Ok, first of all that lens you have is for copy work, not for nature photography. Your problem right off the bat is that you have to get too close to your subject to capture a life size image.

I have that lens and I find my working distance (lens to subject distance) can sometimes be as little as a half an inch. I have a 100 mm macro too (the Nikon 105 mm f2.8) and this gives me a working distance of six inches or more. I also have the Nikon 200 mm F4 macro lens that gives me a good foot of working distance. My favourite is the 105 mm since it has an image stabilizer but I do work around the lack of one with the other lenses.

Ok, since you can't afford another lens I also have a few suggestions.

Technology wise you should close the lens down as far as you can to maximize your depth of field. At the same time you'll need a reasonable shutter speed, maybe around 125th or higher so you may have to boost your ISO. You can use the autofocus as I suggest further down, or you can set your lens to manual, put your focus on minimum, and move the camera back and forth to achieve focus. That's a technique I do use once in a while. Your meter should always be the spot meter when it comes to insects and that in turn gives you a spot focus too.

Now ... first of all insects are cold blooded. So catch them and put them in the fridge for a couple of hours. Set up your shot, put the camera on a tripod and establish your focus, your aperture and your shutter speed. Now take the bug out of the fridge, drop it into the shot, fire off as many pictures as you can before it starts to shiver and take off. That's one way to do it.

Another technique, since you don't have a fridge in the bush, is to be very slow and patient.

First of all watch your intended subject, see where it flies to, where it lands, how it behaves. Then try to position yourself where it is likely to go next and wait for it to come to you.

Once it comes to you take a picture immediately BEFORE you move in. It's better to have a picture of a small bug than no picture at all. Then very slowly move towards your subject perhaps moving a few inches at a time and each time you're a bit closer take another picture. This way if it takes off suddenly at least you have a few pictures for your trouble.

As you do this, do not cast a shadow on the insect, that will spook it. Do not cause any vibrations. Do not make any sudden movements. Do everything very slowly and often the bug will stay in place for a long period of time. Remember too that some insects like a dragon fly can see 270 degrees in all directions, never assume the bug is not aware of you, it usually is.

Another trick is to bribe your subject. A small drop of honey on a flower where butterflies frequent will cause the butterfly or a bee to stop for a while to feed giving you time to get a picture or several. A bit of meat will hold some hornets and wasps and some beetles.

Finally, a technique I also use to great effect is to set the camera to continuous focus, the meter to spot meter, the focus points to only nine points and the shutter to high speed continuous release. Then I begin to slowly approach the subject making sure my spot meter in on the subject. As I do this I lean on the shutter button and just fire away as I keep getting closer. As long as you keep the spot meter and the focus point on the subject the camera will eventually come into focus and hold the focus. Since you're shooting continuously you get a lot of nice sharp images and if you're lucky you might even get a shot of it flying away.

Beyond that all I can tell you is to learn patience, learn how to be stealthy, learn now to predict where your subjects will go and learn how not to spook them. And practice and practice and practice. These techniques are trivial for me and very successful today but then I've been doing this for forty years. After that much practice you'll be amazing too.

Finally, if you're really serious about insect photography or macro in general I'd suggest saving up for a 105 mm f2.8 macro lens which will solve most of your problems. The 200 mm also has advantages but if you can only afford one the 105 is my choice.

For lighting there's nothing like shaving mirrors on stands for brightening your subjects though in this case mostly flowers instead of bugs. They're cheap and plentiful. Better is to save up for a ring flash (about $400) and better yet is Nikon's Macro Flash (about $800). These provide you the lighting you need if you're in the bush. But those are of course also rather expensive as are the two lenses too.

Still, Christmas is coming eventually so maybe that's another way to get some of these gadgets.

I hope this helps a bit. Good Luck!

When I bought my Nikon D200 I was terribly disappointed. That camera took worse pictures than the D70s I was replacing. But the disappointment was only temporary. I eventually came to realize that I had bought a high end camera that no longer would think for me.

Quality was now dependent on how I configured my camera to meet my needs. Once I figured out how to do that I was in heaven, the images were awesome. I would suggest the same thing for the D300 you have. Take the time to understand it's configuration capabilities and I bet you'll get better shots.

In terms of upgrading, first of all the D7100 is an APSC sensor (a DX). It's the D600, the D700 and the D800 that are 35mm FX sensors.

