if the second image was cropped, it doesnt have to be much of a crop depending on the size of the bargibanti. Maybe rand can post the original image.

Cor

Thanks Cor,

I pretty much use the same setup for my F100 and D70 as well, and have success shooting supermacro although it sometimes can be nerve racking. I wish I had some to post at the moment. I just wanted to hear discussion on some cropping issues that are relative to super macro but thanks for including the number crunching. I know the range is extremely small. There's nothing like a 105 with a 2xtc and then seeing blue ring octopus mate! Oh well, that's the beauty of Lembeh, anything can happen! P.S. Nice website!

Doug

Hi Sloss,

How does one achieve such magnification on an image when you really are limited by certain parameters such as your equipment in this case. You can only get so close with certain equipment which will dictate your final output. Are they cropping and not telling?

First off, let me say thankyou. Saying you have doubts about the photos only re-inforces the reason why I posted this information. Guess you could say the results are: "Unbelievable".

Here's the full frame of the Bartender. In retrospect, it probably should have been posted this way to begin with as I feel it stands on it's own with out the negative space removed:

Rand

I'm curious as to how people are defining their cropping...

Rand, you stated earlier the shot was a roughly 15% crop. By my standards and using the original for the comparison, it turns out to be roughly a 35% crop by length (of top or bottom) measurements (leaving a remaining 65% of original by length), and a 55% crop by area comparison (leaving a remaining 45% of original by area).

I PMed you an example of a 15% crop by length, you can choose to post it or not.

~Matt Segal

You're right, I made the estimation based on the reduced image size on the width and didn't add in the length. I also corrected the orginal estimate. You're two for two. Didn't realize the nit-picking negativity this thread would generate. I won't start another.

Rand

Well maybe I should have posted my oceanic positivity earlier: your stuff rocks, I love the images, but the ability to capture such shots is far beyond my capabilities or imagination still ... so I read the thread in silent awe.

Great stuff. May we have another, please, Rand?

More Rand ......let's don't let the number crunchers dampen a good learning and sharing opportunity

Karl

Didn't realize the nit-picking negativity this thread would generate. I won't start another.

 

Rand

I saw a lot of nitpicking, but no negativity. Your OP was very nice, and useful to lots of people that want to try this stuff. I see it often on liveaboards where people think its some kind of magic to get that high magnification, while all it takes is the right camera setup and practice. I actually do quite a few dives just practicing supermacro manual focus. Helps for when you only have those few dives someplace in PNG

Cor

Rand - no nit-picking here. These images ROCK and I'd love to see more. Unfortunately great art has again been dissected to technical minutia. These are some of the finest macro images I've seen yet!!! Just imagine how much better they'd be shot on FF camera in RAW with this curve blah blah blah;)

Great Shooting!!! These are the threads that keep me reading WP.

My apologies for turning this thread into an apparent negative one on nice photo work. I would encourage everyone to REREAD my original post before continuing. I guess I did not explain myself clearly enough. My original question had nothing to do with your image or your crop. I was trying jumpstart a discussion relative to supermacro and also include digital's ability to be able to crop a spectacular super macro shot as well. Next time I will start a separate thread on a clean post. Rand, you will see I complimented your work and nowhere in my post was there a critique (nitpicking). I think it is a great shot and would love to see more. Please reread my post to see what I mean. Hope I didn't offend. My sincerest apologies if I did! As far as what I tried to achieve, I would like to thank Cor for your input. It was nice to get a well explained answer for people to digest relative to distances and setup. I have long give up on the numbers game and just pull the trigger! Thanks for the math lesson. Peace everybody!

Sloss, no offense taken. It's the left brainers that drive me crazy. So, in reponse, I'll post this snoot shot for something completely different:

FULL FRAME!!!!!

Fabulous lighting, that ... I like the isolation of the front of the fish and the ghostliness of the tentacles.

Great lighting on this shot Rand.

Hi Rand, remember it takes all kinds - and it seems like all kinds posted here...:-) If any of my remarks were offensive, I apologize. This has been one of the most useful thread in a long time for us Wetpixel members. That's why it's even linked in from the homepage.

Cheers

James

James, no problem at all with your comments. And I appreciate the headline

Rand