help me buy a DSLR set
- Thread starter Allmost
- Start date
The book for your body might help some, I dont know.
Understanding Exposure by BP is probably the best book ever written for beginners to pick up. It adresses most of the things your wondering about and then some.
I got it for my GF who despite having me to explain things, tutor her in the field, and at home and access to all my equipment and all my knowledge/experience, so that she knew what questions to ask me, when to ask me for help/guidance and just as importantly when I answer her many questions....my answers
Make sense.
You really need that base understanding.
Photography isn't hard or complex. There's just tons of little things and often one or five relate to each other.
Not unlike Salt water aquariums. Have some algae.
Add an algae eater.
Need a higher SS to stop action.
Bump your ISO
or
open your lens (those odd numbers on the lenses).
Depth of Field.
How can we help there if you don't understand what that is, or that your DoF is determined by focal length (those funny numbers), your aperture (those funny numbers) and the distance to subject and that the relationship is linear.
etc,
etc
Understanding Exposure by BP is probably the best book ever written for beginners to pick up. It adresses most of the things your wondering about and then some.
I got it for my GF who despite having me to explain things, tutor her in the field, and at home and access to all my equipment and all my knowledge/experience, so that she knew what questions to ask me, when to ask me for help/guidance and just as importantly when I answer her many questions....my answers
Make sense.
You really need that base understanding.
Photography isn't hard or complex. There's just tons of little things and often one or five relate to each other.
Not unlike Salt water aquariums. Have some algae.
Add an algae eater.
Need a higher SS to stop action.
Bump your ISO
or
open your lens (those odd numbers on the lenses).
Depth of Field.
How can we help there if you don't understand what that is, or that your DoF is determined by focal length (those funny numbers), your aperture (those funny numbers) and the distance to subject and that the relationship is linear.
etc,
etc
Last edited:
Allmost
New member
thanks Ben 
just trying to learn so dont mind ..... I understand the numbers now [Im not THAT stupid lol], I just need to figure out how they would look on a finished pic, and what "ISO" to use in what case ... I have made some progress in the short period with taking pictures of moving fish, and so on ... basically need to derive the corralation between each. I learned that last night, after not being able to take good pic of a coral at the back of the tank.
I will get the exposure book today, the one you linked was prety cheap it seems so I wanted more but a good start for sure. thanks
I basically wanted to get my gears [body, and a macro lens] ready before starting with more and well, your comments and others and the posts on here did help alot, so thanks to you all.
now since you all helped so much, u get to make fun of me and my pics haha
ISO 6400
Shutter speed 1/320
Aperture value 8.0
in AE mode
oh and no tripod for this shot ...
critize it, make fun of it, anything ts my first macro shot lol ... I wanna make it perfect so tell me what u think, I havent played around with colors much yet. any improvements you can think of, and your opinions are appreciated.
some fish pics :
just trying to learn so dont mind ..... I understand the numbers now [Im not THAT stupid lol], I just need to figure out how they would look on a finished pic, and what "ISO" to use in what case ... I have made some progress in the short period with taking pictures of moving fish, and so on ... basically need to derive the corralation between each. I learned that last night, after not being able to take good pic of a coral at the back of the tank.I will get the exposure book today, the one you linked was prety cheap it seems so I wanted more
but a good start for sure. thanksI basically wanted to get my gears [body, and a macro lens] ready before starting with more and well, your comments and others and the posts on here did help alot, so thanks to you all.
now since you all helped so much, u get to make fun of me and my pics
haha
ISO 6400
Shutter speed 1/320
Aperture value 8.0
in AE mode
oh and no tripod for this shot ...
critize it, make fun of it, anything ts my first macro shot lol ... I wanna make it perfect so tell me what u think, I havent played around with colors much yet. any improvements you can think of, and your opinions are appreciated.
some fish pics :
Last edited:
Everyone has to start somewhere.
The book is cheap. For 20 bucks. Its worth every penny.
Depending on a lot of things.
You shouldn't need to shoot at ISO 6000.
