Macro shots

Merrion

(Sorry - but it is spring and I spent lots of money on a macro lens.....)

Merrion

(a...and there's more...)

Shrimp

They are alright... nothing too special though.. I take it the camera isn't brand new? whats the spec?

Merrion

Canon EoS10 (not digital) - Fujichrome 200 - 50mm EF 1:2.5 lens. [Manual focus]

Shrimp

Yeah, thats what i was guessin, not digital.

PurpleFistMixer

Hey non digital cameras can be good!

I envy the macro lens-ness. I have only a long lens (and normal one, obviously) for my SLR, and I would much prefer a wide-angle or macro...

Anyway, about the pics.
I really like [URL=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/10698/11743.jpg[/URL] and [URL=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/10698/11746.jpg[/URL], the focus is great on both of them. The touch of blue in the first is quite gorgeous.

rymus

nice pics... although some of them dont look as sharp as they could be

Shrimp

Well, thats cos he scanned them in i think etc..

rymus

yes... that could be it.. silly old me not remembering the film part of the equation. Tis a sad state of affairs when we expect everything to be digital

Shrimp

ah not really.. I want digital everything.. yep EVERYTHING

FX Meister

Film is still better quality than digital. He may be scanning in flicks but if it was a film scanner then the quality can't be matched by a digital yet.

Shrimp

well, I'm not to sure about that. I seen a photo which was 1Billion pixels as a post to Mega Pixels.. it was a science experiment.. and to the naked eye.. both are practically equal

Gordon

That was a composite afair.

Shrimp

sorry.. explain?

Gordon

I don't think that that was actually taken by a single camera, it was made up of many pictures.

FX Meister

AS was said, that was just a lot of small images all stitched together. Blow something up with film and do it to a digital image to the same degree and to the naked eye both will not be practically equal.

FX Meister

How much did you spend on the lens dude? I've finally got a new fisheye, got it this eve from a chick on here. Sigma 15mm but on my 300D it's actually a 24mm.

Merrion

The macro lens was just under €500.

It has a really tight depth of field (the portion of the photo in focus) which I'm still getting used to. The problem is that for macro shots you pretty much have to use manual focus and just keep the thing that you are interested in in tight focus.

Images are scanned from print (using Epson 1660 flatbed scanner) then jpeg to b*ggery to get them under the 100k upload limit.

Being taken on good film means they will expand to A3 size photos without losing definition. Only a professional digital camera like the EoS1D would match that....but I really don't have that kind of money.

FX Meister

What lens is it? I'd love a macro but I paid out about €1000 for a 10-22mm and the 580ex Flash and then in a quick splurge I bought the fisheye on here for €420. I couldn't resist with the fisheye though, I have the same one for my Minolta film SLR but it gets zero use these days and I can't sell it. I love that lens.

Merrion

It's a EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro...not a particularily good price but with something like that I prefer a bricks and mortar store so I can throw it at the salesperson if it goes wrong ;-)

I might get the Life-Size Converter to go with it.

minnie_mouse

Am saving up for macro lense for my camera, but in the mean time, close up up filters are doing the job fine, 9 yo yos each. there great!