Extension tubes as you discovered allow you to get closer and thus magnify.

I would suggest you use each tube individually on a single lens. Then use them in combination. Have a look at what happens. To really appreciate what is possible, set your focus to minimum and leave it there, focus instead by moving the camera in and out. That's how tubes are usually focused anyway and that will demonstrate to you exactly what the effect of each tube is.

The tubes are also expensive light wise. So as you try the different combinations record your exposure data. That will give you a good idea how much light any combination will cost you.

Generally using tubes isn't very helpful with a fifty or shorter lens, you have to go too close. Using the shortest tube helps but not always. Try instead a 100 mm or longer lens, that gives you a better working distance. The shorter lens is only handy if you have something really tiny like a flea to take a picture of.

You can use as many tubes as you like. There is a limit in the sense that eventually you lose so much light you can't see your subject under a high noon sun but until you get to that point you can just keep magnifying, it does not affect the quality of your image.

Focus can be helped with a focusing rail. The way you focus is by moving the camera forward and backward. That is a hell of a struggle hand held. It's usually easier on a tripod compete with a focusing rail. The rail is also useful for focus stacking since it enables you to move the focus point in tiny increments. The link below will show you some options. Don't be shocked by the prices, some are a lot more affortable. Just make sure that whatever you choose, is rigid.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Other-Macro-Accessories/ci/3067/N/4289360636?origSearch=focusing+rail

I think you'll find with enough practice it will become intuitive what combinations you need to achieve the picture you want. Good Luck!

Anyone in a public place is fair game. You can photograph anyone and anything you like and you have no legal obligation to show them your pictures or even defend yourself. When you do encounter someone who gives you a hard time, calling the police is often a solution.

I could not imagine carrying a medium format camera and a couple of lenses. I can imagine even less carrying a view camera on a heavy wooden tripod. And yet in the midst of the cell phone revolution, there are people who still do that and they even spend big bucks doing so. Why? Well it's a quality issue, if you want the quality you have to pay the bucks and sacrifice the muscle.

It is indeed possible that we will start to wonder why we are carrying so much weight and spending so much money when a little device that fits in our shirt pocket competes with our full frame DSLRs. That does seem a bit dumb. But then why did we buy into this to begin with? There have always been cheaper and less weighty ways to take pictures, yet we spent the bucks. The answer is quality.

I look at this transition as an opportunity. As we begin to ask why we are lugging around our heavy cameras and lenses, the manufacturers will be realizing that we might suddenly bolt and go for our smart phones in future instead of their cameras. There is the opportunity.

I think we can look forward to better cameras that are more richly functional that produce awesome images and that weigh a lot less too. No matter how you look at it, a DSLR has to always be able to produce a better image than a device that has a pencil dot sized sensor, it's a physics reality. Now is the opportunity for the manufacturers to prove it. And when that happens the camera will continue to be alive and well and it will be lighter and better too. At least I hope so. Just try to remember your film camera and what it could do and now look at what your digital is able to do. The evolution has been dramatic and I think we're heading to another advance soon enough.

A few years back I had read a research paper about developing an electronic chip that is flexible and can be curved. I think that's going to be one of our future solutions too. Our lenses are incredibly heavy because they need to take the incoming light and flaten it out to illuminate all of the sensor. Now if we could have a curved sensor we could eliminate a large percentage of all the glass making the lenses a lot lighter and cheaper. Another possibility is to make our DSLRs modular. Perhaps have a module that contains the sensor, another that takes care of white balance, yet another for exposure. That concept allows us to build the camera we want and need instead of having to buy everything over again when we decide to upgrade. We could save weight again in addition to money by only buying and assembling what we actually need. There are a lot of other opportunities ahead for evolving our cameras so let's stay positive and wait to see what happens.

The statistics don't surprise me at all. I was recently at a choral concert. I was amazed at how many people stood up to photograph the venue with their smartphones. In that entire crowd I also did not see a single point and shoot camera or an SLR. Interesting.

So are we all going to carry smart phones in the future and never touch a real camera again? I don't think so. I think instead there is a market realignment and the DSLR will survive.

I recall the seventies with the coming of the instamatic. That was a terrible camera, the images had poor colour and they were fuzzy. But people bought the camera in droves, it was designed for the technophobes who even had trouble loading the film even when you could only place the cartridge into the camera in a single way. I recall my mother who thought it was a super camera too. As long as she could make out the faces she was happy.

In that period the emerging 35mm SLR was doomed to oblivion of course. And yet it didn't die. I bought into the SLR technology as did thousands of others too. The quality I was producing eventually encouraged mother to upgrade to a film based point and shoot that focused the image and even made adjustments for exposure. She was really thrilled with that advance, it got her sharper pictures.

So here we are again only this time it's not an instamatic, it's a smart phone. The smart phone is also smarter, it produces much better images than the instamatic did. So there is going to be a big realignment again of the photography market. Should that cost us sleep? I don't think so.

