Aint that the truth
Problem with macro filter
- Thread starter flipperzoom
- Start date
Aint that the truth
flipperzoom
Senior Member
heh thanks for your reply!
i have a question. Those guys who shoot outstanding macros of insects etc, do they just use extraordinary zoom + macro lens?
because mine will not work if you just zoom, you have to move the camera close to the subject. You have to physically be close to it to work. How to those guys shoot? Are expensive/good macro filters ok with just lens zoom?
Macro works best when using a true 1:1 macro lens. If the shot is done well and the lens is good, you'll get extremely sharp shots. It's harder when using filters because you're putting glass in front of glass which inevitably leads to quality loss. It's still possible to get good shots but you need to put a lot of effort in it.
You can also use extension tubes or reversed lenses which don't suffer the quality loss filters do.
Also, often what you see are crops of a shot. If you have a sharp enough image, it doesn't matter that much if the subject is not filling the full shot. You cut what you don't need and directly give the impression it's extreme macro.
Here's a crop of one I shot today. It directly looks more "impressive" but in reality is just a simple trick.
You can also use extension tubes or reversed lenses which don't suffer the quality loss filters do.
Also, often what you see are crops of a shot. If you have a sharp enough image, it doesn't matter that much if the subject is not filling the full shot. You cut what you don't need and directly give the impression it's extreme macro.
Here's a crop of one I shot today. It directly looks more "impressive" but in reality is just a simple trick.
flipperzoom
Senior Member
@J-see: Nice trick! Still need good zoom though! Not much i can do with 18-55mm! 
btw :
now how the f**k did this guy shoot this??? :S
btw :
now how the f**k did this guy shoot this??? :S
@J-see: Nice trick! Still need good zoom though! Not much i can do with 18-55mm!
now how the f**k did this guy shoot this??? :S
If I'd have to gamble, extension tubes and maybe a reversed lens. It's likely still a crop since the DOF appears to be some 4-5mm.
All I'm certain about is that I can't do that.
I checked who took the shot and the guy got some impressive macros:
Dušan Beňo
Last edited:
Don't mean to give you the "run around," but that's kind of a difficult question (for me anyway). Because each situation will be different, lighting would be different, and sometimes it depends on the subject. In your case Flipperzoom, if micro photography is your "calling," then you will really need to purchase a professional micro lens, if you want to take photos of insects, and certain other animals (wild animals in particular). The reason being, you will not be able to get too close before you scare them off. The best Lens I"ve been drooling for is the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor, however, I am not getting A FX format any time soon. So the next best thing would be Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor which is half the price of the 105mm because it is a DX format essentially, and a smaller aperture. Another benefit of these lenses, is that you can focus till infinity. You can't do that with the cheap micro close ups.
Last edited:
What makes you think the 105mm lens is FX only or wasted on DX? You can use it on both.
In macro the difference between the DX or FX format matters less. 1:1 is the same on both and if you're going for pure close-up bug shots, the FX (cam) only provides more filler or background.
105mm or 85mm is only 0.1ft difference in working distance which can be a lot in some cases but in respect to "scaring bugs", it matters less. I use a 200mm and still scare many. What matters more than the length is the time of day you shoot and how you approach them. Shoot cold-blooded when the blood is cold.
The VR on both is nice and I'd have wished mine had VR too but when you go extremely close, a tripod might be more important than VR. And a flash. The f/2.8 or f/3.5 only matters when you use the other end of the lens. On average you're always shooting closed down. The closer, the more closed down. You'll almost never shoot macro at 1:1 using f/2.8 or f/3.5.
In macro the difference between the DX or FX format matters less. 1:1 is the same on both and if you're going for pure close-up bug shots, the FX (cam) only provides more filler or background.
105mm or 85mm is only 0.1ft difference in working distance which can be a lot in some cases but in respect to "scaring bugs", it matters less. I use a 200mm and still scare many. What matters more than the length is the time of day you shoot and how you approach them. Shoot cold-blooded when the blood is cold.
The VR on both is nice and I'd have wished mine had VR too but when you go extremely close, a tripod might be more important than VR. And a flash. The f/2.8 or f/3.5 only matters when you use the other end of the lens. On average you're always shooting closed down. The closer, the more closed down. You'll almost never shoot macro at 1:1 using f/2.8 or f/3.5.
Last edited:
I tried to test if such a fly shot is possible with a macro alone.
This is an attempt I did this morning. I didn't have the time to get a perfect shot in and it's done outside, handheld without flash only using the macro lens. As such, it suffers some shake and lacks the required depth. I got no closer than 0.8X or so. At 1:1 you could add maybe another 20%. The fly left before I could go full. It also was a "fat" fly. That helps.
I cropped the full version until I had this 1.4k*1.9k part left.
Like I said, hardly perfect but it shows you can do shots like that fly with a (true) macro alone.
All it requires is 1:1, flash, effort and technique. I got the 1:1.
This would be a 100% crop:
This is an attempt I did this morning. I didn't have the time to get a perfect shot in and it's done outside, handheld without flash only using the macro lens. As such, it suffers some shake and lacks the required depth. I got no closer than 0.8X or so. At 1:1 you could add maybe another 20%. The fly left before I could go full. It also was a "fat" fly. That helps.
I cropped the full version until I had this 1.4k*1.9k part left.
Like I said, hardly perfect but it shows you can do shots like that fly with a (true) macro alone.
All it requires is 1:1, flash, effort and technique. I got the 1:1.
This would be a 100% crop:
Last edited:
flipperzoom
Senior Member
thats awesome!
Whats your equipment?
Whats your equipment?
I never said 105mm was not available for DX, I simply said that was my dream lens. The jest of my prior post was saving money, and my personal choice (for example) my alternative to the 105mm. I have never personally seen an DX 105mm micro lens from nikon. And from what I've read, it was a financial decision from nikon not to make them, because it would cost more money. It does me no good to purchase a FX lens on my DX camers. Just because they are compatible doesn't mean I should buy it. I am spending a significant amount more money, knowing that my images would be cropped. It would have been different if I was looking for a FX camera in the near future, then that would have been worth it in my particular situation. If I would have gone for a third party lens, chances are the quality would not have been as good as nikon.
Lengthwise is makes little difference indeed but quality wise there is a reasonable difference between both lenses. It's this quality that ultimately affects crop too.
But the quality of a shot depends on more than the lens alone so in the end, we all have to make up our mind what we prefer.
But the quality of a shot depends on more than the lens alone so in the end, we all have to make up our mind what we prefer.
A D3300 and a dedicated macro. And a very fat fly.
Here's another. As you see it isn't that hard. Once sharp enough you can crop and make it look a lot more impressive.
Last edited: