Christian Photographers Community

on a little flower, near our home...

[attachimg=#]

Love the colors, so rich...

Couple questions (forgive me, just trying to learn):

1.) If you don't mind, can you share a little more about the shot (ISO/fstop/shutter speed).

2.) Did you use your macro lens or the 135 with the extender.  Seems like you'd have to be some distance out if you used the macro as it's not a super close shot.

Lovely butterfly Kevin.  You have done a nice job of taking this.

Quote from: mfarley on June 02, 2010, 12:18:16 AM
Love the colors, so rich...

Couple questions (forgive me, just trying to learn):

1.) If you don't mind, can you share a little more about the shot (ISO/fstop/shutter speed).

2.) Did you use your macro lens or the 135 with the extender.  Seems like you'd have to be some distance out if you used the macro as it's not a super close shot.

Glad to share the details!

-ISO...200
-Aperture Priority...f/5.6 (the camera selected 1/1250 as the shutter speed)

I used the EF 135 f/2L without an extender or a tube.  This lens focuses at a minimum distance of about 90 cm, and I got as close as I could.

When my plan is to shoot macro-specific shots, I normally use my EF-S 60, sometimes with a 25mm tube, but most often without one.  And just because the EF 135 is my very, favorite lens, I will combine it with the 25mm tube for some close up shooting on occasion.  I wouldn't personally call that "macro", though.  Just really close!

The 25mm tube isn't in my goodies list below since it's not glass and basically just air.  But it is Canon air.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the details - I've recently been spending quite a bit of time at flickr looking at shots and then examining the exif data to see how the shot was achieved.  I've found it's helped a lot with my learning curve.

I figured it was the 135; I don't personally own a macro lens so I've been using my zoom which has worked out okay for most shots.  Definitely not THE tool for the job but A tool nonetheless.

I'm unfamiliar with the term 'tube' but it sounds as if you're using it like an extender, is this just another term I'm for an extender I'm not aware of?

Finally, I'm almost wondering why your camera choose and ISO of 200 instead of 100.  At that shutterspeed you probably could have knocked it down a hair and achieved the same shot at 100 ISO which is preferable correct?

Cheers

Quote from: mfarley on June 02, 2010, 02:11:23 AM
Thanks for the details - I've recently been spending quite a bit of time at flickr looking at shots and then examining the exif data to see how the shot was achieved.  I've found it's helped a lot with my learning curve.

I figured it was the 135; I don't personally own a macro lens so I've been using my zoom which has worked out okay for most shots.  Definitely not THE tool for the job but A tool nonetheless.

I'm unfamiliar with the term 'tube' but it sounds as if you're using it like an extender, is this just another term I'm for an extender I'm not aware of?

Finally, I'm almost wondering why your camera choose and ISO of 200 instead of 100.  At that shutterspeed you probably could have knocked it down a hair and achieved the same shot at 100 ISO which is preferable correct?

Cheers

A tube, or an extension tube, allows the lens to focus a bit closer to the subject than it normally would, gaining magnification, but losing depth of field.  There is no glass in a tube, unlike in a teleconverter.  There are some after-market extension tubes that are less expensive, but I just preferred to stick with Canon air.

I chose ISO 200, not the camera.  When I want "bokeh", a nice blurred background, without a lot of noise, I sometimes use ISO 200.  It seems less noisy than at ISO 100 on the 40D for some reason.  But the reason I chose ISO 200 this time, was to give the camera the option of choosing a higher shutter speed, as it was quite blustery out, and the butterfly and the little flower were not always still.  And I chose f/5.6 to have enough DOF to get all the butterfly and most of the flower within the sharp range of the DOF.

Here's a link regarding a review of the 25mm extension tube.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-25mm-Extension-Tube-II-Review.aspx

Quote from: mybcjazz on June 02, 2010, 04:11:08 AM
A tube, or an extension tube, allows the lens to focus a bit closer to the subject than it normally would, gaining magnification, but losing depth of field.  There is no glass in a tube, unlike in a teleconverter.  There are some after-market extension tubes that are less expensive, but I just preferred to stick with Canon air.

I chose ISO 200, not the camera.  When I want "bokeh", a nice blurred background, without a lot of noise, I sometimes use ISO 200.  It seems less noisy than at ISO 100 on the 40D for some reason.  But the reason I chose ISO 200 this time, was to give the camera the option of choosing a higher shutter speed, as it was quite blustery out, and the butterfly and the little flower were not always still.  And I chose f/5.6 to have enough DOF to get all the butterfly and most of the flower within the sharp range of the DOF.

Here's a link regarding a review of the 25mm extension tube.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-25mm-Extension-Tube-II-Review.aspx

I see, so in this case the tube let you get closer while maintaining focus essentially extending your lens and a teleconverter would have allowed you to zoom closer but you would have to maintain that same minimum focal distance.

As for the ISO setting, that seems so confusing to a new guy like myself.  Intuitively when I want a little sharper cleaner image I want to shoot at the lowest ISO setting I can which for my 50d is 100.  Now you're telling me you've experienced a smother background with a shallow DOF at 200 then you do at 100.  Not doubting you at all, you definitely know your stuff, I'm just trying to understand why that would be.  I guess I have my homework for this weekend, play around with some close up shots and see how ISO100 and 200 compare on my 50d in regards to the background and see if I get the same experience then you do. 

Anyways, I didn't mean to hijack your thread here, it is a lovely shot.

All technicalities aside (it's all way over my head.  ), it's a great picture.   

That butterfly is cool! Good picture, too!
     

Quote from: Chloe on June 06, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
That butterfly is cool! Good picture, too!
     

Thanks, Chloe!