Flowers filling the sensor area
- Thread starter aroy
- Start date
This sounds interesting. Are you using your 18-55?
If you look over at the "post your flowers" forum, http://nikonites.com/learning-photography/621-post-your-flower-pics-266.html#axzz2yhEOeEsJ I just did the same same with my sigma 70-300, in non macro mode. (the last pick was cropped)
This is the uncropped version.
I will go out and try this with the 50mm 1.8 prime, and my 18-55.
If you look over at the "post your flowers" forum, http://nikonites.com/learning-photography/621-post-your-flower-pics-266.html#axzz2yhEOeEsJ I just did the same same with my sigma 70-300, in non macro mode. (the last pick was cropped)
This is the uncropped version.
I will go out and try this with the 50mm 1.8 prime, and my 18-55.
Last edited:
I think all of you are on the right track. Despite there basic immobility, flowers can be more elusive than one might imagine and filling the viewfinder can lend impact to the photo. And of course they are so diverse as to be endlessly fascinating. In a way we owe this perspective to artist like Georgia o Keefe who demonstrated how a flower can fill an entire canvas and draw us in to their beauty.
Yes, with the 18-55. At present I am using the 18-55 along with 50mm and 35mm primes. The 70-300 older version is pretty bad. The focus of the 105mm has become extremely tight, while the other lenses my son has are yet to be tried.
The idea of filling up the sensor area was to get as much details as possible. With the zooms at the long end the images are not as sharp as with the primes.
In general flowers are quite large. The DX sensor is 24x16 mm. So even at 1:1 (about an inch across) a flower is much larger, so longer lenses would do. A macro lense is designed and corrected for closer distances, but unless you have really small object like spiders, ants aphids etc, you do not really need that magnification.
The idea of filling the sensor area with normal lenses was to see how much can be filled up. Most of us hanker for a macro lense, without realizing that what we have in our bag will do most of the time. It is only when you hit the limits of the lense, that another is required. For example
. I have shot bees and moths with the 18-55 kit lense. So what if the insect did not fill up my sensor as a macro would do. I got the shot, used the 24MP to my advantage and got decent 500x500 to 1000x1000 pixel shots. With a dedicated lense I would have got the insect at 4000 x 4000 pixels, but till then what I have is nothing to be sorry of. I do have a 105mm F2.8 AIS macro, but its focus has gone very stiff, so till it is repaired, I am now using it rarely.
. Same is the case with a telephoto. One would be nice but till I get one, my prime and the sensor give me 1000x1000 pixel shots of small birds. The 70-300 non VR lense is there, but the sharpness of the 50mm prime gives much better images than that lense at 200mm+.
If you look closely the 50mm is a bit sharper and has better micro contrast. If you never print or if the prints are at the most 6x4, then it makes no difference. That is why when ever I do not need wide aperture I use the kit zoom.
Agreed. Most flowers are really suited for the square crop. My current images are uncropped, so that every one may see how much of sensor real estate is used. Presentation is another ball game altogether.
Than you very much. All of them are growing either at my house of in the park adjoining my house.
hirenpatel85
Banned
wow, amazing shots! Such beautiful colors & details...very nice!
