I didn't quite understand what you did with the 2 x converter, I did follow
the jar lid and the 7 mm lens. It might be handy to have something like that
for the occasional small item, but I think at 7 mm.... that might be smaller
than anything I need to shoot, though I want to see the composition of those
grains of pollen, now that I think of it. Where I am at, the Coastal
redwoods and Douglas Firs are huge, and everything else is tiny trying to
get what little sunshine gets past the forest giants. That little 'cricket'
in the moss was a real find, we cold hardly see it by eye.
Pixels per metric is a good measuring device, I was introduced to it by my
other camera buddy, the one that claims I am a very expensive friend (he's
now bought TWO Olys when he was going to get one cheaper Canon, just
keeping up with what I am doing and of course, since he has time and a bit
better equipment is producing better pics than myself. I'll have to get a
day to spend with him when I have a macro lens.
Thanks for your comments too.
Do you have a pic of the composition of Ice or frost yet? Here is a project
to while away the last of winter, get two that look the same..... but have
fun doing it!
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Dan Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:15 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
Moose wrote:
> If this is an exercise to have a lot of fun fussing around with
> cheap ways to use stuff in complex and inconvenient ways, forget I said
> anything.
Stepping in here -- <ding!> That's a lot of what I'm doing with the
reversed lenses. Sure, I can get stupidly close, but I've been meaning
to do something with one of the junky old 2x converters I have sitting
around for ages.
> First, I am not suggesting that you get a 90 mm lens.
That said, this prompted me to retrieve the Viv S1 90/2.5 1:1 macro
off the shelf, and _wow_, is it ever a more pleasant experience taking
photos with that than with the reversed 7mm.. For one thing, at f2.5 it
actually _feels like_ f2.5, whereas the 7mm at "f1.9" is still pretty
dark, and for another, while I'm further away, it's a lot easier to
frame things up when I don't lose focus because of my pulse..
(final frame size there at max.magnification is 18mm across. Duh,
because it's 1:1 but I have 2x crop factor..)
> The camera I used
> for my examples has a sensor roughly twice as large as the one in your
> E-500. To get about the same working distance and angle of view on the
> E-500 that I had on the 5D, I am suggesting a 50 mm lens.
Possibly the most useful metric here is be pixels-per-millimetre (of
_subject_) -- that would let us ignore crop factors, or alternatively
make it possible to take into account cropping in photoshop.
So, on an E-330, this lens gives me 174 pixels/mm. On the 5D, it'd get
me, lessee here, 121 pixels/mm, because while there's a heck of a lot
more pixels to go around, there's no "free magnification" from cropping.
(my previous macro camera, Coolpix 4500, gets 133 pixels/mm).
DOF stuff I don't understand either, I'll admit, except that the 4500
has heaps of it.
> Using an f2 auto lens, you will find the viewfinder image much brighter.
> For macro, you will be shooting stopped down a lot, but the fast lens
> makes the viewfinder brighter for framing and focusing. Focusing at a
> larger aperture also makes the visual DOF when focusing very shallow, so
> it is easier to set the focal plane at just the right distance.
Seconded to all of this -- I also find that the E-330's live view
refreshes a lot more quickly with lots of light coming in, presumably
because it can take a bright-enough exposure at 60fps; when it's darker,
the view refreshes noticeably more slowly.
> That is exactly what the E-330 is for. In B live view macro mode, you
> see on the LCD using the actual sensor that will capture the image. The
> LCD is adjustable for angle to make low angle shots easier, you can
> enlarge the image 10x on the screen for precise focus, and the DOF you
> see on the screen is exactly what you will get in the final image.
I don't find the precise focus all that helpful for macro myself, but
that's possibly because I'm always aiming for as much DOF as I can get,
so it's not as critical as it is with (say) astrophotography, where
not-quite-infinity is very different to actually infinity.
> The E-330 is arguably the finest SLR made to date for macro work.The
> E-510 will lose the adjustable angle screen, but gain anti-shake.
For static subjects sitting on a table, the flip-out screen isn't as
much of a big deal, because either I'm taking a photo from above and
beside, in which case I can frame things up hand-held, or if it's more
awkward I'm using a tripod and then can take my time.
In the field, though, it's great.
> The OM Zuiko 50 mm macros have a longer focusing helicoid so they can
> focus to 1:2, rather then the 1:10 of the normal 50 mm lenses.
And the vivitar 55/2.8 takes this to extremes, focussing all the way
down to 1:1, at which point the lens has pretty much doubled in length.
>> So you now see little flowers too!
> Not entirely new to me, I just haven't done it for a while, nor with
> digital equipment.
Whereas I'm still waiting for spring, and have taken pretty much all
the closeup photos of snow I feel I can take. (actually, not strictly
speaking true, but I haven't worked out how to catch an individual
snowflake to photo it yet).
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|