Fast grab from my garden...

salden · Post by **salden** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:57 am

...this morning.

My garden is beginning to come alive, with flowers and insects and would you not know it...I have to leave Sunday for Utah

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:46 am

Was this using flash Sue? I note your insect is at an angle to the camera yet still in focus so you must be using a smaller f-number than I can get with available light and still avoid camera shake. What f-stop are you using and what is your set-up?

DaveW

salden · Post by **salden** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:55 am

No flash.

Canon 1D Mark II N
Canon 100mm 2.8 Lense
Aperture: f13
shutter speed 1/80
handheld

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:16 pm

You must have steadier hands than me then Sue! I thought I was dropping low enough to hand hold at 1/160th for a 180mm lens

I will have to try and see if I can manage dropping the shutter speed to your values. Of course you also probably have much stronger light in the USA than we do so enabling you to use a smaller aperture for the same shutter speed.

I was more or less going on the old "rule of thumb" that for a 35mm camera the safest hand holding speed to prevent shake is the same as the focal length of the lens used. That is 1/60th of a second for a 60mm lens and 1/200 of a second for a 200mm lens.

Many maintain we should use the same shutter speeds for digital as the lenses angle of view would be an a 35mm camera, meaning for Nikon's 1.5 crop 1/90th of a second for a 60mm lens and 1/300th of a second for a 200mm lens.

I will have to do some experiments to see how slow a shutter speed I can get away with hand holding.

Thanks for the info.

DaveW

salden · Post by **salden** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:23 pm

Dave

I have been hand holding my camera at slow speeds for years. It does take a lot of practice and I do not always get a sharp image. My primary problem is wind.

I did have some nice light this morning..

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:25 pm

About the aperture, remember also what Charlie told us at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=2307:

(unlike Canon) the Nikon D200 and [a 70-180 Micro Nikkor lens] will display the actual "effective aperture" that results from focusing close.

The aperture that Sue's camera calls "f/13", might be close to what Dave's camera would call "f/26", at 1:1 magnification.

--Rik

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:46 pm

So what would my f9 be on a Canon then? If f13 is half of f26 would that mean the equivalent of my f9 on a Canon would be f4.5?

If so the difference in DOF between f9 to f26 or f4.5 to f13 would be considerable.

DaveW

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:28 pm

DaveW wrote:So what would my f9 be on a Canon then? If f13 is half of f26 would that mean the equivalent of my f9 on a Canon would be f4.5?

That's correct, at 1:1. A good approximation is that effective aperture = f-number at infinity times (magnification+1). Hence 9 = 4.5 * (1+1).

If so the difference in DOF between f9 to f26 or f4.5 to f13 would be considerable.

Yes, it would be about 3:1.

This bit about how to relate DOF to f-number is really awkward. The relationship is complicated at best, and then the manufacturers throw in zingers like Nikon's dealing in "effective aperture" while most everybody else works with f-number at infinity, and some lenses are different from either of those.

The one safe rule is that stopping down always gives you more DOF, up to the point that everything start to get fuzzy from diffraction.

You can find that optimum aperture by bench tests with subjects that don't move. Then the most DOF you can get for moving subjects is to use that same optimum aperture, and add light if needed to keep the shutter speed fast enough.

--Rik

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:55 pm

A nice one here, Sue. Don't worry, I'm sure you can find some good bugs amongst all the landscapes in Utah!

Dave, I can get down to 1/200th with my 180mm macro (at macro distances) and feel like in many of my images, I don't lose much, if any detail. Even at 1/200th, in a fair proportion of my images I feel like I lose some fine detail if I look at the shot at 100%, though.

My totally unsubstantiated and unscientific belief is that at macro distances magnification is more important than focal length in determining shake reliability--For instance my MP-E-65 is officially a 65mm, f/2.8 lens, but I wouldn't dream of trying to shoot it at 1/60th second and 5x, even in the bright light it would take to get an image at the incredible f/stops that generates!

I feel like if you pixel-peep (as I tend to), the 1/focal length rule isn't always good at normal distances. But then people like Sue come around and prove me wrong!

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:01 am

I'll just say a darn nice shot Sue and you should take more grab shots if this is the result. Very nice

. So can I use this one on the butt pages when its back up Sue

. Love it !!

All the best Sue and an excellent sharp shot no matter what you used

Danny.

salden · Post by **salden** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:04 am

nzmacro wrote: I'll just say a darn nice shot Sue and you should take more grab shots if this is the result. Very nice . So can I use this one on the butt pages when its back up Sue . Love it !!

All the best Sue and an excellent sharp shot no matter what you used

Danny.

Thanks Danny, and yes you can use any photo I have. I might have to put my butt gallery back up. It did get plenty of laughs.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:35 am

I don't have a butt gallery and if I did, someone would probably kick it.

Beautiful and quite a detailed shot.

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:37 am

LOL, thanks Sue and what a subject in an open forum

. I already have one from you Ken in the macro butt pages

Danny.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:41 am

Danny wrote:

I already have one from you Ken in the macro butt pages

Yeah the Spiders butt

You know I have not seen any more of those things, the spiders not butts...probably just as well.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:20 am

Just tried f22 in ambient light here but too much camera shake when letting the shutter take care of itself by using Aperture Priority. I guess you just have greater light intensity in the US allowing you to use smaller apertures at the same shutter speed. Will keep trying and increase the aperture until I find the best combination.

DaveW