Greenbottle Fly - 2nd image added

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:17 am

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.

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:36 am

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).

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:56 am

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?

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??

--Rik

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:37 am

A warning: these green species frequent fresh dung! Beware of contamination.

Harold

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:49 am

lauriek wrote: Do you have literature/keys to do so? (If so do you mind posting some info about those?).

I have only a key to the NA species; but there must be some keys for the UK species.
The standard text for Europe is Rognes, K. 1991. Blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. E.J. Brill/Scandinnavian Science Ltd., 272 pp.

P_T · Post by **P_T** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:59 am

That is a deep DOF and the image is very sharp as well. 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.

Cyclops · Post by **Cyclops** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:49 pm

Very nice image. Theyre just too cool to swat!

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:35 pm

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.

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.
Don't know what you have in Australia.

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:18 pm

We have the same colour collection here, although I've never heard the bronze ones referred to as bronzebottles!

I'd always called those ones greenbottles strangely!

All of them are actually really handsome flies. Shame about their habits!

Thanks for the reference!

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:01 am

Excellent photo of a beautiful fly. What do you mean by a "posed live specimen"

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:17 am

beetleman wrote:Excellent photo of a beautiful fly. What do you mean by a "posed live specimen"

Has it finally happened? Do we now have professional macro models?

Harold

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:34 pm

beetleman wrote:Excellent photo of a beautiful fly. What do you mean by a "posed live specimen"

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.

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.

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:53 pm

lauriek wrote: I would imagine that's about as good as you can do for an ID from a single shot of a fly!

One really needs 2 shots for a positive ID; the dorsal as above and a lateral:

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:47 pm

This second image is even better than the first.

It is very difficult to get this lateral viewpoint with a unrestrained fly.

This fly was collected and photographed in a container

Of course this begs to be asked, "What kind of a container?"

Did you have to make one out of high quality glass, or were you able to buy something suitable, or... ?

--Rik

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:44 pm

NikonUser wrote:
beetleman wrote:Excellent photo of a beautiful fly. What do you mean by a "posed live specimen"
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.

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.

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.

Harold