Greenbottle Fly - 2nd image added
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Greenbottle Fly - 2nd image added
This is Lucilia sericata. length 8.5mm, one of several spp. of green- blue-bottles in the Holarctic. Live, posed specimen.
Note the number of setae on the thorax and compare with those on lauriek's fly HERE.
The number and arrangement are useful for species ID.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this image is that it is a single photo using Nikon's AF 105mm Micro Nikkor set at its minimum aperture of f/32 with an added 4T close-up lens. Small aperture used to get greatest DOF but I am surprised at the resolution. At f/8 this lens will easily differentiate individual eye facets but DOF is so limited that stacking of many exposures is needed; live flies rarely (never) stay still long enough to get multiple shots.
Although the lens was set at f/32, the Exif data shows an aperture of f/51.
Cropped to about 60% of the full width of original.
Last edited by NikonUser on Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why would it report a different aperture? Are Nikon cameras clever enough to work out the effective aperture including built in extension on the lens? (Pretty cool if so!)
Nice shot, I would imagine that's about as good as you can do for an ID from a single shot of a fly! I've never actually tried to ID these sorts of flies right down to the species level. Do you have literature/keys to do so? (If so do you mind posting some info about those?)
Incidentally you know with those good quality doublet diopters you can stack a couple of them if you need a little more magnification, with virtually no loss of IQ. (I used to regularly stack a 5T, a 6T and a good Olympus doublet to get up to around 1:1 on a prosumer digicam).
Nice shot, I would imagine that's about as good as you can do for an ID from a single shot of a fly! I've never actually tried to ID these sorts of flies right down to the species level. Do you have literature/keys to do so? (If so do you mind posting some info about those?)
Incidentally you know with those good quality doublet diopters you can stack a couple of them if you need a little more magnification, with virtually no loss of IQ. (I used to regularly stack a 5T, a 6T and a good Olympus doublet to get up to around 1:1 on a prosumer digicam).
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Yes, but as I understand it, only with certain models of cameras and lenses. It's another one of the wrinkles in trying to make sense of the numbers in this field. You get an image that says f/16 -- what does that really mean??lauriek wrote:Why would it report a different aperture? Are Nikon cameras clever enough to work out the effective aperture including built in extension on the lens?
--Rik
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
I have only a key to the NA species; but there must be some keys for the UK species.lauriek wrote: Do you have literature/keys to do so? (If so do you mind posting some info about those?).
The standard text for Europe is Rognes, K. 1991. Blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. E.J. Brill/Scandinnavian Science Ltd., 272 pp.
In North America, Blowflies (family Calliphoridae) can be shining metallic blue, green or bronze; some appear black and others are checker-board grey. In the genus Lucilia there are bluebottles, greenbottles, and I guess bronzebottles.P_T wrote: Do these flies come in other colours? I found quite a large fly only it was light blue in colour with no hint of any green hue.
Don't know what you have in Australia.
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
Perhaps "posed" is a poor choice. I consider "posed" to be when the subject has been moved; either moved from its environment or moved in its environment.beetleman wrote:Excellent photo of a beautiful fly. What do you mean by a "posed live specimen"
This fly was collected and photographed in a container. Thus it was alive, and healthy, but restrained.
If you took a photo of, say, a pine cone in its natural habitat but you moved it an inch or two for a better background then I would call that posed.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
This second image is even better than the first. It is very difficult to get this lateral viewpoint with a unrestrained fly.
Did you have to make one out of high quality glass, or were you able to buy something suitable, or... ?
--Rik
Of course this begs to be asked, "What kind of a container?"This fly was collected and photographed in a container
Did you have to make one out of high quality glass, or were you able to buy something suitable, or... ?
--Rik
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
How about "re-positioned" and "relocated"? The term "arena", used for small containers, often open-topped, used for observation of small creatures, could also be used.NikonUser wrote:Perhaps "posed" is a poor choice. I consider "posed" to be when the subject has been moved; either moved from its environment or moved in its environment.beetleman wrote:Excellent photo of a beautiful fly. What do you mean by a "posed live specimen"
This fly was collected and photographed in a container. Thus it was alive, and healthy, but restrained.
If you took a photo of, say, a pine cone in its natural habitat but you moved it an inch or two for a better background then I would call that posed.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.