Beauty is in the fly of the beholder

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[JBW]

Nicely captured.

and especially as it was a hand held shot! (not bragging so much as pleasantly surprised)

[ajohnw]

Nice shot Brian.

You nearly tempted me to buy that camera I mentioned when you asked about bridge cameras recently. If I had I would have tried close up lenses on it to see if decent macro could be taken using just the telephoto settings to get extra working distance. My aim really was that I wanted a pocketable camera that covered most usable focal lengths, 28-300mm would be ideal for me and if a close up lens allowed macro so much the better, I think it's macro mode works at very short distances as all seem to. Anyway I decided to get an m 4/3 lens that covers the same range. Not pockitable but not much to carry around. For macro bridge appeals because of the huge depth of field however I wouldn't use the camera much so another lens makes more sense.

Looking around again I found this thread which might interest you

http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...=bridge+camera

You asked about microscopes recently and this sort of set up is easy to make. Timber, epoxy putty and all thread and a nut and handle to move the specimen. Or 2 macro slides can be used to knock something up. A T shaped one to get side to side and distance adjustment and a straight rail one to adjust the height of the specimen. The close up lenses used in the link, Raynox, can be found on the web. As can stacking software, there is even a free one about.

For normal macro work a close up lens might help. There is a calculator here

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...es-closeup.htm

Manufacturers don't give the information needed to use it for bridge cameras but if you photograph a rule, max telephoto length near it's closest focus you can work out the magnification your self. So say the normal view was 3in and you wanted 1in to fill the view the magnification would have to be increased by a factor of 3. You can get the actual lens focal length and the sensor sizes from the data sheets.

It really needs to be an achromatic close up lens but I might be inclined to buy a cheap set of ordinary ones to try the idea out first. I bought one achromat branded Canon and sent it back as it was hopeless. The seller informed me afterwards privately that he didn't think it was possible to buy them of Canon ???????? so I would avoid these. An older Sigma one bought used works really well on my Olympus 75-300mm zoom lens. In fact nearly all of the shots I have posted were taken with it. At full res I can see that things aren't perfect at 300mm but up to 200mm it's hard to see any difference to the results I get with the dedicated macro lens but the working distance is a lot greater. 300mm takes me past 1:1, ideal for me as the m 4/3 sensor is pretty big really. You don't have that problem with a bridge camera and will never need to get near 1:1 unless you want full frame small ants.

What bridge camera if you change? Can't really help but if close up lenses are used shorter focus distances on max telephoto should help as will excellent optics. The biggest problem really is just how good bridge camera lenses are at max telephoto. That's why I would be inclined to buy a cheap set of close up lenses to find out 1st. An achromatic one is likely to clean up a lot of fuzziness but heavily reduced shots should look so so ok with the cheap ones on. I found that was so up to adding a 4 dioptre one. That was too much for the set up. Seems this might not be the case with the Raynox close up lenses.

Excellent optics - I often feel the best bet is Canon or Olympus. Canon is probably safer but only on their more expensive kit. I would discount others I am afraid. You might find Canon bridge type camera specs are more complete as well. I've not looked.

John
-

[deetheturk]

Well captured B

[MrB]

Nice shot, and great title.

Cheers.
Philip

[Geoff F]

Certainly an interesting subject.

Rather looks as if it has been produced from all the left over spare parts!

[DanK]

Nice shot. I've never seen a hoverfly quite like that (but then again, you and I are halfway around the world from each other).

[Geoff F]

It can't be a hoverfly with wing veins like that - but I can't work out which family it is. Almost like some of the Stilt-legged Flies but that still doesn't make a lot of sense to me!

The spiky bum is similar to some Tachinidae species but I'm just wildly guessing now.

[JBW]

It can't be a hoverfly with wing veins like that - but I can't work out which family it is. Almost like some of the Stilt-legged Flies but that still doesn't make a lot of sense to me!

The spiky bum is similar to some Tachinidae species but I'm just wildly guessing now.

Have I discovered Platypusica Flyaticus?

[JBW]

Certainly an interesting subject.

Rather looks as if it has been produced from all the left over spare parts!

This may or may not help but he or she was about 3/4 of a Cm long?

[JBW]

Nice shot. I've never seen a hoverfly quite like that (but then again, you and I are halfway around the world from each other).

In the last year this is the first time I have seen this beasty.

[JBW]

Nice shot, and great title.

Cheers.
Philip

It did seem appropriate. She was very relaxed and allowed me to get quite close.

[JBW]

Well captured B

It was a good day as far as my tremors go so the hand held shot worked quite well.

[JBW]

Nice shot Brian.

it did work well.


Looking around again I found this thread which might interest you

http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...=bridge+camera

it did. I am planning for a studio in the future and that type of shooting is certainly something that is of interest.

You asked about microscopes recently and this sort of set up is easy to make. Timber, epoxy putty and all thread and a nut and handle to move the specimen. Or 2 macro slides can be used to knock something up. A T shaped one to get side to side and distance adjustment and a straight rail one to adjust the height of the specimen. The close up lenses used in the link, Raynox, can be found on the web. As can stacking software, there is even a free one about.

For normal macro work a close up lens might help. There is a calculator here

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...es-closeup.htm


What bridge camera if you change?
Excellent optics - I often feel the best bet is Canon or Olympus. Canon is probably safer but only on their more expensive kit. I would discount others I am afraid. You might find Canon bridge type camera specs are more complete as well. I've not looked.

John
-

The camera that is in first place as of now is the FinePix HS50XR. I imagine that there are are brands that have an equivalent but tbnis one has the advantage of actually beijg within my price range and sold in the Philippines.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig...r/accessories/

[ajohnw]

The camera that is in first place as of now is the FinePix HS50XR. I imagine that there are are brands that have an equivalent but tbnis one has the advantage of actually beijg within my price range and sold in the Philippines.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig...r/accessories/

looks like a considerable improvement over the earlier 1/2 ccd Fuji bridge camera I looked at Brian. A raw cam up more or less spot on without any adjustments.

I would still explore close up filters though Brian if I were you which I am not. The sets of none achromatic ones are cheap and would allow you to see if anything can be done with them. I suspect you might find it's possible to double the size of your smaller insects. Some makes of achromatic ones are relatively cheap and I have never seen anyone on ebay saying they wont ship to the Philipines. I suspect the used Sigma ones are amongst the best available and crop up now and again. The main thing is that the glass is larger or the same size as the front lens on the camera or larger. Adapters can then be used to make then fit - providing the camera does have a filter thread.

John
-

[JBW]

looks like a considerable improvement over the earlier 1/2 ccd Fuji bridge camera I looked at Brian. A raw cam up more or less spot on without any adjustments.

I would still explore close up filters though Brian if I were you which I am not. The sets of none achromatic ones are cheap and would allow you to see if anything can be done with them. I suspect you might find it's possible to double the size of your smaller insects. Some makes of achromatic ones are relatively cheap and I have never seen anyone on ebay saying they wont ship to the Philipines. I suspect the used Sigma ones are amongst the best available and crop up now and again. The main thing is that the glass is larger or the same size as the front lens on the camera or larger. Adapters can then be used to make then fit - providing the camera does have a filter thread.

John
-

Next year when i get the new camera I shall look into finding some. Thanks.