It's 2am: 26th Edition... Crazy Shizz My Roger Says...

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14119568
What camera did you drop?

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14119581
I want to know to... but i think from what I gathered his D700 and 24-70 (in rain????)

hows it Tom?

he dropped his d700+grip along with his 105mm. his grip broke and is not replaceable and his flash mount is messed up. i think he dropped the 24-70 too

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14119568
What camera did you drop?

His precious antque D700 and lens. He got spooked by rain.

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14119621
Its good. Slow, but good.

its slow here also.... the rain calms things down a bit.... shouldnt you have your elite special forces teams doing some water survival?

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14119618
just had lunch
http://www.healthychoi​ce.com …d-Chicken-Noodle-2106.jpg
ate one of these /\/\/\ I was amazed to read that this bowl is actuall 2 servings.... of soup but i probably at a total of 13 noodles.... if half of this is a serving then im eating WAY to much according to healthy chouce

How many calories PER serving?

DTBaan wrote in post #14119631
he dropped his d700+grip along with his 105mm. his grip broke and is not replaceable and his flash mount is messed up. i think he dropped the 24-70 too

ohhh man not good

Blurr Cube wrote in post #14119632
His precious antque D700 and lens. He got spooked by rain.

way to be sympathetic Farlet haha

Blurr Cube wrote in post #14119640
How many calories PER serving?

90 cal
10 fat cal
390mg of sodium

wuzzittoya wrote in post #14117218
Roger, you've got some good fog images, too. Will have to be looking for those in the future. I thought I got some good pictures today, at least from a technical perspective. I've decided that I really need to invest in a monopod. When I'm pulling over to take just one shot of something (okay it usually ends up being more like five) I seem to be too lazy to get out a tripod and set it up for it. I think a monopod would be something I'd be a little more willing to use and it would improve my pixel-level sharpness (hey, I'm planning on submitting for microstock so I have to look that close - it's not just obsession here).

Thanks Kenji - hubby offered to help me get the 100mm f/2.8 IS lens, but he wants me to wait until May to get it... I know it's only a month and a half, but right now I can afford the 60mm or one of the Sigma/Tamron versions the beginning of next month (which is a whole month earlier). So hard to be patient!

Wuzzi, I have a few suggestions.

First, monopods and other supports:

You should definitely get a monopod. It will significantly increase stability, especially for non-IS lenses, something a lot of us need. Besides, a good rugged monopod can also double as a walking staff, a not-insignificant benefit. We use this one: http://www.manfrotto.u​s …tion-monopod-holds-265lbs. Dont let the 26.5 lb load limit fool you. It's great as a staff.

Put a head on your monopod. You don't need or even necessarily want a full ball head. We found a monopod head actually does a better job by eliminating the side tilt. We use this one: http://www.manfrotto.u​s …ad-with-rc-plate-200pl-14. It has the same quick-release system we use on our tripod. A plain one without the quick-release (for use with no or other quick-release systems) is, of course, available.

If you are the stop-the-car-I-want-to-take-a-picture type (and it sounds like you are), get a car window pod. Let the car window be your tripod! Quick on, quick off, and you don't have to get out of the car: We use this one: http://www.manfrotto.u​s …d-243-w-tilt-top-rc-234rc. Again, a non-quick-release version is available.

Also, for when you're just wandering around, keep a chainpod in your pocket. You'll have to make one yourself, since nobody seems to make them anymore (at least, I haven't seen one). A chainpod consists of a 1/4-20 wing bolt (available at virtually any hardware store) attached to a length of lightweight chain. Screw the wingbolt into the camera's tripod socket and let the chain drop to the ground. By standing on the end of the chain and pulling up on the camera until the chain is taught, you will gain in image stability almost as much as a monopod! The bolt and chain can be very lightweight and easily slip into a pocket when not in use. We drilled a hole in one of the wingbolt's wings to fasten the chain.

Now, to macro lenses.

First, forget the whole maximum magnification thing. Maximum magnification had some relevance back in the days of film when measurements of a object could be taken directly from the negative. You can't do that with a digital sensor.

Instead, consider the lens' minimum field size. The minimum field size of a lens is the smallest in-focus field (containing an object, presumably) that will just fill the sensor. This is a function not only of the lens' maximum magnification, but of the sensor size as well. You can find the minimum field size for macro and other lenses in my POTN Lens Tables: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=257659.

For those not using Canon cameras, or those who are just curious, the formulas for lens' minimum field size and other parameters can be found in the Master Lens Table Instructions, but not the normal Instructions. Anyone can get a copy of the Master Lens Tables, with their Instructions, by PMing me their email address and asking for them. If you're a Noink, do so politely.

Next, determine carefully what kind of macro you wish to do. A macro lens' minimum focusing distance (how close you can get to your subject) is a function of its focal length: the smaller the focal length, the closer you can get. And just to confuse the issue, the minimum focusing distance is measured from the film plane (sensor plane), not from the end of the lens. This surprises people when the minimum focus distance of a lens is listed as 9", but the lens itself is 6" when focused.

The advantage of a short minimum focus distance is that it is easier to hold the camera steady to capture an image when you are very close to the object. The disadvantage is that objects with a choice don't like you to get that close and tend to leave. The advantage of a longer minimum focus distance is that objects with a choice don't get so spooked and you can get those shots of small critters. The disadvantage is that it is harder to hold the camera steady.