When 35 mm finally became big the medium format cameras did not disappear, they continued to get used even though 35mm was starting to produce superlative quality. In fact, even today you can still get medium format and they are even digital. As the smart phones continue to evolve and get better DSLRs will continue to exist too because they generally provide us the tools we need to be creative whereas the phones are simply point and shoot cameras.

The only part of this story that I find a bit distressing is that as the market realigns odds are that the top SLRs will become even more expensive. They may lose the mass market appeal and with that will come higher prices. But I guess that's progress. At least they will still be around.

And, of course, there is that question of what will die in this new transition. The "buggy whip" in photography was film, that's what disappeared rapidly when digital came in. I spoke to a guy in a camera store one time about this transition. He told me in the past he'd sell a camera and then get a lot of business selling and processing film. With digital he would sell a camera and never see the customer again. For the moment I don't see another "buggy whip" in the near future but history teaches us there will be one sooner or later. Let us hope it is not our beloved DSLRs.

Yes and no. Yes do get a tripod. There is nothing more stable than three legs when it comes to holding a camera up in a steady manner. I often also hang a grocery bag full of rocks on the tripod to make it even more steady. With that set up you can practically take picturs in a hurricane.

And yes get a monopod too, they are lighter and easier to use but are not rock steady. I keep mine in the trunk of the car and tend to use it a lot more than my tripod depending on the subject of the day.

As to the one with the feet, forget it, the feet work when you have nothing on the monopod and there is no wind blowing. The moment you mount a camera on it however, you affect the balance and it usually falls over. I have one. I use it as a monopod but I never pop the little legs out, they have no value it turns out. My problem too is that the feet add to the weight. I should have gotten a regular one years ago, it would have been lighter.

By the way, when it comes to a tripod I recommend a large ball head. They are the fastest to set up and adjust.

Also, there is the odd tripod that is also a monopod. It basically allows you to unscrew one leg and mount the column on the top. I eventually got one of those too. It is a lovely compromise allowing me to use one or the other technology depending on the prevailing conditions.

One final thought, tripods come in two basic flavours, the traditional one that stands tall and the kind that actually goes all the way to the ground. You want the one that stands tall generally speaking. However if you are heavily into macro and your subjects are close to the ground, the kind that allows you to go all the way to the ground is a lot handier. Yes the tall ones allow you to mount your camera upside down and through this means provide a way to get close to the ground but that can be very awkward. The ones that fold all the way down are easier and faster to position.

My first camera evolved into three lenses, a 24mm f1.8, a 50 mm f1.2 and a 125 mm f1.8. I{ was really happy with all of them. Eventually I added a zoom, a 100-200 mm f2.8. In time I eventually added macro lenses and telephoto zooms too. But then that was fifty years ago when the technology was a lot different.

Today I went for the 12-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm zooms each f2.8. That gives me an amazing range for the different things I take pictures of, the only problem with them is that they tend to be expensive and heavy. There are f4 versions available which could save you money and weight.

Thinking back to all the gear I've had and still have, I have a hunch that I'd likely now go with a 24mm, a 24-70mm, and a 200mm. That gives me a wide angle perspective and a telephoto one and in the middle if have a range for capturing people at events.

It seems to me that you probably don't need anything else at the moment. I have all three heads, a ball head, a tilt and swivel and a three way one. The latter gets used rarely and then mostly for landscapes and architecture. The pan head I use for tracking birds but nothing else. The ball head I use for everything.

As to a tripod or a monopod, I have both. The tripod gets used the most, the monopod is an occasional tool that I will use when I forgot the tripod or I didn't want to carry it.

Ultimately the answer to your question is to ask yourself what it is you plan to do in the future. For the moment it sounds like you really don't need any additional gear but perhaps in the future you will.

Sorry, spelling was never my best subject in school. Yes that is the one I mean.

My originals are all burned to DVDs, very many DVDs so trying to find you a few samples is a lot of work. Instead I've attached a couple of PDF presentation files. Those spin in the computer and there are a few thousand to choose from.

Download them and double click on one. Adobe Reader will open the file and ask if it's ok to open full screen. Answer yes. It will then present you with a slide show. The images change every five seconds but you can navigate with the mouse buttons or the arrow keys too. At the end the file loops around. To exit press Escape.

In one or both of those series you may find a finger. That is my little finger which I occasionally insert into a shot to illustrate the scale I tend to work at.

One file is a general file with an assortment of images.

The other file I attached is a short series about a hover fly. First of all I think they are cute and the male goes through a prodigious effort to attract a girlfriend. He will hover in place for ages to try to impress her. You really got to feel for the guy. I just wonder sometimes if he's got any energy left for some nooky when he does manage to attract a girl friend. If it was me I'd probably have a heart attack even before one notices me.

I included this series to llustrate that sometimes we get lucky as photographers. I had my bellows and flashes set up to do the flower. I had just concluded the exposure and the focus and was ready to fire off a few shots. At that moment I noticed a little hover fly in my view finder. I don't know where it came from but it was determined to dine on my little flower so I immediately made adjustments and got those shots as a result. It's the closest I've ever managed to get to that little tiny insect. It was about 2.5 centimetres (an inch) from the front element of my macro lens.

