Douglass,
The point I was trying to make is how high resolution imaging arrays and good glass blur the strict definition of macro photography. When you crop and enlarge a small section you can get the effect of a macro shot. Also when you print these photos as 20 by 30 inch prints you start to notice detail that has similar impact to macro. Notice the detail in the magnified circle in the middle of the photo.

BTW, The next thing I'm going to try is to combine Rembrandt lighting with macro/flash photography by using a Ray Flash to control two slave flashes. Look for my post in a few days (If I can do it.)

I did not post this on the macro tread that is going on now because I do not think it qualifies as a true macro shot. Yes, it was taken with a 100mm macro lens but the lens was not wound out to it's full 1:1 setting because I wanted to capture the entire butterfly. What I find interesting is the detail of the wing structure when the image is blown up large. The camera used a 24.7 MP imaging array. In the attached photo I captured a portion of the wing and magnified it. You can can see at this "Micro" level that a butterfly's wings have structure similar to bird feathers. I did not know this until I blow up this photo to a large print.

I consider this to be a macro. It's not "bug-anus" close, however my macro lens was at the 1:1 mark so by definition it is a macro.

Again using the Ray-Flash on a 100mm lens on my A900 full frame camera. F/32, 1/100, ISO=200.

I went on my daily hike looking for interesting things to place into a zip lock bag to bring back to the house to photograph. I did not find any bugs but I did find a tiny feather and a seed pod. I placed them on my dining room table and took this photo:

OK, here are two more I took that same day the Ray Flash arrived in the mail.

Tomorrow I have been asked to give a short presentation of my Ray Flash at a local camera club. I just moved into the South Western corner of Pennsylvania and do not know many people. The camera club is a way to make new friends and is working out well.
The first picture is the tiny red ant I mentioned.
The second may not be a true macro but it's close and the same equipment was used.

I meant a full frame (35mm) image array and there was no cropping. The camera used was a Sony A900 w/ a Sony F58AM flash attached. I used a Sony 100mm macro lens. I like the Ray Flash a lot. It's a bit expensive compared to the O-flash. I paid $200 for mine. I understand it loses one f-stop less light than the O-flash does. The real reason I went with the Ray Flash was because I read an article on the Internet by someone who had my camera and flash and found the model number that fit it. It is made for a Canon camera but just happens to fit my A900 perfectly. I like it a lot! I have attempted macro photography many times in the past with limited success because of shallow depth of field. With this thing I can get a reasonable depth of field. This (Stink bug) was the first macro I took with it. It's so easy I feel like I'm cheating! I also took a photo of a red ant with it. The blast of heat and light caused the ant to fall off the wall! :lol:

You can see the ants eyes and mandibles in that photo.

I'm an avid hiker and think the Ray Flash is a bit too big and clumsy to take with me on a serious hike. Other than that, I love it.

100mm macro, Full Frame, 1/100, f/32, Ray Flash

I'm a bit late to the game but here is my attempt at making it "Pop".
I used Aperture 3, CS5 to adjust shadows and high lights and did little burn-in cross the middle. I then went back to aperture where I used my Nik filters to up the contrast and used a digital polarizing filter on the sky. Finnaly I sharpened it a bit to make it "POP".

Now that I done, I don't know if I did any better than you did. After all that effort I going to post it any way. ;-)

Trying my hand at macro photography.

I peeked at you website. Great work and your prices are very fair. I have never sold anything on line except to a friend who saw one of my photos on Facebook and asked to buy it.

This past Sunday I exhibited my work at a craft show. I sold $161 worth of my prints. Half of that is my expense. Then I had to pay $35 dollars for my spot at the show, I donated a framed photo to the Chinese auction. If you consider the gas driving back and forth and the lumber I and hardware I had to buy to make a big hinged peg board room divider to hang my stuff from. I lost money.

I sold some of my stuff to strangers but most of my sales came from friends of my wife. Maybe it was charity. My wife is skilled artiest and her friends tend to be artists. One is a manager of an art museum. I'm flattered that she was one of my biggest costumers.

It gives me a good feeling when people are willing to pay for my work. When you consider all the work of loading up my SUV and spending all day behind a table, It's not a good way to make money. I took the liberty of attaching three of my best sellers. I have sold these many times of the past few years. The one with the snow was taken with a very old film camera.

Thank you Douglass. Sorry, I do not have a web site. I just became interested in photographing hummingbirds late this past August. It took me weeks to learn how to do it. By the time I mastered it, they had migrated South. Next spring I'll take more. My technique involves a lot of flashes, back-lighting, low ISO, High f-stops (f/22), shutter speed is unimportant because the flashes do all the work. I consider all my photos were sightly underexposed requiring correction in post processing. Next year I will have a sixth flash and use a home made Fresnel flash extender to get more light on the bird. I used a 300mm f/2.8 lens and a full frame camera this year. Next year I plan on using the same lens but a different camera with better ISO.

I only managed to take three photos before the birds where gone. I attached one more. I take these pictures out an open window in my house.

You have chosen a very difficult subject to focus. The only way I have had success with humming bird was to anticipate where the bird will be, manually focus on the spot, press the shutter when the bird comes to that spot.

Hummingbirds move very fast; some blur my be due to the motion of the bird. I use FIVE synchronized flashes.

Remember Fred, any alpha lens you own will work on a Nex with an adapter. However you will lose the Image-Stabilization (IS) because the Nex, as yet, does not have IS built into camera body. Only the e-lenses have built in stabilization.

Turn to dark side, sinatraman and buy a Nex.
May the force be with you.

My Nex adapter arrived from China today. Mine is a "Pixco" brand and accepts Konica AR lenses on one side and plugs into Nex cameras on the other end. It's an inch long and almost a 1/4 inch will engage into the body of the Nex. The first thing I did was tryout several of my old Konica lenses on it. I forgot how nice it feels when the self aligning tabs of a Konica snugly snap into place, much easier and smoother than the Alpha lenses, but then there are no electrical contacts or auto focus gizmos that need to mate. The baked on black paint matches my lenses perfectly. The adapter has a tiny steel button that needs to be pressed to release the the Konica lens and red dots to aid in alignment. It also has an extending little pedestal where a tripod could be attached. It matches my lenses so perfectly that I fear I will need to explain to NFL officials at football games that it's not part of the lens and that my lens is only six inches long NOT 6.75 inches!

I could enter the game with a tiny 40mm pancake lens attached to the Nex-7 body and the 205mm, six inch long lens, hidden in my wife's purse. The people who check ladies purses are reluctant to question the items they find. They do restrict the size of the purse to very small sizes.

Fred,
Here is a link to help you make comparisons based on specs:
http://www.popphoto.com/buying-guide/cameras

Dave