The Raynox Macro club - Page 3

**Marc Sabatella** · 09-29-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Igilligan

No freeze spray or overnight refrigerator tricks... Just 1000 shots taken and 4 keepers

BTW, it occurs to me that this sort of thing is pretty common (not results as great as Gus, but success ratios that are pretty low), and that's one reason why trying to use one of these on a film camera is unlikely to produce as good results (which is what some here have found). Film doesn't exactly encourage to take so many shots, nor does it give you immediate feedback on how well you did with lighting, focus, etc. Perhaps more so than other type of photography, in macro photography digital really gives you a huge advantage that makes it much more feasible to get great results through simple trial and error.

*Igilligan* · 09-29-2009, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

BTW, it occurs to me that this sort of thing is pretty common (not results as great as Gus, but success ratios that are pretty low), and that's one reason why trying to use one of these on a film camera is unlikely to produce as good results (which is what some here have found). Film doesn't exactly encourage to take so many shots, nor does it give you immediate feedback on how well you did with lighting, focus, etc. Perhaps more so than other type of photography, in macro photography digital really gives you a huge advantage that makes it much more feasible to get great results through simple trial and error.

I learned more about macro shooting, (and photography in general) in two weeks with digital than I had in 10 years on film...

I can imagine how frustrating a first time raynox user on film must be. Even now after literally thousands of Macro shots and a much improved skill set... I would not want, and could not afford to shoot them with film.

wowtip · 09-29-2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

BTW, it occurs to me that this sort of thing is pretty common (not results as great as Gus, but success ratios that are pretty low), and that's one reason why trying to use one of these on a film camera is unlikely to produce as good results (which is what some here have found). Film doesn't exactly encourage to take so many shots, nor does it give you immediate feedback on how well you did with lighting, focus, etc. Perhaps more so than other type of photography, in macro photography digital really gives you a huge advantage that makes it much more feasible to get great results through simple trial and error.

Very true. Heck, I need something like 4 - 8 shots to get a keeper when shooting immobile objects such as leaves and nails and such.

200mm @ F13 is not always easy to hand hold. SR or no SR.

*photolady* · 09-30-2009, 11:03 AM

Great shots, Gus!!

Yea, I tried to start this in Photolady's thread to no success....Rob

That's because I was trying to learn how to use this adapter Rob. Not a good place to post your shots when mine were absolutely bad.

But I think I'm getting the hang of this lens adapter now. I've got a couple I did recently with it, and three different lens settings. The 70-300mm was the lens I used. The two flower shots were set on 135mm and the crab on 300mm at f11 for all of them.

This is a spider crab, at least it's his nose and eye.

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

Pink Zinnia, I grew.

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

Not as sharp as I wanted.

Another of my Zinnias. The bottom left is what I thought was in focus.

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

**Marc Sabatella** · 09-30-2009, 11:26 AM

You're right - these are definitely looking better and better!

*photolady* · 09-30-2009, 05:47 PM

Thanks Marc. I used a tripod with the flowers, but for the crab I just put it in sunlight, propped the camera up my elbows on the table the crab was sitting on, and slowly pressed the shutter.

*res3567* · 09-30-2009, 10:00 PM

You got it Photolady! Looks great! Keep on shooting and show us your Raynox Macro pics!

apemen · 10-03-2009, 07:05 AM

with DA 70mm Limited + Raynox 250

Rest is at that thread, 45 photos all with Raynox.

70mm Limited + Raynox 250 (45 photos)

*photolady* · 10-03-2009, 07:47 AM

Nice one, apeman.

Marc and Gus, I shot that crab about 8 times, I got two keepers. These are film shots. Plus, a film camera doesn't have the range of f numbers a digital does, nor does it have the option to shoot at different ISO's. And that's why I'm saving for a DSLR.

wowtip · 10-03-2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by apemen

with DA 70mm Limited + Raynox 250

Rest is at that thread, 45 photos all with Raynox.

70mm Limited + Raynox 250 (45 photos)

Really nice, but a nasty bug. A Ray 250 combined with good glass is really a match for dedicated macro lenses.

**Marc Sabatella** · 10-03-2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by photolady

Marc and Gus, I shot that crab about 8 times, I got two keepers.

That's a great ratio!

Plus, a film camera doesn't have the range of f numbers a digital does, nor does it have the option to shoot at different ISO's.

Not sure what you mean about f-number - that's a function of the lens, not the camera. Whatever range of apertures the lens supports, it supports on both film and digital. But as for ISO, you are of course right there. I mean, you *can* change ISO, but only by changing film, and I think you'll find results at higher ISO on digital to be significantly better than results from the same ISO on film.

*photolady* · 10-03-2009, 06:15 PM

I was talking mainly by what I've seen in here where others have stated the f number as something like f13. My lenses don't show the inbetween numbers, so I was guessing a DSLR would. On Digital cameras set as auto wouldn't it chose the f number? I assume those numbers are there, I just can't select them with my lenses. I really don't know about this all. I can position the aperture ring to an inbetween number but using as manual it does not show up in the view finder.

The only way I can change ISO on my film camera is if I use the button to do so, but then you have to find a lab that can develop pushed or pulled film. Which isn't easy around there.

**Marc Sabatella** · 10-03-2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by photolady

I was talking mainly by what I've seen in here where others have stated the f number as something like f13. My lenses don't show the inbetween numbers, so I was guessing a DSLR would.

Ah. It's not a question of digital versus film, but of setting aperture with the aperture ring versus being able to set aperture using the camera. all digital camera do this, but many film cameras can do that, too. The camera can usually set aperture in 1/2-stop or even 1/3-stop increments. Whether film or digital, though, it only works if the lens supports it - "A" series manual focus lenses, all autofocus lenses. With an "M" series or earlier lens, you're still stuck setting aperture with the aperture ring, which does indeed limit your control. With digital (and some film cameras), using "M" and earlier lenses further limits you because the camera cna't read the aperture ring at all, meanng it can only meter if you hit a button to make the camera stop down. So in that respect, older film cameras work better with old manual lenses than digital cameras do. In the Pentax world, anyhow.

*photolady* · 10-03-2009, 08:30 PM

Got it, thanks Marc.
I shoot all my shots in manual mode, so I have to set the aperture. And all my lenses except two are M lenses. I guess when I get the DSLR I can play around and see what it tells me the aperture is. But like my film cameras, I'll probably shoot in manual mode most of the time. I can't shot auto, I don't like the way it doesn't focus.

**Marc Sabatella** · 10-04-2009, 10:09 AM

Whether you shoot in M mode or not has nothing to do with focus. You can use autofocus in M mode if you wish (assuming it's n autofocus lens), and you can use manual focus in any autoexposure mode.

I think you'll find with any lesn that has an "A" position on the aperture ring, you'll probably want to use it. You can still use M mode, but you set aperture using a dial on the camera rather than the aperture ring. The reason I think you'll prefer this is that, as I mentioned above, newer cameras (both film and digital) can't read the aperture ring, so they can't meter wide open. You are probably used to seeing a meter reading at all times in the viewfinder. Unless you leave the aperture ring in the "A" position, that ability goes away on newer cameras - if you want to see the meter, you have to use the DOF preview to temporarily stop down the lens - or hit a button to have the camera momentarily stop down, meter, and set an shutter speed for you. Either approach is be a step backwards form what you are probably used to - seeing the meter reading at all times.