Next, depending on how skilled you are, the D700 might be the better deal. I have a D800 among other bodies and it cost me some grief. The resolution is so fine it captures even things like lens imperfections and fine dust. Today that camera gives me awesome images but it was a steep learning curve. Be aware too that the FX cameras also don't think for you, if you want optimal results you have to learn how to configure them.

As to Canon versus Nikon, from a quality point of view there is no difference. Both makers build mediocre cheap stuff for people who can't afford the best, and both build and sell awesome technology that will get you award winning images. Each also has something the other doesn't have, that's competition after all. But each always catches up to the other eventually.

Yes you can switch to Canon if you like but your image quality will not improve, their cameras at the high end also need to be configured just like the Nikons.

Finally, in my film days in the seventies I had a professional Canon SLR and a consumer body too. I had about a dozen different lenses too, all Canon. And I was generally happy. Then towards the end of the seventies they went to autofocus and obsoleted everything I had. When I complained they just told me to buy it all again. When I asked for an adaptor so that I could continue to use my lenses I was told there is none available. And when I finally wanted to go digital I wrote them to ask if my lenses would fit the digital cameras. They never bothered to reply, I learned elsewhere that they don't work.

Since I had to start over I switched to Nikon and I've never regretted the move. I have four Nikon bodies including a D3 and the D800. Over the years I've occasionally found a Nikon lens at a garage sale and to my delight each time the lens mounted on my cameras and worked perfectly. I learned quickly that Nikon tends to protect their client's investments in technology. Regardless of what changes come along, I am confident that my Nikon cameras will continue to work in all cases. I have never thought of Canon since.

Now perhaps Canon has learned its lessons or perhaps not. Personally I don't want to take the risk, it's just too expensive to replace everything I have yet again. So I'll stick with Nikon.

Add to that, I do know Canon users but their images aren't any better than my own. Both brands create the same images and both brands produce equally high quality products. Switching to Canon isn't going to solve the camera configuring problem and it's not going to improve the quality of your images. The only thing the switch will do is make you wonder if and when Canon will obsolete it's technology once again forcing you to buy it all over again.

I hope that helps a little. Good Luck!

Ok, I stand corrected! Thanks!

In that case by all means switch if you want to.

But having said that, in my photography seminars I try to make the point that anyone who ever intends to become a purist in photography has only two choices, Nikon or Canon because those are the only two makers who provide all the toys that are needed for high end work in the APSC and 35mm arena. They are also the only two makers for whom other companies also make attachments.

Your Olympus pen may produce lovely images so enjoy it. But before you make any major decisions ask yourself what you will need ten or twenty years from now and see if Olympus will be able to meet those needs too. If it can then you have the technology you need to be happy. If it doesn't you're back to Canon or Nikon.

Yes the Nikon tubes are better than the Kenko and if Canon still has tubes they too are probably better than the Kenko ones as well.

The problem though is that both makers don't provide a set of three as far as I know, they sell them individually and that gets too expensive.

They're also not really designed for macro as a set either. They're more intended to solve specific problems. For example Nikon has a tube that goes on the back of their bellows so that the digital SLRs can clear the bottom rail. It's an extension tube and it does help you magnify but it's primary purpose has always been to provide that clearance.

It's also not necessary to have absolute quality. I'm sure you also don't drive a Bently or a Rolls Royce. All that's important is that you know the weaknesses of a technology and figure out a way to work around it.

Extension tubes are not lenses so as long as they hold your lens firmly and as long as they make electrical contact that's all that's needed. If there's a bit of sag it's easy enough to compensate for it.

I often use a bellows with tubes at both ends and a 200 mm macro lens and a Nikon D800 with the grip along with three flash heads on the front of the lens. When all of that is fully extended you have a hell of a lot of weight and things can be a bit unsteady. But even in that extreme case I am still able to compensate and get crisp lovely macro images.

I should add too by the way, another way to do macro is to use close up lenses. They're about the same price as the tubes with none of the mechanical problems. But with them you may not always get a sharp image. Basically there's no free lunch.

I'm in the 24mm-70mm and 70mm-200mm camp with both lenses being F2.8. These are first rate lenses that will give you excellent results even in challenging conditions. Those are often my lenses of choice for events.

