First hopper this year

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Wed May 02, 2007 3:06 pm

Place: A big intense yellow Iris flower.

(But not big enough for tiny green Hopper and winged green Aphid together!)
Time: About lunch time!

Action: Finding something for lunch!

Handheld, no cropping.

Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Date/time original 01.05.2007 14:12:52
Shutter speed value 1/400 s
Aperture value f/7.1
ISO speed ratings ISO 200
Focal length 100 mm

Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Date/time original 01.05.2007 14:13:31
Shutter speed value 1/500 s
Aperture value f/10
ISO speed ratings ISO 400
Focal length 100 mm

Model Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Date/time original 01.05.2007 14:13:33
Shutter speed value 1/640 s
Aperture value f/10
ISO speed ratings ISO 400
Focal length 100 mm

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:33 pm

A well photographed and interesting series of photos Nikola.

Yellow is not always the easiest colour to correctly expose for, but in this instance you've got it spot on and it works really well as the background to the two green players in this deadly drama.

DOF is excellent, as is exposure and focus. There looks to be much more detail than can be shown at 800x533 pixels.

IMO one of your best 400D postings.

Bruce

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Wed May 02, 2007 6:28 pm

I agree with Bruce about photo quality of the images, and I'll add that it's a fascinating behavioral series, too!

I normally think of hoppers as being strict vegetarians, though I'm not quite sure where I got that idea.

So now I desperately want to know: what kind of hopper is this, and does it make a habit of dining on aphids?

--Rik

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Wed May 02, 2007 7:37 pm

You know this may not be a hopper but maybe some type of locust. I also notice that there are no wings on this insect and for the most part, all hoppers or grasshoppers I have seen, have wings.

These are classic overhead shots and I must agree that the background of yellow does complement the insect very well. Color, sharpness, depth of field, all right on and yes, you are doing very well with that 400D, wish I could say or feel the same about myself and my new 30D. You certainly are making or getting the most out of your subjects Nikola and though there may not be a great deal of diversity, you fill the frame nicely with your subjects and composing them in such a way that it really brings them to the attention of the viewer. Well done IMO.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 03, 2007 10:54 am

rjlittlefield wrote:what kind of hopper is this, and does it make a habit of dining on aphids?

The more I think about this beast, the more it strikes me as a young nymph of a katydid -- too young for even the wing pads to be obvious. The books say that most katydids are strictly herbivorous, but some eat aphids. The antennae are all wrong for a grasshopper. Could maybe be some kind of cricket, I suppose.

Here's one reasonable match I found in BugGuide: http://bugguide.net/node/view/23093/bgimage .

Any experts out there who recognize this critter?

--Rik

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:17 am

Very much improved on the DOF IMO. They are bright and sharp with lots of Detail. I love the yellow and green. Would have been an excellent movie Sequence

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:50 am

Thanks folks for yours comments!

Rik, I agree.
As I understand terms, hopper refers to the immature form or nymph of a locust, but sometimes also referring to leafhoppers and treehoppers.
Locust is the name given to the swarming phase of short-horned grasshoppers of the family Acrididae. This one obviously isn't short-horned and wings are still undeveloped.
Katydids or bush-crickets belongs to family Tettigoniidae and may be distinguished from grasshoppers by the length of their antennae, which may exceed their own body length, while in grasshoppers are always relatively short. They are also known as long-horned grasshoppers, although they are more closely related to crickets than to grasshoppers.
In general (as much I know) they are all vegetarians with exception of Saga pedo - Predatory Bush Cricket. It can be considered as dangerous as Mantid.

For more information we should kindly ask our know it all members Betty and Erland.

PLEASE?

Flowers and kisses to

Betty in advance.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Fri May 04, 2007 3:09 am

Rik commented:

The more I think about this beast, the more it strikes me as a young nymph of a katydid -- too young for even the wing pads to be obvious. The books say that most katydids are strictly herbivorous, but some eat aphids. The antennae are all wrong for a grasshopper. Could maybe be some kind of cricket, I suppose.

You know crickets and "dids" never crossed my mind but you are probably right there Rik, I would almost opt for it being a cricket of sorts.

Gordon C. Snelling · Post by **Gordon C. Snelling** » Fri May 04, 2007 5:57 am

I agree almost certainly a "did" very nice shots

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:24 am

Ken and Gordon, can you closely explain "dids" and "did" in yours comments please? With my poor English, as it is, maybe I missed point. Is it some kind of playing with words? Normally I think about did as past tense of do. But here "dids" and "did" within quotation marks looks like a part of the word katydids or katydid. Another possibility is an acronym of dissociative identity disorder - multiple personality which could be related with unusual hopper's behavior. Something else?

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue May 08, 2007 3:22 pm

Sorry for the confusion Nikola

You're right about it being short for Katydid (did's & did)