Canon 5D Mk II

[FISHiEE]

I tend to follow Canon and Nikon model progress quite closely. Moreso in the last couple of years I guess as Nikon has closed the quite considerable gap. I think I read they are actually the Market leaders for SLR's not Canon? Sony now I know also as they are coming up fast - though I have only ever seen one in the field!

Full frame v crop - hm... I do not know exactly how much dof you loose having never shot full frame but if you could fill the frame, and for the larger species this should be easy and still get enough DOF, you would win big time surely. If I'm at the same subject distance as now with my 8mp crop sensor then my 20mpix+ full frame sensor image cropped down will be the same, but when I can get closer and get the DOF I'd have bags more detail.

Getting that close for non-insect species is tricky sure but in the right situations you can shoot insects on a tripod F16 or more, flash if necessary and fill the frame.

Do I want generally better all round images or do I want those real corkers now to be real real.

I convert my raws to 16 bit TIFF in lightroom then play in photoshop with those. You can't make tiffs larger than the native res with lightroom (1.4 at least). I did notice you can do that in photoshop though I haven't really used photoshop much to open raws. I woondered if it did anything better than upsizing a 16bit tiff but haven't experimented. I just love the colours I get straight out of lightroom. Before that I used Capture One (Paid for it even as it's way better than the crappy bundled Canon RAW software!) but with Lightroom the default profiles for the camera mean the image is pretty much as I want it when I load up the Raw. With Capture One (And Photoshop I think from memory) there was more fiddling required before producibg the TIFF.

I remembered that I have a 6mpix image from my old 10D blown up as a poster which must be 4x3ft and that looked good under close scrutiny from memory. It's burried under all my print mounting gear right now. Not sure if that's down to the printing or the work on the image file (I supplied a full res TIFF possibly 8 bit back then). I also had very small crops of images printed as 10x8's ok. They were done by jessops and the poster was produced by a falconry centre where the pic was taken and sold in their shop. In both instances printed on something a tad better than my 300 quid epson...

[Gruditch]

Try this site http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html Fishiee



Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

Hm... I was at that site yesterday... at a distance of 1 ft from my camera I have 1 dof regardless of aperture it says... I therefore decided not to bother with it

[FISHiEE]

Oh no hang on. I missread it... it does give useful info... but not for macro. Needs a few more decimal places as it doesn't show any dof at 1ft until f22!

[Gruditch]

I did have a good site in my favourite's, but I formatted recently and now I can't find it again.

Gruditch

[eccles]

I note Eccles that you call me Gary when your being nice, and Gruditch when your not, if you call me Gruditch at the Workshop in April, I'll know to headlock you.

There must be something freudian in there somewhere as I had no idea that I was doing it. I would tend to call you 'Gruditch' when referring to you in the third person since not everyone would know you by your real name. In any case I thought I was always nice to you, even when I thought you were wrong. However, if you prefer me to call you by your given name rather than your nick, I shall do so.

[Paul]

Having tried to read some of this lot I'm now totally confused again. .. can I ask some more, probably remedial questions. ..

With a Sigma 150mm macro, at what distance from subject do people generally shoot??

I have been used to getting very close ( whilst pussyfooting about habitats I promise), so if I were, for example using a D5 Mk 2, what sort of lens would I use for distances say within 2 feet???

Would my shot from a bit further away using a 150 macro, be better than one from close to?...

what I would like to do is record details in scalation such as Roger captures ( though I may have to dream on )

I would be grateful for any comments/ advice!!!

[Gruditch]

Depending on the species, and what I am trying to achieve, I usually shoot from about 2 -6ft, I do however, usually use my 150 with a x1.4 converter attached.

So if you take of the converter, and also use a full frame body like the 5D MK ll, then you will probably not see a lot from 6ft.


Gruditch

[FISHiEE]

I shoot as close as it takes to fill the frame with the butterfly. Occasionally I will want to get some habitat in too such as a flower the butterfly is resting on or something. I couldn't fill the frame with something like a Brown Argus however even if I got as close as the minimum focus distance (about 36cm from the sensor I believe so about 10-15cm from the end of the lens I guess). Often I will go in close and have to back off a bit as the lens can't focus as close as I would like for really small species or to get wing detail etc. For something big like a Brimstone I don't need to get so close (on my 1.6 crop body). A really good shot (ie one I could print large) for an average size species I would ideally not want to have the camera more than 2-3 ft from the subject. with a 5DII being full frame you would want to be closer to get the best from it.

Naturally you will see more detail the closer you can get to the subject. For something like a common blue you'd want to be at minumum focus distance I expect, possible even with a TC or extension tube as well.

It also depends what you want to do with the image... if you just want images for the web there is no need to get so close, no need for such a high res camera. If you wanna porint A3 say you want to get as close as you can get

I used to see distanmce to subject recorded in the EXIF data on my shots years ago but don't seem to get that any more. I should work out how to get that back then I could tell you for sure

[Paul]

Thanks very much both of you.. that does help, as I thought I might have to stand off the subject some way.. now it looks like I may just have to carry on doing what I usually would!.... still have to decide whether to jump!

[Rogerdodge]

Paul
This is the (uncropped) effect of using a macro lens at 1:1 on a Canon cropped sensor.
It is of the smallest (IIRC) European butterfly - the Grass Jewel, drawn, life size, by Lewington in the Collins guide.
The frame width is 20mm x 14mm.
I took this with a 180mm lens (Sigma) and the front elemant was 24cm from the subject.
I don't know the equivalent distance for a 150mm lens, but would guess around 20cm.
I really hope you make the step to DSLR - the DoF is harder to handle, but the overall quality is worth it.
With your excellent "eye" you will become unbeatable in the monthly competitions!
Personally I have looked at the 5DII, but can't really see it would have any real benefits for me over my 30D/20D.
I have a number of pictures taken at 400 ISO, and enlarged to 20"x16" and no pixels are visible, or any noise!
Good luck Paul.