The steadiness is an angular thing. If your lens moves through an arc of 0.01° because of hand shake, an object 9" from the film plane will have an apparent motion only one-quarter that of an object 18" from the film plane.

Since most macro lenses have 1:1 magnification, the ideal focal length for a given macro shot depends heavily on the type of subject. Obviously, still subjects (flowers, etc) are easier to capture than moving subjects, and skittish subjects (butterflies, lizards, etc.) are hardest of all. In general, use short focal length lenses for still subjects and longer focal length lenses for moving subjects.

Just to complicate the issue, the focal length will drastically affect your control over depth of field. Consider a bug that just fills the frame when the lens is at 1:1 magnification (at its minimum focus distance). The depth of field with a 60mm macro lens at f/4 will be radically different than the depth of field with a 180mm macro lens at f/4. Hence, the overall effect of the captured image will be radically different.

In capturing object such as bugs, it is often necessary to stop down the aperture well beyond what one would do for normal (non-macro) images. This is because a macro shot with a large aperture often has a paper-thin depth of field. The stopping down to f/22 or even smaller is often necessary to get the whole object in focus. Yes, it's a trade off, but all of life is compromise.

In our Canon days, shooting with a 30D, we had two macro lenses: the Canon 60mm and the Sigma 150mm. The were both superb lenses, with very high IQ from max to min. For our purposes, which was mostly bugs and other small critters, the 60mm turned out to not be an ideal lens for us. The flying bugs didn't like it, and the lizards absolutely hated it. For someone else shooting different subjects, the 60mm may be the perfect lens.

That left our 150mm. The Sigma 150mm was our overall favorite lens. Not only was it a superb macro lens, it was also a primo portrait lens and a damned good general-purpose walk-around lens: long enough to be practical for nature photography, but not so long as to be overly cumbersome. We often coupled it with a 1.4× TC (giving an effective 210mm) for general nature work. Bear in mind that this was on a 30D, so this gave us the angle of view or "reach" of a 336mm lens on a full-frame body.

Sigma now has a new 150mm macro with OS witch I would get in a heartbeat if we still shot Canon.

People often asked us why we opted for the 150mm rather than the 180mm. There were three reasons.

First, the minimum focus distance of the 180mm, the reason to go with a long focal length in the first place, is not significantly longer than that of the 150mm. There's not a lot to gain.

Second, the Sigma 150mm is an f/2.8 lens whereas the Canon and Sigma 180mm are f/3.5 lenses. In some macro work that little bit of brightness can make the difference between flash or no flash. Flash often requires setups to control shadows and other such things, even if it's only to move a small branch out of the way, and those damned critters just didn't like to wait around.

Last, the Canon or Sigma 180mm are both quite a bit larger and heavier than the Sigma 150mm. This can get really old really fast when you're lugging it around, getting down, getting up, and all the other fun things us macro photographers have to do.

I hope this has been helpful and given you something to think about. And do go fetch those POTN Lens Tables. You'll find them really helpful, especially if you read the Instructions (that's where the nitty-gritty is). If you want a copy of the Master Tables (Word .docx files), just PM me your email address.

20droger wrote in post #14119650
Second, the Sigma 150mm is an f/2.8 lens whereas the Canon and Sigma 180mm are f/3.5 lenses. In some macro work that little bit of brightness can make the difference between flash or no flash.

You've shot a lot of macro at f/2.8? Man, I never seem to be able to get everything I'm shooting sharp with that thin of a DOF.

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14119644
ohhh man not good

way to be sympathetic Farlet haha

Heh. Steven is having the camera looked at by a repair shop. The grip he says he'll "glue" together since his RRS L bracket is specific to the grip. I know Steven takes care of his gear though.

Maybe subconsciously he wanted to drop the camera so he can get a D800.

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14119649
90 cal
10 fat cal
390mg of sodium

180 calories total for lunch? No... that's a snack.

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14119625
Hey Julian what are you doing up?

I'm off today.

Blurr Cube wrote in post #14119724
Heh. Steven is having the camera looked at by a repair shop. The grip he says he'll "glue" together since his RRS L bracket is specific to the grip. I know Steven takes care of his gear though.

Maybe subconsciously he wanted to drop the camera so he can get a D800.

lol maybe.... ill take a D400

Blurr Cube wrote in post #14119734
180 calories total for lunch? No... that's a snack.

yeah I know Im about to eat my oatmeal I didnt eat this morning.... Damn this eating smaller portions thing im doing... its torture.... But I want to shrink my stomach some since im used to eating alot.. from 4 slices of pizza to 2.... or 3 egg omlet to 2 egg whites kinda thing.... not really changing my diet but just portion amounts... Im eating 5 small meals a day that way I dont snack to much

jdizzle wrote in post #14117777
^Nice.

Perversion as promised.

Fixed.

jdizzle wrote in post #14119747
I'm off today.

how is the wee munchkin?

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #14119763
lol maybe.... ill take a D400

yeah I know Im about to eat my oatmeal I didnt eat this morning.... Damn this eating smaller portions thing im doing... its torture.... But I want to shrink my stomach some since im used to eating alot.. from 4 slices of pizza to 2.... or 3 egg omlet to 2 egg whites kinda thing.... not really changing my diet but just portion amounts... Im eating 5 small meals a day that way I dont snack to much

Yeah, it's tough. You just gotta keep at it. It's gonna take a while for your body to adjust. Keeping a log or journal may help just to remind you of what you're eating if anything. Good luck.