[simon_199]

Both stacks of a few frames. Second one has a strange effect around that seems like excessive usage of shadow recovery but it's actually poor lighting that is hotspots from the flash.
The flower petals have a very peculiar texture, they look almost like paper or plastic, and are very reflective under certain angles.

[WPRESTO]

Both stacks of a few frames. Second one has a strange effect around that seems like excessive usage of shadow recovery but it's actually poor lighting that is hotspots from the flash.
The flower petals have a very peculiar texture, they look almost like paper or plastic, and are very reflective under certain angles.

As I think you knew, the first of those images is really special.The second is fine, but not as striking as the first one. Well done.

[swip]

I was photographing the leaves of a white currant plant and saw the mosquito under the leaf.
It makes for an interesting subject.

[rgknief60]

A significant amount of careful work to get a good result, a rendering of something that is difficult to see in the same detail with your eyes only.

Thanks Walt. Nice image of the forget-me-nots.

Spent a lot of time waiting for the breeze to calm down. I tried three different stacks, and got one good one. I find it harder to get good data with the K3III, probably due to the increased pixel density.


I seem to get more keepers with the K-1. Sure wish the III had an articulating screen. I was surprised how quickly I got used to one on the K-1.

I'm amazed how well Zerene does on images like this. It is my go to.


Affinity is an up and comer for stacking, but it lacks the editing tools that Zerene has. For stacks that don't require much editing, Affinity is a less expensive option. It does not control bloom as
well as Zerene, but the colors seem better. That is easily tweaked. Affinity will also control worm trails to a small extent, something Zerene does not do. A couple of weeks ago I revisited an old

tulip tree seed pod project to see how Affinity would fare. If anyone is interested in my comparisonshots, I'd be glad to post them.

1:1 magnification, stack of 30 images with DFA 100mm Macro WR. Off camera diffused flash.

Really like the lighting, Simon. Great job. I've tried to get close ups of the pistil's structure and have yet to get lighting that displays it well.

Thanks, everybody for posting. We've got a lot of talented folk here!


Roger

[steamloco76]

Elicar VH-Q 90mm f2.8 on K-70 May 2nd flora around the area.

[simon_199]

Really like the lighting, Simon. Great job. I've tried to get close ups of the pistil's structure and have yet to get lighting that displays it well.

Thanks, everybody for posting. We've got a lot of talented folk here!


Roger

Thanks, here is a picture of the setup I used for that shot. The flash diffuser is a modified version of this design. I used different materials and construction technique (depending on which scraps I had available) but the overall geometry is similar. I have made it proportionally bigger and longer, so that when used with the flash on-camera the bottom edge of the diffuser plane rests on the edge of the lens hood of the DFA 100mm WR. I modified the geometry also to make sure that an orthogonal line coming from the center of the diffuser plane falls on the position where subjects are located at 1:1 magnification. So it is somewhat "optimized" for that distance, but works well at others too, as the surface is fairly big. When working on stationary subjects I use it off camera for maximum control. The last two pictures I posted of the yellow flowers were made with the flash on-camera as I got lazy and didn't want to cut the flowers for better positioning. Still decent results I think. It's very versatile.

[rgknief60]

Thanks, here is a picture of the setup I used for that shot. The flash diffuser is a modified version of this design.

Thanks very much for the links and the additional info on your setup!

[rgknief60]

Macro News: perhaps another macro lens for Pentax is discontinued. I hope not.

Laowa lists a full frame 24mm Probe lens for Pentax on their site. Max magnification is 2x with infinity focus. If you've never heard of it before, you might find the link interesting. It's primary use for most users is probably video. It goes places no other macro lens can go, including underwater.

Adorama and B&H both had the Pentax mount listed for sale earlier today for $1449.00, down from $1599.00 USD. Adorama now lists it as no longer available.

If you are interested in this niche item, perhaps you might contact Laowa customer service to check on future availability. If it is no longer available for Pentax mount at Laowa, B&H might be the last place to purchase one in the US. Remember to use a Pentax Forum link to purchase from B&H.

With a max aperture of f14, it will never be as sharp as a standard macro lens. Diffraction begins at f5.6 or f8 on many sensors due to pixel density. That said, maximum sharpness is not always as important as DOF, and there are many great images shot at f18-22 with regular macro lenses.

[ivanvernon]

Pretty little flower closeups.

K-1 with Kino Prfecision/Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro 1:1, one of the best macro lenses around IMHO.

[ivanvernon]

Pretty little flower closeups.

K-10 with Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro 1:1.

[rgknief60]

Pretty little flower closeups.

NIce flowers. I was trying to figure out what was different about your images. Then I looked at your EXIF and noticed that you are using a K10D!

[ivanvernon]

NIce flowers. I was trying to figure out what was different about your images. Then I looked at your EXIF and noticed that you are using a K10D!

Yes, the K-10 was my first digital camera, and I still have it and another one as well. It is still a good camera, though nothing beats the K-1 except maybe my 645Z!

[ivanvernon]

More flower closeups the medium format way.

[jcdoss]

Pentax K-1 mII and A50f2.8 Macro

[que es tu]

Possibly. Figuring magnification with a zoom lens is tricky. Best way is to set the camera on a tripod (a table-top is actually easiest for this) ,, attach the 500D, set zoom to 300mm, and and using manual focus set to the closest focusing distance. Now move the rig toward a ruler set horizontally until it is sharp focus. This will show you 1) the minimum size object that will fill the frame; 2) the distance lens to subject for maximum magnification; 3) and if you want to do the calculation, compare the width of the ruler across the viewfinder (left to right) in millimeters. Divide 25.1 (= the width of an APS-C sensor in mm) by the width of the ruler that is visible. If 50mm of the ruler is visible, your magnification would be 0.5X. If only 25mm of the ruler is visible, you've go 1.0X = life size, and so on.

. I got good results with the original 55~300mm and a achromatic close-up lens, probably the same Canon 500D (I have one and also the 250D in 58mm). Best IQ, but not highest magnification, was with the lens at about 125~150mm

Well, I finally got around to testing this, and here is what I found out: the 55-300 f4-5.8 @ 300mm with the Canon 500D closeup filter at MFD shows 25mm
I also now have a DFA 100mm macro, and that lens shows just over 23mm. Pentax says the sensor is 23.5 mm wide, so that should be perfect.
Just for fun, I put the closeup filter on the macro lens and got 18.5mm. So, 5% above life sized??
I suppose the 55-300 gives just under life size with the close up filter which is good enough for me!! Thank you for your help!!