Need some avice and C&C

dicklaxt · Post by **dicklaxt** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:00 am

I am trying to get to the correct point to shoot some close up shots with alot of different experiments.These two images have had no Post Processing other than resizing.

I have narrowed the final choices to two and I would be happy with either.I would like your opinions and why.

The sequence of componets from the camera out as follows

Fixed camera lens>Raynox 150>macro diopter +12> wide angle,f3.5

Fixed camera lens>Raynox 250>2X TC, f5.6

johan · Post by **johan** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:19 am

Hello,

Can you give us a clearer steer on what you want to shoot with your setup? Although the bottom one would seem to have the superior image quality (especially sharpness across the full width), this might also be due to using different f/stops (therefore different depths of field) and different lighting (the top one seems to have a fair amount less light than the botton, see especially the writing on the bottom of the pencil).

dicklaxt · Post by **dicklaxt** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:46 am

Thanks for the reply..I can't get to serious about macro because I'm 75 on a fixed income and have few health issues.

I wish I had run across this endeavor when I was a young man,I'd have all the bells and whistles by now...

I'd just like to snap off some shots of flowers,bubbles,bugs or anything unusual just to pass the time away.

Do you think the addition of filters would help the cause? I have a polarized,UV and another called FLD,don't know what that one is.

dick

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:58 am

Go with the bottom setup. It's both sharper and has a lot less chromatic aberration (colored fringes near the edges).

Skip the filters until you have a lot more experience with macro. They're unlikely to help much in the best case, and they provide some opportunity for things to get notably worse due to added flare and more surfaces to get dusty.

--Rik

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:21 pm

Dick,

Do I understand correctly that in the second example you are using the Raynox DCR250 together with the 2X TC?

If so, I would try it with just the Raynox DCR 250 alone. You have quite a long range lens on that S3is camera... 6-72mm (36-432mm in 35mm equivalent "terms"). You should be able to image a field size (subject size) of about 1/3 inch x 7/16 inch (.44 x .33 inch) when the camera lens is zoomed to a long focal length. (Just for reference, if this were a 35mm camera you would need a lens that provided a 3.3X magnification to "fill the frame" with the same subject size!) The quality should be very good. The working distance would be wonderful as well... around 4 inches.

A quality point-and-shoot camera with a long range zoom, used together with a quality close-up lens (like the Raynox DCR 250) makes for a very versatile "macro" set-up.

See the Raynox DCR 250 example about 1/2 way down this page:
http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/S2macro.html

dicklaxt · Post by **dicklaxt** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:47 pm

Charles thats what I was doing , here's a shot that you suggested, using just the 250 zoomed max and still in focus with resizing and a tweak or two on contrast.

This is the answer I'm looking for unless someone else has another tip.

I spotted a small flower in the back yard.I'll get a shot of it tomorrow ,its kind of overcast today.

dick

johan · Post by **johan** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:16 pm

dicklaxt wrote:Thanks for the reply..I can't get to serious about macro because I'm 75 on a fixed income and have few health issues.

I wish I had run across this endeavor when I was a young man,I'd have all the bells and whistles by now...

I'd just like to snap off some shots of flowers,bubbles,bugs or anything unusual just to pass the time away.

Do you think the addition of filters would help the cause? I have a polarized,UV and another called FLD,don't know what that one is.

dick

Dick...

You're never too old to do anything, and you're coming into this at the very best time and in great shap! Why?

1) We're at the start of the revolutionary new digital age which will astound us in the years ahead with the advances in technology and the consequent photographer enablement. But, the real revolution has already happened, and it plays into your hands perfectly. For the first time in history the cost of learning and the incremental cost of photography practicing is zero. No film cost, no development cost, no print cost. What could be a better time to do this?

2) You're retired - and that gives you an advantage that us grafting middle aged folk can only dream of. Hours and hours and hours and hours to spend taking pics and just enjoying it to the utmost - heck you even have daylight

. People like me, one of the working millions, sits inside an office all day long and if I'm lucky I have a little time at the weekend at best to putz around and do this stuff. You have all day

3) And lastly, your rig is small and light - PERFECT for the elderly gent with mobility issues! Could it be any better?

dicklaxt · Post by **dicklaxt** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:36 pm

Thanks all

dick