Bees

[DanK]

Rita,

Paper towel works fine too. My other diffuser is a sto-fen plastic diffuser with an extra layer of diffusing plastic inside and two layers of paper towel on the outside. Here is a shot taken with that diffuser (using a 36mm extension tube, which you can see in the photo of my other diffuser, to get closer):



John--I'm not sure what your point is about magnification. One can't tell the magnification or distance to the subject without knowing how much the image was cropped, but if one doesn't crop, this is in the vicinity of 1:1. A Canon crop sensor is roughly 22mm across, and a honeybee is perhaps 12 mm or so long. So a bee taking up half the frame is roughly 1:1. That is much closer than your shot of a butterfly and close enough to have very thin depth of field.

Dan

[ajohnw]

Just for interest a link to a 100% resolution crop of the butterfly shot. Just given a sharpen as the camera jpg sharpening etc is off.

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/16675938/original

John
-

[ajohnw]

Rita,

John--I'm not sure what your point is about magnification. One can't tell the magnification or distance to the subject without knowing how much the image was cropped, but if one doesn't crop, this is in the vicinity of 1:1. A Canon crop sensor is roughly 22mm across, and a honeybee is perhaps 12 mm or so long. So a bee taking up half the frame is roughly 1:1. That is much closer than your shot of a butterfly and close enough to have very thin depth of field.

Dan

Olympus put the focus distance in the exif so I could work it out roughly. You mentioned F11 but Rita has way more dof than you might have realised at the distance she took the shot at.

In a round about way I was suggesting that Rita needs to try to get closer and also pointing out the problems involved in using a mirrorless camera for macro especially hand held. At the distance Rita took these shots at she has large depth of field even a F11. Must admit I got the numbers wrong. As taken she had a dof of more than 22mm. Actually given the pixel size of 16mp m 4/3 she might have obtained a sharper image at F8 but the dof would be reduced to 16mm. Even f5.6 might show a further improvement., dof would still be more than 11mm. This the main problem with the system. Tiny pixels which also means it's best to use dedicated m 4/3 lenses as well. It pays to get as close as possible rather than crop but some mix of the 2 seems to be the best option because at 1:1 there isn't a lot of working distance in front of the lens. I reckon circa 80mm at 1:1 which actually isn't bad for a 60mm lens. Take Rita's shot from around 300mm which I what I would use and the dof drops off a lot to 2mm and I think she will find she has to use AF. At that distance the DOF calculator reckons the F8, F11 doesn't really make any difference F14 ups it to 4mm. In real terms I reckon the figures it gives are lower than what will be obtained in practice.

John
-

PS I would say that the buttercup in the shot I posted is around 20mm across. The m 4/3 sensor is 17.3mm across and it is the full frame. A "smaller" butterfly. The lot would have been in focus I I had the camera angled correctly.
-

[zkogut]

Nice bee shots. I use a nice flat white diffuser and a SB600 flash. It has worked well for me when photographing butterflies.

[Wavelength]

Excellent images

[Rita]

Dan, at this point in time extension tubes are something I don't have. Possibly in the future I will look into them. Nice butterfly

Zak and Nandakumar thank you.

John, I appreciate you commenting, and no offence, but your calculations are right over my head.

[DanK]

Rita,

My unsolicited advice: forget about extension tubes for now. The closer you get, the harder it is. Wait until you are really comofortable with the macro lens alone. That may take some time. Then get yourself a set (the ideal is the Kenko set, which has 12, 20, and 36mm, which can be combined), and start with a small extension, like 12mm. When you are comfortable with that, move up.

A 36mm tube on a 100mm lens, which is reasonably close in magnification to a 20mm tube on your 60mm lens, is a nice combination for bug hunting.

[Rita]

Dan, I 100% agree. As for "unsolicited advice", I am always open to feedback and advice

[ajohnw]

I have played with M 4/3 extension tubes. I get the impression that as the camera knows what lens is fitted but doesn't know there is an extension tube on the auto focusing gets messed up. The earlier 4./3 extension tubes tell the camera that one is fitted some how or the other. No doubt Olympus will bring some M 4/3 ones out at some point that will do the same thing. The Chinese ones that are about are ok and manual focus assist will still function without any problems. My recollection is that they have reducing effect as the lens focal length goes up. The only advantage they might offer is a greater working distance when used on a longer focal length lens than the macro lens and results probably wont be so good. They come in sets of 2, a 10 and 16mm one which isn't a lot of extension.

My calc's were to satisfy Dan's curiosity Rita. On the other hand I do think you should try working a bit closer with the camera squared up to the subject so minimum DOF is needed and just try some put the focus square in the right position and press the button type shooting. F14 may be a suitable number. The main thing is to position the focus square on the insect so that it uses it rather than the flower to focus. I'd suggest a distance of 300mm / 12in for this. The IS will cope with a fair amount of shake when the shot is taken. Shake might cause it to focus on something other than the subject so I often go click click and take two shots when I can. Even more sometimes. Success rate hasn't been that bad either. Most failures would be cured by using flash as there wasn't enough light about. If you are shooting at twice this distance you could try the same thing at F8 or even F5.6. It might give sharper images. You could also try continuous AF at any distance.

My problem with the Olympus macro lens is I found a 4/3 sigma 100mm macro lens on ebay and have spent more time using that with an AF adapter. Greater working distance for the same magnification but I'm getting the impression that it isn't up to Olympus standards. The Olympus lens is currently on the camera waiting for some insects to come around here. Not sure why but they seem thin on the ground at the moment. I look twice a day. I may be off to Wales again in a week or so and there are plenty about there.

John
-

[Mark von Kanel]

hi all,

ive posted a related tread in the wrong place! im hoping the mods will move it but i could use your help! please look at this thread and give any advice you can.

My Bee problems