And of course as I mentioned in an earlier post, it just flew away after lunch without even bothering to see if I had gotten its good side.

Attached file:
(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

Yup! Bugs! The kits are the culmination of fifty years of photography. My passion though tends to have been insects. They started as a fascinating challenge and evolved into a real love affair. I decided I was going to show bugs to the world so people would learn to like them and see their attractive side.

Besides, what's also nice about bugs is that they don't yell at you for capturing their wrong side or for missing their smile. They just get on with life and ignore what I'm doing. That's nicer than some people are.

Flash memory, which is what is in a SD card, does not last forever. The last time I looked into this it was good for about 10,000 read/write cycles before it starts to die. At the point where it does start to die, it doesn't suddenly quit, it can still take a year or two before the memory elements finally give up the ghost.

To be safe pay attention to your performance. If you start to get the odd write or read error or it is taking longer to write the images to the card, replace the card. It might still be good for a few years or it could fail tomorrow so why take a chance? If you have images on a card write them to your computer disk as soon as possible and then also burn them to a DVD after to have a permanent backup.

Longevity is also determined by care. Avoid magnetic fields when you are carrying a card. Those are a killer. Try not to get it wet though surprisingly many newer ones can be immersed in water without any damage. You can drop them, they`re light enough and robust enough, but don`t step on it when you have dropped it, that could be a killer too.

Finally, there is an argument about using a 64 gig card versus an 8 gig one. It`s convenient to have your entire vacation on a single card I will admit. But it`s also not so nice to lose your entire vacation if the card suddenly fails. For your own protection I`d buy a card wallet and fill it with smaller cards. I usually put each day or two on on card. That way that`s all I lose if something goes wrong. I often also copy my day's card to a backup card. That way I have a backup.

I imagine it's a good idea to format it for your camera, that can prevent future surprises.

As to how it's done, I use Nikon so I can't help you. But cameras usually have two buttons on the body which, when pressed together, will format the card. Formatting is also written up in your instructions and in the set up menu of the camera.

I have several grab bags.

My primary one is on wheels and contains my Nikon D3, the holy trinity of three f2.8 lenses (12-24 mm, 24-70 mm, 70-200 mm), the 28-300 mm lens, a teleconverter (2x), a hood man, a powerful flash, a polarizer, an expo disk and a sekonic light meter as well as a cleaning kit and a radio controlled remote release. With this I can do just about anything.

I have a second one for macro that contains my D800, a ring flash, the Nikon macro flash with four flash heads, a bellows, extension tubes, a remote release, a view finder magnifier, several macro lenses (60 mm, 105 mm, 150 mm, 180 mm, 200 mm) and close up lenses. There is also a focusing stage and a 90 degree finder as well as another hoodman.

My third grab bag is for travel. It contains my D200 with an 18-300 mm zoom. It holds a cleaning kit too, a charger and powerful flash. That one is the least used of my kits.

And I have a fourth one that contains a D70s, instructions for the camera, a medium flash, a polarizer and two DX lenses, a remote release, and some spare old memory cards. This one is loaned to a kid for a while to learn how to use a digital DSLR.

They are in order of priority. The large one is what I use most often. The macro one is very busy Spring to fall. The travel one is rarely ever used, I only take it traveling. And the fourth one depends on who askes me to loan it to them.

Sometimes I have a specialized project. For that I have an empty knapsack for camera gear. I load this up with whatever I need for the project and whan I'm done that gear goes back into the kit I took it from. I have a case for storing chargers and adaptors. I have specialized cases for gear I rarely need like my long lenses, a huge Metz flash with a godox power supply etc. These specialized cases can ride on the came trolly as my primary camera case.

I have two retailers in Toronto - Henry's and Vistek. Both sell used gear. In the course of my relationship with each I have bought a used Nikon D3 and a Nikon tilt & shift lens (from Vistek) and a Nikon 200 mm macro from Henry's. Aside from normal wear and tear all three items were, and continue to be, in perfect condition.

Both of these retailers have a reputation to uphold so they try their best to ensure any used stuff is in working order. Both also value regular customers to they go out of their way to provide me with no problems. I was even able to get a ninety day guarantee on each item which I never needed. Those are some ways to minimize the used market risks.

The two makers are comparable and whatever one is missing that the other has, they catch up to each other. However ...

Like you I am a Nikon user after ten years of using Canon. What I learned is that Nikon believes it's important to protect the investment of its customers while Canon is focussed more on being the first in all things and in profits. I found several Nikon lenses from the early seventies that mount on all of my Nikon bodies with no problem. Try mounting a Canon FD lens on a digital Canon body, it can't be done.

Having held both bodies I also noted that Nikon seems to make much more of an effort to mold their products to the user's hands. I know the odd Canon user. They find the Canon more comfortable and that's fine, hands come in different shapes and sizes. They also get sucked into the latest new gadgets too which often costs a fortune. But then Canon does excellent marketing. And they sometimes find that Canon has bugs in a new model that don't go away until a later upgrade or two.