Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Road Trip - Dragonflies - Photography - Geology
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 46 of 69 (788256)
07-28-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
07-28-2016 10:14 AM


Re: Thanks
This was shot as aiming practice using a D500, 300 mm F/4 PF with 1.4 TC at 1/2000, ISO 900, f/8.
Were you using manual or auto focus? I have never been able to use auto-focus for flight shots.
I'm going to experiment with much higher f-stops and slower shutter speeds. I had the speed set for hummingbirds.
Dragaonflies are my favourite insects by a mile.
I have had fairly good luck shooting at a higher ISO ~2000-3200 and f20-f22. A bit of extra noise in flight shots is acceptable (to me).
I experimented using a Better Beamer on my flash synchronized to high shutter speeds 1/2500-1/3000. It worked to stop the wings in a few shots but it turns out that I prefer shots with wings that are partially blurred by speed.
ABE: One interesting thing to note, the dragonfly in your shot has its legs tucked up tight against the body in flight. When I first got interested in dragonflies as a kid the literature described their behavior in flight as using their legs as a basket to snare flying prey. High-speed photography showed that they actually capture prey with their mouths and then use their legs to manipulate it if needed.
Photography also shows that they keep their head level with the horizon even when making high speed banked turns.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2016 10:14 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2016 3:09 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(2)
Message 47 of 69 (788278)
07-28-2016 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tanypteryx
07-28-2016 11:52 AM


High ISO
The D500's new autofocus system is very, very good. I find with a even, blank sort of background that it can look on in autofocus with "auto" select of autofocus points (of the 151 it has) instead of using 3D or group or single point selection.
What I have to do is overide the lens manually to get it a little in focus and then let it track from there. It can hold for 10's of images (at 10 per second) if I can manage to keep the little darling in the frame.
The above image is in a darker spot. I used minimum shutter speeds and let the camera pick the needed ISO to maintain it. This one is at ISO 22800 (and f/8 and 1/2000 like the others).
At that ISO I get shit if the subject isn't well lit but with a moderate amount of noise reduction in light room I get the above acceptable result in the sunlight.
The 300 mm F/4 has a 1.4 meter closest focusing distance and keeps that with the 1.4 x teleconverter turning it into a 420mm so it becomes a sort of long range "macro" with very nice bokeh.
I like the idea of having an assisstant (a pretty one ) holding the flash as close as possible and use that to get a short burst of light. I'll have to try your suggestion. In the humming birds I like a bit of blur too but want to make the choice myself shot by shot.
/ABE: The 1.4x TC does slow down the focus speed on the lens a lot but it is still ok for a lot of situations. Without it the 300 is damned quick.
The drawback (to me ) of the D500 is the "only" 21 Megapixies. I compare it to the D810 and figure the combination of the loss of pixies and the 1.5 crop of the D500 gives me a 1/3 improvement in "reach" (or pixels of subject when comparing the two cameras).
If the D820 comes out next year with the same autofocus system and 75 Mpixels I will get more reach with the full frame and wonder what the value of the D500 is then. But love it now .
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-28-2016 11:52 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-28-2016 8:52 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 48 of 69 (788296)
07-28-2016 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NosyNed
07-28-2016 3:09 PM


Re: High ISO
The D500's new autofocus system is very, very good.
I envy you that.
This one is at ISO 22800 (and f/8 and 1/2000 like the others).
At that ISO I get shit if the subject isn't well lit but with a moderate amount of noise reduction in light room I get the above acceptable result in the sunlight.
The subject looks great.
The 300 mm F/4 has a 1.4 meter closest focusing distance and keeps that with the 1.4 x teleconverter turning it into a 420mm so it becomes a sort of long range "macro" with very nice bokeh.
I have run into several dragonfly photographers who use that lens successfully.
I like the idea of having an assisstant (a pretty one ) holding the flash as close as possible and use that to get a short burst of light.
Funny you should mention that..... A German fellow named Georg Rppell used to shoot high-speed film (500 fps) of dragonfly behavior and he had a beautiful assistant we called the "Delicious Dagmar". I believe he is still shooting, but now with video.
The drawback (to me ) of the D500 is the "only" 21 Megapixies. I compare it to the D810 and figure the combination of the loss of pixies and the 1.5 crop of the D500 gives me a 1/3 improvement in "reach" (or pixels of subject when comparing the two cameras).
I have a pair of D700s that are only 12 megapixels. I am considering a D810 both for the video capability and the pixel density for stacked photomicrography.
Here are a couple of my early flight shots of male Aeshna palmata.
This is A. palmata in a high G turn with his head level and body at about 45 degrees.
One of the cool things about dragonflies is their ability to move all 4 wings independently using muscles attached to the wing bases. This is considered to be how all the first flying insects flew. All the other orders evolved a different method of moving the wings while Odonates retained the "primitive" musculature and evolved exquisitely fine flight control of their large wings.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2016 3:09 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2016 12:48 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 69 (788301)
07-29-2016 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tanypteryx
07-28-2016 8:52 PM