You shot at 1/320th? You could have reduced your SS by a stop (1/160th) and as a result reduced your ISO by a stop to 3,000. At f8 and some practice you can drop your SS by another full stop 1/80th and get your ISO under 3000 all else equal.
Off the top of my head the highest I've set my ISO for any of my tank shots is ISO 1,000.
Re shooting fish.
1) DoF...do you want all of the fish in focus or just some of it. That answer will guide you towards what f/stop to use. The more you stop down, the less light your allowing in but you gain DoF The more you open the lens, your sacrificing DoF but the more light your allowing in thus gaining SS. All else equal
2) stop action.
Speed of subject + Distance to subject determines how high your SS needs to be. A fast moving train at 50 feet needs a higher SS, than the same train at the same speed but from 100 feet needs...all else equal.
The book is cheap. For 20 bucks. Its worth every penny.
Depending on a lot of things.
You shouldn't need to shoot at ISO 6000.
You shot at 1/320th? You could have reduced your SS by a stop (1/160th) and as a result reduced your ISO by a stop to 3,000. At f8 and some practice you can drop your SS by another full stop 1/80th and get your ISO under 3000 all else equal.
Off the top of my head the highest I've set my ISO for any of my tank shots is ISO 1,000.
Re shooting fish.
1) DoF...do you want all of the fish in focus or just some of it. That answer will guide you towards what f/stop to use. The more you stop down, the less light your allowing in but you gain DoF The more you open the lens, your sacrificing DoF but the more light your allowing in thus gaining SS. All else equal
2) stop action.
Speed of subject + Distance to subject determines how high your SS needs to be. A fast moving train at 50 feet needs a higher SS, than the same train at the same speed but from 100 feet needs...all else equal.
Allmost
New member
ok, question again.
I met up last night with a friend who is a photographer, and he explained to me more and I have a bit more understanding.
I showed him my macro shots, and asked how I can go more in dept with polyps, and same as you guys said, he agreed that a 180 mm macro lens would just give me more working distance, and wouldnt magnify the polyps more.
he adviced me to get a Extension tube, which I can use with my zoom lens, and also macro lens.
so I want to ask you experts here, what are the disadvantages of putting a tube before the macro lens ? besides the loss of light [which I think would be minimum ]?
or is there a better configuration to get a more macro shot of polyps ?
[also want to see more details of the coloring of the corals, like those brown lines.]
thanks
I met up last night with a friend who is a photographer, and he explained to me more and I have a bit more understanding.
I showed him my macro shots, and asked how I can go more in dept with polyps, and same as you guys said, he agreed that a 180 mm macro lens would just give me more working distance, and wouldnt magnify the polyps more.
he adviced me to get a Extension tube, which I can use with my zoom lens, and also macro lens.
so I want to ask you experts here, what are the disadvantages of putting a tube before the macro lens ? besides the loss of light [which I think would be minimum ]?
or is there a better configuration to get a more macro shot of polyps ?
[also want to see more details of the coloring of the corals, like those brown lines.]
thanks
IMO, deal and learn with what you have first. Tubes add some other learning skills that you'll have to get into. A tube doesn't really magnify anything. It allows you to use a lens closer to your subject by moving the lens further from the body. Loss of available light isn't the only thing. Focusing can be more difficult. It also becomes more critical. Just the slightest movement can throw things way off. DOF also becomes way more shallower.
They can be fun. If you want to learn them, find an old lens with an aperture ring and get a cheep 10 dollar set of tubes off ebay. You'll find it's a large learning curve but using it will teach you quite a bit about macro photography, and it will also "MAKE" you learn how ISO, Shutter speed and aperture work together.
They can be fun. If you want to learn them, find an old lens with an aperture ring and get a cheep 10 dollar set of tubes off ebay. You'll find it's a large learning curve but using it will teach you quite a bit about macro photography, and it will also "MAKE" you learn how ISO, Shutter speed and aperture work together.
