General Photography Chat - Page 63

photoLith · #**1241** Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 11:31 PM**

Heres a picture I took today with the help of my new flash of a Phidipus audax.

Okayyou · #**1242** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 1:47 AM**

^ Great shot! How big is that spider? I've been thinking about buying a macro lens. It's one area of photography I've never dabbled in.

I also noticed the General Photography area of the forums now has more than one page and a lot of old threads re-appeared. Thanks to whoever put this back up, nice to know some of my threads in the General section won't be disappearing into the ether.

photoLith · #**1243** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 2:17 AM**

Thank you and that spider is the largest jumping spider in North America but its only about 15mm longs. Most jumping spiders are less than 10mm long. They are very curious spiders though and will jump on your lens and or your hand and explore around.

flar · #**1244** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 2:22 AM**

^^You should try some focus stacking techniques with that macro setup. I've been wanting to experiment with it myself, but no time for photography lately.

photoLith · #**1245** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 3:05 AM**

^
What in the world is that?

Robert Pence · #**1246** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 3:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

Thank you and that spider is the largest jumping spider in North America but its only about 15mm longs. Most jumping spiders are less than 10mm long. They are very curious spiders though and will jump on your lens and or your hand and explore around.

Yes, indeed. The bold jumping spider. That's a wonderfully detailed look at the little rascal.

They're fearless and they can jump amazing distances, perhaps twenty times their body length. And when they feel threatened they can bite. Their bite isn't venomous, but I've read it's painful.

When you stop to smell the roses, be careful. They like to lurk among the petals. I suppose they're waiting to make a meal of some hapless nectar-seeker. It might be unpleasant to get one in your nose!

photoLith · #**1247** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 4:07 AM**

I had him crawling on my fingers, apparently he didn't feel threatened. They are so cool though.

flar · #**1248** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
What in the world is that?

You combine several shots at different focus distances to get more depth of field. In macro photography, depth of field is extremely shallow even with small apertures. Using this technique you can get macro shots with everything in focus.

photoLith · #**1249** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 5:56 AM**

^
How though, if the spider moves, can you only do it if your subject doesnt move and your framing? Also, if I were to do this could I put the photos together in lightroom 3 or does that require something like cs5? I wondered how other people got super sharp images of spiders and whatnot, I guess thats how they do it then.

flar · #**1250** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 2:04 PM**

If the spider moves too much it won't work, but you can do it even with hand held shots because the software can line up the images by examining the pixels. It then merges the images so that only the sharp parts of each image show up. The software I have that does this is called enfuse. I haven't actually tried it so I don't know exactly what the requirements are in practice, but that is how people get super detailed macros.

flar · #**1251** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 2:12 PM**

Enfuse can also merge the best exposures of multiple images, similar to HDR but more natural. I used it for this photo so that both the skyscrapers in the background and the orchestra on stage were exposed alright. This was done with two images, three would have been better.

Some people also use enfuse to get ultra sharp tripod-like images while shooting hand held by shooting in burst mode all the time and merging them.

photoLith · #**1252** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 3:34 PM**

^
Thanks man, Ill have to look into that, sounds like it has a lot of kick ass applications.

diskojoe · #**1253** Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 10:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
What in the world is that?

its right up your alley. I think you need the macro rings for that. look online for tutorials.

photoLith · #**1254** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 1:25 AM**

^
Arent reversing rings for lenses you want to make macro that aren't macro though?
On another note, Nikon just replaced the d3s with the d4 today so they should be coming out with the d800 soon and then a replacement for the d300; the d400. It's impossible to find a d300s so at the Houston camera exchange today I put some money down and am third on the waiting list for the d400. Hopefully it comes out in April or so.

photoLith · #**1255** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 6:10 PM**

The new Nikon D4, not much has changed since the D3X, illuminated buttons is a damn nice plus. But damn, is it one sexy camera.

• Video Link

Okayyou · #**1256** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 8:56 PM**

I read about the release a few days ago. Interesting that both Canon and Nikon are pursuing the same path for their high end cameras: lower megapixels, high fps, increased iso and better noise reduction. I don't think the D4 or 1Dx is meant to be a landscape camera. I think both companies are following a similar road map.

Canon:

1Dx - High end flagship. $6k, sports, photo journalism, portrait 18MP, 14 fps. Does this merge the 1Ds amd 1D mk IV lines?
5d mkIII - $2.5-3K Landscape camera, probably 35 MP
7D mkII - $1.8-2.2k improved pro-sumer camera, probably still crop sensor
60D mkII - scaled down 7D mk II, probably wont be called the 60D mk II (not for a while)

Nikon:

D4 - High end flagship. $6k, sports, photo journalism, portrait 18MP, 11 fps. Does this merge the D3x amd D3s?
D800 - $2.5-3K Landscape camera, 36 MP
D400 - $1.8-2.2k improved pro-sumer camera, probably still crop sensor 16 MP?
D8000? - scaled down D400 not too sure about this one (not for a while)

Here is the promo video for the 1D-x

• Video Link

photoLith · #**1257** Posted **Jan 7, 2012, 9:00 PM**

The D3X is better for landscapes and such. The D4 is meant more for pro sports shooters and the like. If it were me and I had 7 grand, Id go for the D3X still. But 16 mgpx is plenty, all of this business of cameras getting 20mgpx or more is a waste of computer space. I like how Canons new high end camera is 1DX, when Nikons second pro digital camera was the D1X back in 2001 or so. On another note, Nikon is so much better at producing sexy looking cameras and lenses than Canon, and they are much better at commercializing their products and making them look damn good. When I watch that Nikon commercial vs the Canon one, I just find myself wanting the Nikon so much more than while watching the Canon commercial, even though the Canon has a little better specs.

ue · #**1258** Posted **Jan 8, 2012, 2:38 AM**

Both commercials seem pretty fine to me, but in general I agree that Nikon commercials are nicer. Not quite sure you'd need 100,000+ ISO, though. As for landscapes, Hasselblad or Mamiya SLR with digital back (or 120 back) or a large format camera are still the best. A Nikon D4, or any Nikon or Canon digital SLR, though, is probably the best for sports/action photography.

flar · #**1259** Posted **Jan 8, 2012, 3:50 AM**

It could be just me and my limited contact with photographers, but I tend to think of Nikon as fitting the more artistic and subjective photographer and Canon the technical kind. I think Canon is also used more by people who just want to get the job done with a good tool. Nikon people seem to obsess about equipment more.

photoLith · #**1260** Posted **Jan 8, 2012, 4:34 AM**

Okayyou, I don't think the d400 will have 24mgpx. It will most likely be 16.4 and they for sure won't be releasing the d7000 replacement anytime soon. They will most likely replace that camera in 2 years or so.