High G turn
How the heck did you keep it in frame if it was moving fast? That is what I am practicing to do and find it very hard.
I've been looking for an aiming device like "red dot" but there is another one that is just like a little gun sight that goes into the flash mount. I saw it a year or so ago but can't find the thing now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-28-2016 8:52 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 11:33 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 50 of 69 (788320)
07-29-2016 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
07-29-2016 12:48 AM


Re: High G turn
How the heck did you keep it in frame if it was moving fast? That is what I am practicing to do and find it very hard.
Luck
Shooting lots of shots at the end of their patrol loop where they make tight turns.
I've been looking for an aiming device like "red dot" but there is another one that is just like a little gun sight that goes into the flash mount. I saw it a year or so ago but can't find the thing now.
I don't see how that would make it any easier. The dragonfly is your target so you point the camera at it. Trying to point a laser at it isn't going to make it any easier, unless I am missing something.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2016 12:48 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2016 12:15 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2016 1:47 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 51 of 69 (788324)
07-29-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tanypteryx
07-29-2016 11:33 AM


Pointing
Even the "red dot" isn't a laser. These devices allow you to sight without looking through the viewfinder. At 420mm the field of view is very, very small.
I find that if I keep both eyes open I can see the dragonfly with my left eye and the swivel just a degree or two left and he is in the frame. The "gunsight" one I am thinking about allows you to line the sight up (adjust it for the lens) so if you have the subject in the crosshairs then it is in the center of the frame.
The idea is this is easier looking with your eyes full field of view than peering though a tiny hole through the lens.
The gunsight one seems simpler (and cheaper and lighter) than the red dot one but they are both operating in about the same way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 11:33 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 69 (788332)
07-29-2016 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tanypteryx
07-29-2016 11:33 AM


Re: High G turn
How the heck did you keep it in frame if it was moving fast? That is what I am practicing to do and find it very hard.
Luck
Shooting lots of shots at the end of their patrol loop where they make tight turns.
Accuracy by volume!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 11:33 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2016 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 54 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 69 (788336)
07-29-2016 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2016 1:47 PM


Accuracy by Volume
"Spray and Pray"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2016 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 3:50 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 54 of 69 (788338)
07-29-2016 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2016 1:47 PM


Re: High G turn
Accuracy by volume!
The broad side of a barn doesn't stand a chance.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2016 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 55 of 69 (788339)
07-29-2016 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NosyNed
07-29-2016 2:43 PM


Re: Accuracy by Volume
"Spray and Pray"
Manual focus cuts the count of my successful shots considerably. Shooting when they are hovering increases my odds a bit.
That first shot (in Message 48) was taken with an old 70-180mm micro-nikkor at 180mm, f19 @ 1/500 ISO5000.
As far as I know the 70-180 was the only true macro lens that would zoom while focused. I got it back in the '90s for my F5.
The high G shot was with a Sigma 180mm macro +1.4TC, f25 @ 1/2000 ISO3200.
This shot of a male Anax longipes from last summer in Pennsylvania was with a 200mm micro-nikkor, f20 @ 1/250, ISO1250. I only got a chance to shoot about a dozen shots because he stayed out of range most of the time.
There are some people out there who shoot Dragonfly Airshows far better than I do. The best I ever saw was a shot of a Pantela flavescens cop pair in flight with the wings frozen and everything in perfect focus.
A boy has to have dreams........

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2016 2:43 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2016 9:09 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 56 of 69 (788360)
07-30-2016 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tanypteryx
07-29-2016 3:50 PM


D810
I don't get why higher resolution helps with focus stacking (something I want to try sometime).
But if you want a D810 waiting might be a good idea. It is just getting due for a replacement so there should be discounts in a few months (well, early 2017). Then there will be used ones on from those upgrading to a D820 (rumored to be 75 mpixels btw).
But I'm wondering if a D500 would be a better fit for you. It is faster focusingas and has a much higher frame rate than the 810. (too bad you aren't going to be through Vancouver or I'd let you try both).
You'd sure get more "reach" with the D500! You know they talk about crop factors and such. It is my contention that this isn't what you need to look at.
They common saying would be that I get 1.5 times the telephoto "reach" going to the crop frame D500 from my full frame D810. But that ignores the 21 to 36 megapixel difference that allows for cropping.
To me, the right answer ignores the sensor size as such. Here's what I'd calculate:
The image a lens casts in the sensor if the same size from you 200mm macro no matter how big the sensor. What you are interested in is how many pixels of subject (read Tanypteryx) you have given that if doesn't fill the any of the sensors you are comparing.
This is determined by the pixel density per sq mm. For the D500 it is 40 and or the D810 it is 30 so I get 1/3 more pixels of dragonfly with the D500.
I'm estimating that the D700 should be 10 pixels per sq mm. So you will get 3 times "closer" with a D810 and 4 times with the D500. Suddenly your 200mm macro will be an 800!
And the D500 is only somewhat more than half the cost of the D810 new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 3:50 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2016 1:10 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 57 of 69 (788375)
07-30-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NosyNed
07-30-2016 9:09 AM