Roger

[Gruditch]

I can understand your indecision to commit to the jump Paul. Manly because you are looking at such a large sum of dosh, where the 5D MK II is concerned.

Having used a 30D for a few weeks a while back, I would say that Roger is probably correct. There is not a lot to be gained from a 5DMK II over a 30D, some pixel peepers may disagree, but the 30D knocks out a superb image, and feels in no way a dated model.

My interest in a full frame camera was really for landscape photography, but after seeing the results from the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens, I recently purchased, I will stick where I am. A fantastic lens, I couldn't recommend it enough.

Maybe the jump could be a little less traumatic, if the sums of money were not so large.

Check out this http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Secondhand_results.asp You could be kitted out in time for "THIS" spring.

Gruditch

[Paul]

Why does the LCE have branches nowhere near me but thanks for the site.. I'm sure it will help ... and Roger.. looks excellent to me.. I would just have to hide the thing from my wife - just in case I should be asked any awkward questions... on the other hand, the answers could leave me with a lot more time to myself!

[FISHiEE]

What do you shoot with at present out of interest Paul? Just checked several images in your blog, but the exif info hasn't been preserved so I can't tell from those.

If you're currently shooting with a compact I'm guessing you have to get closer with that to fill the frame than you would need to with an SLR? I haven't used compacts all that much. I guess it depends on the lenses. If you're worried about having to get too far away (surely not!) you could just get a shorter lens. There are 100mm or 60mm options...

What you will find is you can get better images with an SLR compared to a compact, just it's harder to get those better images.

[eccles]

Whatever you decide Paul, if this is to be your first DSLR DO try out several brands before deciding. If you're considering the Canon 30D then you should also look at the Nikon D90, and of course, the Sony A700.

[FISHiEE]

I have to say that if I was starting out for the first time now probably my choice for first DSLR would be a Nikon D300

[Paul]

Compact so far... Lumix FZ50 I think.. so much to consider.. I understand the better pics/ harder to achieve bit.. that's what I'm afraid of!! I keep looking at the DSLR mags, I know there's lots of choice, not only Canon ( but I don't want to enter that minefield! )thankfully got quite a bit of time to think about it yet.

[FISHiEE]

I think jumping from that to a 5DII would be quite a massive jump for macro, one . Perhaps better to start off a little lower down the camera line. Nikon D90/D300, Canon 40/50D, Sony A700 (or the one below) type of area.

The ideal would be to know someonw with a DSLR and Macro lens you could try for some time and see how you like it.

The biggest change you will notice is that for the really great shots you'll almost definitely need a monopod or a tripod. Gone are the days of hand holding except perhaps for shorter 100/60mm lenses.

[eccles]

Gone are the days of hand holding except perhaps for shorter 100/60mm lenses.

Not so. I know I keep harping on about in-body stabilisation but comments like the above beg correction. I can hand hold and get sharpness down to pixel level with my A700, and though in-body stabilisation is the simplest solution, there are ways and means with all DSLR brands.
For example, last year, I met Gary and Lisa for a day's butterfly snapping. Lisa used an image stabilised Canon 300mm F4 L IS with an extension tube, and I don't think anyone can doubt the quality of her photos. True, such a lens is expensive, and when buying your first DSLR, you should factor in costs that will need to be borne further down the line as you progress, but it can be done.

My main cause of loss of sharpness with butterfly shots is nothing to do with hand holding or tripod but motion blur from the insect itself. A motionless basking insect is easy, but a silver washed fritillary nectaring at nineteen to the dozen nods up and down so rapidly that a fast shutter speed is the only way to get it sharp. Neither a tripod nor the best image stabilisation will help because they only limit the effects of camera shake and not subject movement.

On choosing a DSLR for the first time, unfortunately it isn't exactly clear which will give you the best bang per buck in the long run because you need to know in advance what set of lenses you will need for your particular style of photography, and as a beginner, you probably don't know.
This is why it is best to get down to your camera shop and try several brands out, because it is the handling that may be all that sways you towards one camera over another. Pretty much every DSLR these days will produce good pictures, particularly if you go towards the quality end of the amateur market such as 50D, D300, A700. There are compelling arguments for each of these three models, and no doubt for Olympus and Pentax as well. If starting again, I wouldn't hesitate to get an A700, but in the end it's down to you to make your own choice.

[FISHiEE]

Oh yes I forgot about the 300F4. Actually I really want to have a go with one of these as it is a very good compromise for travelling as you get a superb telephoto and a superb macro set up with just 1 lens plus extension tube. I've seen stunning shots on the web with this setup that are easily as good as you could get with a dedicated macro lens. Not seen one in print though to see how they 'really' compare though. I think now with all the recent price increases due to the poor pound they are close to a grand though!

I'm still not convinced, without using it myself, if lens/body stabilisation makes such a great difference for macro work. Ive not yet used one of the more modern 4-stop stabilised lenses though (which I believe the 300F4 is).

With regards to bye bye to hand-holding I was referring more to the sigma 150 Paul was asking about. I know lots of people shoot hand held with 100mm range lenses.

There is of course the Sony's body stabilisation which might make it doable.