www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

NickB wrote:Nice one! I too have a Tamron 90mm and find it it difficult to fault! (I always use a 1.4 TC too). I have just picked-up a 2nd hand 200mm Nikkor f4 macro - and that is (marginally) sharper. Here's a dragonfly (not sure which) I took this weekend and a damselfly....

N

Nice pics Nick. I'm surprised you could discern a difference in sharpness between your new 200mm and the Tamron as I'd have thought both would be capable of outresolving the camera's sensor.

@Lee, there is often a lot of confusion on what a 'macro' lens actually is. Technically, it is a lens that will produce at least a 1:1 image, i.e. an image on the sensor that is the same size as the original. Therefore with an APS-C size sensor being approximately 1" across, a 1" long bug would fill the frame. Many zooms are called macros because they can focus close enough to provide a significant percentage of the magic 1:1 although some can only do as little as 1:4 and are still called macro. This is not to say that they are bad, indeed many of them can produce high quality images. In any case you don't always need to fill the frame with the subject, and most photos posted on UKB are nowhere near macro size even though they might have been taken using a macro lens.

Lens lust is a terrible thing, and I have succumbed yet again, this time buying a used but immaculate Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS G. This lens is so revered amongst Alpha mount users that when it came up for sale I had to have it, even though I haven't got a clue yet what I'll use it for as I don't usually shoot sports and it's a bit short for wildlife. Dragons taken with it look nice although it is another 'wrong' lens for such subjects. I snapped these two common darters, male and female, yesterday.
Mike.

Lens lust! Never heard that one. I reckon that by now we have all thoroughly confused Lee. For butterflies just get the best prime 150mm to 200mm macro that you can afford. If you're not happy...save up.

Bear in mind, that if you are photographing a common blue size butterfly with a 100mm macro, and you wish to more or less fill the frame with the subject, or have it big in the picture, you will have to be around 12 inches from your subject. With a 200mm macro that distance will double, and Common blue's are happier when you are two feet away.

That's ok Misha I should perhaps have said that Perfectly captured is a picture sharing site with 443 members to date. I use this site because the upload file resolution can be up to 1600 x 1600 pixels which gives the viewer a chance to check for sharpness on images, and also because the admin staff are extremely helpful and keep the site as a friendly environment for photographers to ctitique each others work. It's also free for the first 100 uploads and only £10.00 a year for full membership which allows as many uploads as you like.
I know that other picture sharing sites can become a bit of a war zone when it comes to critique which is why i would recomend this site to anyone because the site rules will not allow any member to make personal remarks of a derogatory nature.
Hope you enjoyed your visit to the site!

Kind regards
Vic.

P.S. My P.C. site name is Vixpix so if you find one of my pics, just click on the purple vixpix icon which takes you to my profile, then click on full gallery to see the thumbs for all my photos and click again on any you wish to view.

Vixpix wrote:I use this site because the upload file resolution can be up to 1600 x 1600 pixels which gives the viewer a chance to check for sharpness on images, and also because the admin staff are extremely helpful and keep the site as a friendly environment for photographers to ctitique each others work.

And on that note, for those following this thread, perhaps we should increase the maximum resolution allowed from 800x800, especially since attachments create thumbnails anyway. Thoughts appreciated - especially since I'll be doing some major forum updates in the coming months.

Cheers,

- Pete

Zonda/Eccles,

I'm not tooooo confused at the moment, still thinking of the Sigma 150mm....when funds allow. I totally get the distance thing. Most of my recent decent shots have been at full 85mm zoom (and held steady). I can see how the monopod will come in handy at 2 feet away!

I too like the 'lens lust' Mike

Pete, how come some pictures posted are not thumbnails, but actually on the page?

Thanks

Lee

Lee H wrote:Pete, how come some pictures posted are not thumbnails, but actually on the page?

Because they're using the IMG tag to link to another website (one that hosts images, normally).

The reason we have thumbnails on UKB is not only to allow people to attach images directly, without having to use a separate site, but to reduce the download times of each page. This was requested by several members a few months back (since we're not all on broadband). Of course, the more members that use external websites in this manner, the slower the pages will be to load.

Cheers,

- Pete

Thanks Pete

Pete Eeles wrote:perhaps we should increase the maximum resolution allowed from 800x800, especially since attachments create thumbnails anyway.

Yes bigger images, it's a crime to have to shrink down some images to 800x800.

Gives us DSLR boys and girls an unfair advantage in the comps too.

Gruditch

So what should we go up to?

Cheers,

- Pete

Not sure, but size wise, on my screen set up 800 high is about your lot, but you could go to 1000 wide. Any bigger and you may have to scroll to see a whole image.

Gruditch

Hi Pete
I should mention that i got the resolution wrong, it should have been 1600 pixels on the longest side, not 1600 x 1600

I reckon this sizing works pretty well so i would go for 1600 pixels max on the longest side of the frame and allow a file size up to 3mb which should pretty much cover it
If the file opens into a new window similar to the one you currently use but with magnifier in the bottom right like the one on this window you could also use "control +" to zoom in for a closer look at details.
Sorry that i seem to have veered the topic away from "wrong" lense! But i guess it is loosely related

Regards Vic.

Thanks.

Since Gary runs the photography aspects of the website, I'll wait for him to give me the nod, then I'll change the settings. Although we might want to do this "between" photo comps so that posters there aren't disadvantaged!

Cheers,

- Pete

I've tried out 1600x1600 it looks good to me, but some may have to hit F11 on their keyboard to avoid scrolling to see the whole image. I suppose it depends on how many menu bars you have.

Lisa put a 1600 x 1600 image in the test section of the galleries, if any one wants to try it out.


Gruditch

1600 for the longest side sounds great, would that be site wide i.e. for the competitions as well ?

Cheers

Looks like the site re-sized the image Lisa loaded to 800 x 800 pesky puters !

Yeah we just noticed that

Gruditch

Put a couple in the Test area, 1000 wide x 800 high is perfect for me.

Gruditch

Quick rethink here 1600 is large for a screen display 1024 or 1280 would probably be better.

Just had a look at the test sizes. 1600 is TOO big. I have to scroll to see it. 1000 X 800 looks great. It fills my screen.

Denise