When I am in a playful mood, I will see how many interesting different images I can make from a single shot. (I love the virtual image function of Lightroom) Often there is a vertical crop hiding inside a horizontal image and vice versa....or a square. There may be a detail or two worthy of their own frame. Sometimes I see an abstract composition I enjoy.

The benefits I have received from playing the slice and dice game are several. It has helped me refine my sense of composition, balance, weight and artistic focus (attention). It has made me more aware of different potential photos when I am compose subsequent images during the taking phase. Often, I like one of the new crops as much or better than original. Besides, it is challenging and fun game to play.

As a brief aside, slicing and dicing works particularly well with focus stacking. As you shift the viewers focus, the new subject will be in focus.

Irwin

I had been waiting at least four months for the RF 800 and just received my lens from B&H...well worth the wait.

One other thought. If you wish to increase the capacity of your Drobo, Replace only one drive at a time. When you replace the first drive, wait until the Drobo redistributes the information among the drives. Depending on the amount of data you have and the increased capacity, you may only have to replace one drive for now. Also, if you try to replace more than on disk at a time, you will lose data.

There are alot of good information about the preservation and storage of hard drive, unfortunately they may answer your question but to not address your problem.

If the drive was used by a Drobo, it can not be read by other systems. It can only be read by a Drobo. If you replaced the drive in the Drobo with a larger drive, the drive that you replaced will be only a partial backup, at best, once you add new work. Once you insert the prior "backup" disks in the Drobo, it will not contain any of the new work, and will probably be overwritten as the Drobo redistributes the data to ensure that there are there is no data that is on just a single drive (provided that the drive is large enough). My advice is to reformat the old disks and use them to the extent you can.

Also, in my experience with Drobo, I does not necessarily divide the recording of the files onto the set of two drives with a mirror copy on the other two.

Like you, I found the IS on my 100mm Canon L macro very useful. Coupled with the IBIS in the camera body of my R5, servo focus, electronic shutter and slightly higher ISOs, I am able to handhold macro shots that I would not have been able to take in the past absent a tripod. The mindset of how I take macros has certainly changed since the days I shot slow ASA chromes.

I can't speak to present Nikon bodies and lens, as I have shot Canon exclusively for the past decade. But I would
be surprised if the image stabilization in the macro lens did not prove helpful.

One day, I hope to make it.

It depends on how you use them. From prior discussions with Adobe, I believe that certain information, like the number of stars, the color label, or flags, is kept in LR, and is not contained in the xmp files. I use colors and flags to instantly tell me the type of file it is, such as the final edited image, part of a focus stack, part of a panorama, a scanned slide etc. If you use those features, i don't believe they transfer. If you work on developed raw files and preserve the xmp file, another software may develop the image slightly differently, at least according to some friends who opened some LR developed files in another software (though that may have changed over time).

As a prolific focus stacker, I have generated an amazing number of images in the past 15 years (over a million) that would be nearly impossible to track and organize without LR. I don't know who I would be able to find anything quickly without its organizational tools.

There are no zooms that I know of that shoot 1:1. Many zooms seem to be in 1:3 area with an occasional zoom being in the 1:2 range. The easy way to check it is to: 1. find you camera sensor size; 2. take a picture of a ruler at the closest focus distance of the lens (with a zoom lens, you may have to try several different focal lengths to find the maximum magnification of the lens, because the magnification may not be greatest at the longest focal length); and, 3. compare the length of the sensor to the length shown by the ruler. For example, if my full frame sensor is about 35mm long (about 1 3/8ths inches) and the ruler shows 70mm (about 2 3/4ths inches) the magnification ratio would be 1:2.

As defined by the macro section of this site, macro is an image taken at 1:1 magnification, which means that the image size of the subject is the same size as the images as is appears on your sensor. With your lens, if you turn the focus ring all the way to its closest focus distance and then move the camera so that your subject is in focus, then you are shooting "true macro." All other focus distances with that lens are not considered macro by the purists. I don't know of a zoom lens that gets to "true macro" magnifications without the aid of extension tubes or supplemental closeup lenses.

The obsession with magnification ratios made a certain amount of sense in film days, before through the lens metering, when you had to calculate the light loss due to extension. But today it seems arbitrary to me. When I shot a macro with a medium format camera, essentially the same shot take with a 35mm camera would not be considered a true macro. Similarly, a shot taken at 1:1 with my digital full frame would be considered a "true macro" while essentially the same image my cropped sensor body would not be true macro. (Yes, there will be a difference in the depth of field at the same f/stop because the effective f/stop is different due the the actual magnification difference, but that seems a bit esoteric to me). It seemed perversely humorous, that a most macro lenses can only shoot "true macro" at one focal distance...and every other shot is taken with a macro lens is not "true macro." Some macro lenses never reach that magnification ratio. I guess they are not "true macro" lenses.

Others have a less rigid definition.

I hope that helps.

1. Usable high ISO
2. Ibis that works in conjunction with lens stabilization
3. Histogram in viewfinder prior to taking shot
4. In camera focus bracketing with electronic shutter
5. Back button focusing

1. Usable high ISO
2. Ibis that works in conjunction with lens stabilization
3. Histogram in viewfinder prior to taking shot
4. In camera focus bracketing with electronic shutter
5. Back button focusing

I have the prior Sigma 70mm lens in a Canon mount. It is wonderfully sharp and light lens. I can't imagine that you will be disappointed with the image quality. I find it a fine lens for shooting in the 1:3 range and backlit macros. For the reasons others have stated (easier to light, critter distance, background blur, etc), I shoot other macro lenses more often, usually my 180mm, 150mm, or 100mm. But if, after consideration of your personal shooting requirements, you think that a macro in the 60-70mm range is good for you, then the Sigma will be an excellent choice.

I usually focus stack by ring, either manually or through a Camranger or in camera bracketing up to magnifications of 1x. In magnifications higher than 1.5x, I will be using an automated rail. In the 'tween zone of 1x to 1.5x, I use either, depending on the lens and what's most convenient at the time.

However the result of perspective change at magnifications of 1:3 or less using camera shift yields greater distortion than focus breathing at that magnification. See an actual comparison of the results of the two methods by the author of Zerene software, Rik Littlefield. The software has less problems with the size change created by focus breathing than it does with the changing perspective created by moving the camera on the rail. http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/troubleshooting/ringversusrail.

added: This is true at least using Zerene Stacker software. I have not tested it with Helicon or Photoshop

John, this is a question that I had when I was shooting my R5 and the 100-500 zoom. My initial impressions were that the additional pixels I was able to put on a small bird outweighed loss caused by the t/c. But the small ones were flitty enough were there was no way to test the two modes with comparable targets. I also got the impression that the benefit of the t/c was at it's highest the closest you got to the minimal pixels on the bird that would support a good result. From last weekend's shoot, the biggest disadvantage of the t/c did not appear to be decline in image quality. It seemed that acquiring the target was a bit more difficult for the focusing system. I will try tomorrow when I can compare tripod mounted shoots against handheld impressions. I will also try different sized targets