www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Jack Harrison wrote:Very conveniently, my partner Stella is teetotal...

So much for nominative determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism)!

Guy

Jack Harrison wrote:
Surprisingly the spelling is teetotal not teatotal. I thought the word was a pun on being only a tea drinker.

Jack

God love you, Jack.

padfield wrote:

Jack Harrison wrote:Very conveniently, my partner Stella is teetotal...

So much for nominative determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism)!

Guy

LOL!

Actually, there may be something in this. A few years back there was a rugby player called Royston Lightning.

Unsurprisingly he was a winger.

Furthermore, once christened Tyson Fury, was there ever any chance of this pugilist becoming a social worker?

I did buy it... and it seems very good, just need to try it out in the field now.

I'm pleased to see you have made a good choice. Seeing your models in the background leads me to point out that small-sensor cameras are excellent for model photography. I took this night scene on my model railway with a Lumix. It would be very difficult to achieve a similar depth of field using a DSLR.
Mike

MikeOxon wrote: It would be very difficult to achieve a similar depth of field using a DSLR.

P1080999 [640x480].JPG

Mike

But not impossible, this photo was taken with my DSLR with built in flash. The box of screws are about 45cm
away from the butterfly magazine, and i could achieve a higher depth of field if required.This photo was taken at 11.20pm.

hideandseek wrote:But not impossible

Indeed - though you were having to use a 35mm lens at f/22. Such a small aperture means that overall sharpness is limited by diffraction and you can't get the best out of your lens. I showed the Lumix example to illustrate how this sort of photo comes naturally to a compact (settings were 1/30s @ f/3.3). Padfield makes excellent use of compact capability for his butterflies set in the context of the Swiss landscape.

I use a DSLR for most of my photography but recognise that compacts have their own virtues. Thinking about it, the tiny sensor and 5mm lens on my Lumix are probably fairly close to being in scale with my model, when compared with the full-plate stand camera, which would have been used for the real thing in the 1890s!

Mike

full-plate stand camera, which would have been used for the real thing in the 1890s!

Just curious. Does anyone here have any actual experience of using plate cameras? (and I don't mean in the 1890s but in say the 1960s - they were still around then if not later).

Jack

Pansonic Lumix FZ38 (Bridge Compact). Peacock 11th March. No supplementary lens. Taken from about 1 metre range. Slight crop then resize.


Ladybirds taken with a +2 achromatic supplementary lens (same but cheaper than Panasonic's own brand version) from range of about 45 cms.

The Ladybird pic is pushing the camera to its macro limits.

Jack

EricY wrote:

P1070252 SEO.jpg

Had my fz150 for about 5 weeks now & very pleased with it. Reviews & user comments on the web are very complimentary, so much so that it seems many who can no longer carry dslr's or do not want to are buying it. It has a swivel screen & mp is dropped to 12 from the 14 of the fz100 for better IQ. With my Sony 1758tc attached it is good for birding etc. Attaching a pic of a SEO flying about 70yds away, sooc apart from crop. Eric

Eric, I would be very interested to hear about the macro capabilites of the FZ150. Also I am interested to know how well cameras such as this zoom when in macro. I use a little Canon compact and I have to get very close to the butterflies and then suffer with the short depth of field. I would love something that can zoom into the butterfly from a couple of metres away.

I have had a chance to play with the camera now and must say i am very happy with the results, it will be perfect for getting nearer to those Butterflies that refuse a close-up.