Re: D810
I don't get why higher resolution helps with focus stacking (something I want to try sometime).
In my case it is primarily a desire to blow the final image up to a larger size. Stacking defeats the loss of depth of field in high magnification images and then adding more magnification resulting from smaller, tighter pixel density allows us a sharper view of smaller features.
I would also love the benefit of blowing landscapes up to larger print sizes.
My friend's nymph book deadline is the end of 2017. Once that is finished we are hoping to make a trip back to Bolivia. When we were there last in 2001 we were still shooting film and no video capability. We discovered two damselflies in the Polythoridae family, Polythore boliviana and Cora terminalis, that are the absolute most beautiful odonates we have ever seen. We want to get still shots but also hi-res video of them flying. At our age this may be our last tropical trip.
But I'm wondering if a D500 would be a better fit for you. It is faster focusingas and has a much higher frame rate than the 810. (too bad you aren't going to be through Vancouver or I'd let you try both).
The D500 does sound like maybe it's what I need, but 500 is lower than 810 or 700 for that matter, so it can't possibly be as good.
One of the reasons I bought (and love) the D700 is the low noise sensor, but it does seem that Nikon has greatly improved the noise profile of their sensors as they have reduced the size and increased the density of their pixels.
I do worry about diffraction limiting the gains in resolution when shooting at small apertures. I have a D2x and I was quite disappointed at the loss of detail I suffered due to diffraction compared to my shots on film using the same lens.
It seems there are always trade offs and sacrifices that come along the benefits as the technology evolves, not to mention the prices. I think I paid $450 for my first Nikon F.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2016 9:09 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2016 2:14 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 58 of 69 (788376)
07-30-2016 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tanypteryx
07-30-2016 1:10 PM


D500
Trade-offs:
Yea, physics is a bugger.
I have been slowly seduced into another trade-off: when I am not traveling I end up with two cameras hanging on me; D810 with a 24-70 and a D500 with the 420mm combination. Heavy! Expensive!
Numbers: Nikon explained skipping the long rumored D400 because the sensors in the D500 and the D5 (and the autofocus) are the same (or close). Now what will they do in 2 or so years when they produce the D6? I already had a D600 so will we get a D600b? Then 2 years later a full frame D7 and a crop frame D700? Confusing.
I am also after the opportunity to blow up to big sizes but have as yet only printed on canvas at 3x3 feet (and a bunch smaller).
The low noise is partially sensor but also the faster processor and it's algorithms to "fix" things. What you see a lot is that the processor needs photons to work with. If the subject is shadowed you get shit results. Turning the ISO up is NOT like shining a brighter light on the subject. I suspect with lots of experimentation you could begin to guess what the processing is doing.
Prices:
Prices have gone way UP in inflated dollars (and in constant dollars) but like cars the technology is hugely more capable. I remember carrying regular film and higher speed film and winding back and counting to note where to reset the film to; putting in the higher speed film; shooting a bit; winding it back and putting the slower cheaper film back in. Now I either roll a dial or just let the camera adjust ISO as need to get the exposure.
Besides I'm not sure I'd be trying to practice with tanypterx at 10 fps if I was paying for film!
ABE: also the D500 is 4k video (not that I shoot much video at all). I have done some experiments and if you up the shutter speed with video (which isn't recommended because is it supposed to make for a less smooth, real seeming video image) you can pull still from it that are 8meg. (not so far off your D700).
Of course, now you have "stills" at 30 fps and will spend the rest of your life picking the ones you want to keep.
Edited by NosyNed, : added a bit
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2016 1:10 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 69 (788377)
07-30-2016 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
07-28-2016 10:14 AM


Re: Thanks
NosyNed writes:
This was shot as aiming practice using a D500, 300 mm F/4 PF
i'm actually looking at getting one or both of those if i pick up enough obstacle course race work this year to pay for it. i nearly bought the 300 last year, but i went with the 20/28/50/85 f/1.8G set instead. and i'm glad i did, those lenses are killer, and they were very useful for the work i had this year.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2016 10:14 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2016 9:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 60 of 69 (788386)
07-30-2016 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by arachnophilia
07-30-2016 2:44 PM


Work
What do you do? You are a pro? Very cool. I have the 50 and the 85. I love the 85 but don't use the 50 as much as I should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 07-30-2016 2:44 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024