Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ~~ BUTTERFLIES ~~  (Read 12282 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2008, 11:57:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
These are very spectacular and colorful shots which demonstrate how useful P&S cameras are for macro photography.

They really do take decent shots, and what's more is you are able to actually get them, since there is no equipment to lug around.




Quote
Yet, there is a flat, 2-dimensional effect to the butterflies which I assume is due to the camera being used (in macro mode) with telephoto lens fully extended.

Hmmm, I thought many of the photos were wonderfully 3-dimensional myself, with excellent depth of field. Looking back, I can see what you mean in some photos, but I think in others there is outstanding depth of field.

But don't forget, butterflies are kinda "flat" to begin with




 
Quote
Is this the case? I don't have much experience using P&S cameras, which is why I ask. However, I can see that it might not be possible to get closer using a shorter focal length because the butterfly would take off.

It would be interesting to compare two macro shots of something that is stationary or unable to fly away, using both the short end and the long end of the lens.

In my case, no. I do not have the telephoto fully-extended when I take my photos, in fact quite the opposite. I find that when the telephoto is fully-extended that any movement blurs the image, and since it's quite windy all the time where I live I have all the trouble I need keeping things clear as it is ...

Here is an image I took today of a female eastern tiger swallowtail:


 

Jack

PS: Click on the image below to see a better example of the kind of 3d effect and tremendous depth of field is possible with a P&S (G9) ... on a more "three-dimensional" pair of insects ...
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 12:02:40 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2008, 01:35:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But don't forget, butterflies are kinda "flat" to begin with
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I got the impression that in some of the shots the two wings of the butterfly sort of merged into one, but maybe that's how the wings were.

The shot of the wasp eating the beetle is quite amazing and has plenty of 3-D effect. Looks like it would be worth getting a G9 just for its macro capability. You've sure got a lot of butterflies in your garden. How close to the front of the lens would these shots be on average?
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2008, 02:13:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
These are very spectacular and colorful shots which demonstrate how useful P&S cameras are for macro photography.

Yet, there is a flat, 2-dimensional effect to the butterflies which I assume is due to the camera being used (in macro mode) with telephoto lens fully extended.

Is this the case? I don't have much experience using P&S cameras, which is why I ask. However, I can see that it might not be possible to get closer using a shorter focal length because the butterfly would take off.

It would be interesting to compare two macro shots of something that is stationary or unable to fly away, using both the short end and the long end of the lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry that these aren't butterflies, but they illustrate the different perspective with different lenses.  Spider18 and 19 were taken side by side at the same time (same spider); 18 was taken with a Casio EXZ-1000 and 19 was taken with a Panasonic FZ-50.  Both use 1/1.8 sensors and have about the same image quality, but the Casio is a very small 38-114mm (equiv.) lens and the Panasonic uses a 35-420mm Leica lens.  Both were taken with "macro" ON, with about the same amount of zoom (~114mm), and you can see that the Casio image is flat and slightly sharper, possibly due to more DOF.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2008, 10:48:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry that these aren't butterflies, but they illustrate the different perspective with different lenses.  Spider18 and 19 were taken side by side at the same time (same spider); 18 was taken with a Casio EXZ-1000 and 19 was taken with a Panasonic FZ-50.  Both use 1/1.8 sensors and have about the same image quality, but the Casio is a very small 38-114mm (equiv.) lens and the Panasonic uses a 35-420mm Leica lens.  Both were taken with "macro" ON, with about the same amount of zoom (~114mm), and you can see that the Casio image is flat and slightly sharper, possibly due to more DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's difficult to say, really. Although it's the same spider in each shot, the composition is different. If the FL and sensor size is the same, there shouldn't be much difference in DoF, unless lens quality and pixel count is influencing the result.

I get the impression that some of these zoom lenses on P&S cameras are sharper at their widest aperture of F2.8. Another feature I'd like to see on P&S cameras is a wider maximum aperture, like F2. That would make the camera much more useful. Less need to use those noisy ISO's above ISO 200.

Did you cut out the spider on the blue background?
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2008, 06:52:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The background on the Casio spider had some problems and I just cleared it to plain blue, and never got around to replacing it, with a web pattern fill in this case.  The two cameras were both 10mp, but the number and type of lens elements were quite different, which I suspect was a big contributor to what you see. Perspective, aperture, and other factors make their contribution, but I'm guessing the little Casio's lens assembly doesn't have some particular quality that the Leica lens does, but that's just a guess.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2008, 02:24:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I got the impression that in some of the shots the two wings of the butterfly sort of merged into one, but maybe that's how the wings were.

It could just be the angle from those particular shots.




Quote
The shot of the wasp eating the beetle is quite amazing and has plenty of 3-D effect.

It is actually not a wasp, but a robber fly. These particular subspecies mimic the coloration of wasps, but they are predatory hunters who have almost an "icepick" sticking out of their face as a weapon.

The 3D effect of that photo was more a matter of angle. For instance, had I stood directly over these two mating insects they would have had the "flat" look you are taking about ... but because I got down and propped myself up on my elbows, at about a 25-degree angle, it gave much more depth of field ... as well as made the critters look H-U-G-E.  With the camera at a similar heighth-level as the robber flies, and with such a close shot, I wanted the impression to be what they must look like "if they were our size"

In fact, the shot I took of the American painted lady on the first page was kind of from a "below horizon" perspective, making this butterfly look almost like an airplane waiting its turn to go down the runway and fly ...




Quote
Looks like it would be worth getting a G9 just for its macro capability. You've sure got a lot of butterflies in your garden.

That is the main reason I got the G9, was for macro work for my personal pleasure, and for it to be rugged and capable of being taken and used exclusively outdoors in both my garden and the woods. Many times I have dropped my camera (on purpose), or set it down hard, to go after a snake to catch and add to my collection. So I needed a rugged build on top of the macro and good color.

However, I have also been thinking about designing my own little "Butterfly Field Guide" just for fun, and I need quality photos to do this. I am actually trying to capture shots of each species of butterfly in my area as a more positive way to "collect butterflies" than by sticking them into a wall with a needle. They last longer and look better "alive" and on photo, and I sure do feel better showing them to people this way

As for my garden, yes, I do have lots of butterflies, and that is partially due to geography and partially due to design. I have gone to several nurseries to purchase many different kinds of flower that are known to attract butterflies. However, certain species of butterly do not alight on flowers at all, but in fact are attracted to rotten fruit. So I have also put over-ripe mangos, bananas, etc. out to attract those species as well. Doesn't make for as nice a photo on average though  




Quote
How close to the front of the lens would these shots be on average?

I would say the average distance would be about 18 inches. I normally take one from far away, just to preserve and document the species, and then try for closer ones from there.

If you go to www.butterfliesandmoths.org you can look up the species reported to be found in your state, and from there see if it has been documented that these species were actually found in your county. You can even report your findings to this website, and they will assign to you a professional lepidopterist who will confirm the species if you submit the photographs. When I was living in TN, I documented 12 different species for my county that previously had not been identified there, and so butterfliesandmoths.org updated its records accordingly.

In coordingation with this website, and with appointed experts in each state, and with interested fanciers like us, this is how the effective "range map" of butterflies and their habitats slowly becomes understood better.

Just a little hobby of mine

Jack




.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 02:34:33 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad