I bought a set of macro tubes but cannot get decent photos,please help
exitvisa wrote:
I bought a set of macro tubes but cannot get decent photos,please help
I was having the same problem when I got mine last week.
I found out that I have to use the widest aperture my lens will allow ... and focus to infinity.. then either move closer or further away with the camera to get it in focus ...
Also I found I can zoom and get it in focus sometimes too.
The trick is distance, and a tripod
I am using a1:2.8 f=28mm lens,manual adapters and canonT3 .I tried the long and short tubes seperate and together,they are Canon and # 1,2,and3.thx
exitvisa wrote:
I am using a1:2.8 f=28mm lens,manual adapters and canonT3 .I tried the long and short tubes seperate and together,they are Canon and # 1,2,and3.thx
Use a longer lens if you have one. The extension tubes will not increase magnification, they only allow for closer focusing.
exitvisa wrote:
I am using a1:2.8 f=28mm lens,manual adapters and canonT3 .I tried the long and short tubes separate and together,they are Canon and # 1,2,and3.
A standard 28-mm lens will have a curved-field DOF, which can leave your corners out-of-focus, even with tubes. Macro lenses have a flat-field DOF to eliminate this problem.
I do not know what you mean by "manual adapters". Manual extension tubes mean manually closing aperture before photos; auto tubes mean focus wide-open, and camera closes aperture for photograph.
For available light macro-photography with tubes, I suggest a minimum of ISO 400, and expect to shoot near wide-open, which will produce a very narrow DOF. Shoot in strong sunlight, so you can close aperture somewhat.
A tubes set usually consists of a 12-mm tube; a 20-mm tube; and a 36-mm tube. For a 28-mm lens, combining a 12-mm + a 20-mm tube will provide just a bit more than 1:1 magnification, and Working Distance (WD) is about 1-inch.
A longer lens produces a longer WD.
exitvisa wrote:
I bought a set of macro tubes but cannot get decent photos,please help
I'm a new user of extension tubes, and I know that using them can be a challenge. Mine cost about $8.00, and they are completely manual. As others have said, you have to use a lens with a large aperture. Otherwise, the view will be too dark. Exposure and focusing are trial and error, with focusing being accomplished by moving the camera.
For the shot below, I used all three tubes, a D70s, and possibly an 18-200mm Nikon lens. As you can see, DoF is practically non-existent.
one thing to remember is you loose 2 steps of light. putting a light source close to the subject helped me.
Thanks for all the help ,I'll try your tips .
exitvisa wrote:
I bought a set of macro tubes but cannot get decent photos,please help
I an sorry to say this; don't buy the cheap seats...if you want quality macro...buy a dedicated macro lens; e.g. Canon 100mm f2.8...
You can get decent results for very little money with tubes here is a quick shot I just took with a 50mm lens at F22 on 65mm of tubes using cameras built in flash.
ALYN
Loc: Lebanon, Indiana
No doubt about it you have an amazing shot of a dime; but a what cost????
I just ran into the bathroom along the way I grabbed a black background and my Olympus SP-800 UZ w? 14 megapixels. image stabilization and 30X zoom. I used the wide angle got down to within 2 inches. Yes, your shot is somewhat more detailed---but again at what cost, not only in money (299.10) but time and effort (maybe 15 minutes and a sore back).
Now, were it not raining (which I knew was coming.) I could go any where and take more pix.
I would send you a pix, but I have not yet figured out how to do it the UHH way.
But--you have fun your way; I'll have fun my way.
ALYN
ALYN
Loc: Lebanon, Indiana
Exitvisa: Check out my reply to Hangman, re macrotubes. he sent in a pic of a dime, using tubes. I tried dupicating his results with my camera. His is micscopically better, but I wouldn't give him two cents for the difference.
Well that's my dime's worth. ALYN
ALYN wrote:
No doubt about it you have an amazing shot of a dime; but a what cost???? I just ran into the bathroom along the way I grabbed a black background and my Olympus SP-800 UZ w? 14 megapixels. image stabilization and 30X zoom. I used the wide angle got down to within 2 inches. Yes, your shot is somewhat more detailed---but again at what cost, not only in money (299.10) but time and effort (maybe 15 minutes and a sore back). Now, were it not raining (which I knew was coming.) I could go any where and take more pix. I would send you a pix, but I have not yet figured out how to do it the UHH way. But--you have fun your way; I'll have fun my way.
No doubt about it you have an amazing shot of a di... (
show quote)
ALYN wrote:
Check out my reply to Hangman, re macrotubes. he sent in a pic of a dime, using tubes. I tried dupicating his results with my camera. His is micscopically better, but I wouldn't give him two cents for the difference. Well that's my dime's worth.
You are over-critical of Hamgman45 for no reason whatsoever. He is just learning macro-photography, and the dime photo is an exercise to show true 1:1 macro reproduction,
sharp edge-to-edge, and the lighting problems encounter with MFD. How convenient for you that you "cannot" post your "duplicated" results. In photography, results are what count.
Put-up, or shut-up. Website addresses to my macro-photography is easily found, lower left this post. Please show us anything similar captured with a P&S.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.