Allmost
New member
very good info, I appreciate it.
but maybe I didnt ask my question correctly.
you see the macro shot I posted ?
you can see so much DETAILS of the coral/
now look at this : http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19832269&postcount=257
he is using a 90 mm macro lens, and a tube ....
and you are telling me the second pic with the tube IS NOT magnified ?
are u serious ?
maybe its me ...
and yes, I understand your point, I need to learn it more and more and practice more .... just asking a simple what lens would do this question here though at this point. it would be great if you could help
You are learning, but part of that also is understanding how camera's lenses, and you see things. The lens being moved further from the body, with no glass in between the lens and body, gives the lens a shorter focusing distance. In other words, the lens can focus closer to the subject. It also requires you to be closer to the subject. I'm going back through some old stuff I'll post to give you an idea. Be right back.
Another tool, that's free, you have at your disposal is cropping. When you consider that you can make a very nice 20 x 30" print from an 8mp image you start to realize that most of today's cameras are overkill, especially for web use.
If you can't get as close as you'd like, concentrate on just getting a sharp image and crop the image.
If you can't get as close as you'd like, concentrate on just getting a sharp image and crop the image.
Ok, so here's something else to keep in mind. There's also a cropping factor that must be delt with. Photos cropped can make something look "more" magnified than they really are. For example. Here's a shot of a caterpillar.
This is a 100% crop of the same image.
Cropping can give the illusion of a more magnified photo.
This is a 100% crop of the same image.
Cropping can give the illusion of a more magnified photo.
What Misled has said (with one tiny caveat to follow).
You have already said your struggling with Depth of Field.
Adding a tube will only compound that.
Any 1:1 lens, will yield a 1:1 image so long as both are at their MFD.
An image taken with 100mm macro, will look identical to the same image shot with a 180mm macro lens....The only difference will be distance between the lens and subject.
DoF= F/stop, focal length, distance to subject.
Same F/stop, same focal length but closer to the subject?
=Less Depth of field.
Are you really sure you want to add tubes?
I am talking razor and I do mean razor thin critical focus. zero margin for error.
You the sample you posted.
Who is to say that image wasnt taken from further away (and thus more Depth of Field) and then cropped fairly heavily because all its ever going to do is be displayed on the net?????
My honest advice is
Learn to walk before you learn to run.
I too will see if I can find some suitable samples.
Im just now getting some decent life in my tank so "tank" and aquarium pics will be slow from me, unless of coarse you dont mind lots of pics of the same peice of Aragonite.
/edit add.
I see Beerguy and Misled have said basically much of the same while I was typing...There are reasons why all are saying the same general things
You have already said your struggling with Depth of Field.
Adding a tube will only compound that.
Any 1:1 lens, will yield a 1:1 image so long as both are at their MFD.
An image taken with 100mm macro, will look identical to the same image shot with a 180mm macro lens....The only difference will be distance between the lens and subject.
DoF= F/stop, focal length, distance to subject.
Same F/stop, same focal length but closer to the subject?
=Less Depth of field.
Are you really sure you want to add tubes?
I am talking razor and I do mean razor thin critical focus. zero margin for error.
You the sample you posted.
Who is to say that image wasnt taken from further away (and thus more Depth of Field) and then cropped fairly heavily because all its ever going to do is be displayed on the net?????
My honest advice is
Learn to walk before you learn to run.
I too will see if I can find some suitable samples.
Im just now getting some decent life in my tank so "tank" and aquarium pics will be slow from me, unless of coarse you dont mind lots of pics of the same peice of Aragonite.
/edit add.
I see Beerguy and Misled have said basically much of the same while I was typing...There are reasons why all are saying the same general things
Allmost
New member
AHHH ! thats an amazing Idea ! Croping would also make the image nicer .[specialy with a dark boarder]
now cropping is just magnefying or multiplying pixels.
while tube would place the lens father fromthe sensor. so I am guessing the image of tube + macro, would look sharper, and more detailed than cropped pic, but again, it would be much harder to take that pic and would cost more (id need a tube)
Im gonna look for some used tubes, or maybe rent one tonight to see if its worth it
thanks alot guys Misled, Beer guy, and Jben, you guys are amazing
now cropping is just magnefying or multiplying pixels.
while tube would place the lens father fromthe sensor. so I am guessing the image of tube + macro, would look sharper, and more detailed than cropped pic, but again, it would be much harder to take that pic and would cost more (id need a tube)
Im gonna look for some used tubes, or maybe rent one tonight to see if its worth it
thanks alot guys
Misled, Beer guy, and Jben, you guys are amazing
Here's an old shot with a full set of tubes and an old sigma 28-90mm with a macro switch. If I remember right, the magnifaction in macro mode is 1:1.23.
