Moose,
Nice Pics. I get approximately that size when I have the Macro Lens on the
14-45 at 45 mm. It is smaller than that, like where you have this Orchid
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/BlakeHouse0703/pages/_MG_0865fps.htm
but only one orchid. If that is a full sized pic, I could live with that as
it does have field of depth.
Here is the page of Super Macros I posted to the <apparently> much disliked
Flickr (though no one liked the free Kodak site at all and you can't blow
much of anything up on my paid www.picturetrail.com/bigbasin site)
Lichens;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55838750@N00/sets/72157594514189976/
The tooth pic is the ruler, it is 2 mm across.
Note the loss of field of depth with the red lichens, though portions are
very crisp.
Many of the flowers I deal with are 1/2 an inch, 1/4th is pretty common,
most people don't even notice them.
When this one blooms, I want a much closer better shot than I got some years
ago
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1506749&uid=695857
this one is 1/10th of an inch.
Boy is this site out of date, this is a small leaved Montia. This one is
1/4th of an inch
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1363577&uid=695857
look at the following picture, I made sure there was something of size that
could give an idea of size, the redwood needles and Maple leaves are
something many people might be familiar with.
These were taken in my first year with a digital camera, the old C-3000, I
don't think I even had a macro lens then.
Again, thanks for sharing your page, and thinking of me when you posted your
very nice pics! I'm still WAY behind in mail, I just spotted the thread I
posted in hopes that it might still actually be about Mini Macro stuff! We
won't get in trouble with the list Nanny for this will we? <smile>
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Moose
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:06 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
Scott Peden wrote:
> ....................
> I have an EX 25 on the way and am still watching for a 65-116, though that
> is going to be hard on the empty wallet, so I['m working on filling the
> wallet again.
>
I really don't know why you need a 65-116. In fact, I'm becoming
convinced that you aren't taking the best approach to this whole business.
First, let's test my assumptions. I had a very pleasant visit to the
Blake House gardens yesterday. I haven't paid much attention to small
flowers in the recent past. So here was an opportunity to try taking
pics of quite a few of them. Bright sunny day, but around the creeks,
there are redwoods and other trees creating lots of quite shady spots.
As I understand it, you need to be able to take pics of v. small
flowers, etc. fairly quickly and without tripod. So I tried that. Almost
no complete losses, but I did need more DOF in some. First time I've
done this in some time and first time ever with this equipment, so I
have some learning to do.
In any case, here are the results, including those with too little DOF.
Two or three flowers are over 1". The others all smaller, down to about
1/4 inch. Is this generally the kind of results you are trying to get
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net//BlakeHouse0703/>?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|