I was maybe an inch to an inch and a half away from the crain fly. This normally isn't possible, but when given time, can work great results.
I was maybe an inch to an inch and a half away from the crain fly. This normally isn't possible, but when given time, can work great results.
No. Cropping is just "removing" pixels.
Allmost
New member
lol yes ment re-sizing ... after pic is taken on photoshop [I know image processing well ... ]
the pic above is amazing ! if you took it without the tube and tried to resize it after, it would have missed alot of the details.
I signed up for a course this weekend as well, and invited the class to take place at my place with my tank LOL lets see if they can teach me anything, they are equipted with more lens and tubes too so I Can try it.
thaks again
Let me explain this so you understand. When you crop a photo, you are really just using a section of the original photo. What Doug means about today's camera being overkill for internet and webposting is, a 3mp camera will take great pics for posting on the web. When you crop a 12mp pic, you can still have enough pixels to provide a viable pic to post. It won't be good to blow up much, but for display here, no biggie
This may or may not work out. Photographing tanks is a niche all it's own. We had a well known pro come here a few years back, and it took him some time to figure it out.
Not surprised. I think Im already estimating some weeks/months dialing it in.
Almost, that just speaks again to the general "learn the foundations".
Generally speaking, photographic principles will remain the same no matter the genre/niche. So you can apply the principle "learned" in one, to another aspect/genre but that just gets you "Started", then you start figuring the little things.
My "Niche" if you will is Outdoor activities/lifestyles.
I can apply "Portrait" photography principles to photos of people, or even things like fish, equipment etc but that won't make me a succesful wedding photographer. Likewise a world class Wedding photographer might not understand why avid Outdoors people find their photos so-so.
Its like most things.
Get a good grasp of the fundamentals and then "grow".
On cropping.
As Misled has said, your "removing" pixels but because your uploading files that are say 1024 x 750ish px, you can crop a lot of the image and still have more than enough to display a good/decent image and it "appears" as though the image (subject) fills so much more of the frame.
Heres a common garden variety spider taken with my Macro and Tubes. If you look closely you'll notice it's hind legs are out of focus. I wouldnt put this spider much larger than .5 the size of a pea. Not cropped
Heres a common garden variety jumping spider. Not much larger in size to a match head. This image I recall I cropped because a) its boring and I have no intention of ever doing anything with it and B) someone wanted to see a spiders eyes up close and personal. In its original form the spider was maybe, maybe 10% of the viewable area.Cropped pretty heavy
Trimmed a little but not really cropped. if I wanted I could "crop" such that only the head "fills" the frame. So its not "magnified", its just a smaller frame.
In all cases, regardless do note how razor thin the "depth of field" is..aka area thats in focus. Your margin for error is zero and if you want to grow frustrated quickly run before learning to walk.
Last edited:
That dovetails nicely into why stabilization (Canon=IS, Nikon=VR) isn't a panacea for macro photography.
Image stabilization works on the X and Y axis (up down, side to side) movement. Many of the newer systems will also work in a combined mode and even correct for rotational movement. What they can't adjust for is z-axis, or your distance from the subject. With the razor tight DOF that you get in this type of photography even very slight z-axis motion will change what is and isn't in focus. That isn't to say you can't take a good macro shot without camera support (tripod, bean bag, laying on a rock, etc.....) but it's a lot harder; add tubes and it gets even harder.
In the jumping spider example posted, moving 1/8" after focusing on the eyes means it's butt - not it's face (or nothing at all) would be in focus. It's really that critical. If you take a ton of shots, you might get lucky and have one that's sharp where you'd like it to be. Or you might not.
I like to remove as many variables as possible.
Similar threads