However, if crisp image quality is not an issue for you, Nikon has a 28mm-300mm zoom that is slower than the above but allows you to go from group shots to telephoto. You can shoot the crowd and then zoom into the kiss almost instantly without having to change lenses. The lens however is slow, f5.6 zoomed out, and it's not crisp at all settings. It's just convenient like hell when it comes to capturing all kinds of angles without ever changing a lens.

You need to decide how important crisp images are and select the lens accordingly. If you're happy with less than optimal images the 70-300 will also work for you but you'll need a second lens for the group shots. If you must have optimal images the two lenses at the top are the ones of choice. And if you need perfect images, I'd go for a 24mm, a 50mm and a 200 mm lens, each would be fixed focal lengths (not zooms basically) and all of them as fast as possible (essentially with an "F" stop that is a very small number kind of like f1.2).

Good luck!

My sympathies to you but at the same time not as well. I find that even normally polite sweet people will walk in front of me or block a shot without thinking. That's life.

Sometimes it's not really being inconsiderate or selfish, sometimes it's just stupidity. Many who slip in front of me have the courtesy to kneel to become unobtrusive but since they're using a little point and shoot or a phone they don't understand that the 14 mm lens I'm using at the moment gets them into the image too. They think that the world ends with their camera angles.

Digital also creates the problem. It's so easy to take the image again so people assume that's what you're going to do anyway and as a result they're not careful.

Then there are those who quickly figure out that you know how to find the best angles and they will then follow you everywhere to capture outstanding images themselves at your expense. May all their children walk backwards.

I've given up getting upset, it's just not worth it any more. Instead I just try to work around the imbeciles to get my shots. Thankfully with digital it's easy enough to edit out a head or to retake an image assuming it wasn't a one of.

Besides, if it weren't for all those stupid morons, we'd not look nearly as good. So they do perform a useful function in that regard.

I have three Nikon SLRs two of which are quite heavy. I have a collection of lenses too that add up to about fifty pounds. Needless to say I don't lug that stuff everywhere I go.

So I eventually bought three point and shoot cameras, a water proof one, one with a huge zoom and a third with amazing manual capability. These save me weight and bulk. I use them when I don't do anything critical.

The moment I do critical stuff however I return to my SLRs and needless to say the SLRs get 90% of the attention and the point and shoot cameras the other 10%.

If quality is not an issue for you and you're happy with what the pen gives you sell the SLR while it still has some value. On the other hand if you have to have quality images sometimes, the SLR is usually the way to go. For the stuff I do there's no way I'd trade my SLRs for a point and shoot camera. If I had to give up one, it would be the point and shoot first.

I have a Gossen Luna Six from the seventies when I used to shoot film. That meter has incident light capability as well as reflected light spot meter capability too with an optional gadget I have. This meter I still use once in a while because of its sensitivity. It is able to measure exposures up to eight hours.

I also have the Sekonic L758, a rather more modern design than my Gossen. This meter is not as sensitive which is why I keep the other one but it has a few redeeming features.

It has a built in little telescope for spot metering and it can collect up to eight different readings which it will average on command. I find it handy for averaging different light intensities. The meter also measures and integrates electronic flash with ambient light allowing me to adjust the degree of flash I want or need. And the meter of course measures reflected light and incident light with no problem, something the camera generally can't do. Finally, the meter can be configured for the performance curves associated with the camera I'm using. That is a marginal benefit but still a benefit none the less.

So why use a meter? For me it's for long exposures that the camera cannot measure. It's for averaging different intensities accurately. The camera can only average over the scene or you have to take a variety of spot meter readings and do the calculations yourself. It's for blending flash and ambient light, something the camera does poorly compared to the meter. And of course to measure incident light, the camera after all is designed to measure only reflected light.

That said too though, it does indeed impress anyone who happens to be watching, they seem to feel you have to be a pro. Just make sure that the pictures you take that way are excellent because that's what those who were impressed will expect.

I have used Kenko tubes for about ten years now. They work fine. But there has been an issue.

I found with my first set that suddenly the electrical connections failed between the camera and the lens. Eventually I tracked it down to my 20 mm tube, for some reason or other it was not providing the connection.

I wrote Kenko about the problem and nothing happened. Then long after I forgot about the incident I suddenly got a reply, about a year later. I wrote back and have never received another reply. Their technical support sucks. Don't even think of getting any help from them.

I also couldn't replace the 20 mm tube, it's a whole set of three or nothing so I got another set to get that size back. That was about seven years ago. The original two and the new set have worked perfectly in all of that time. So I think I may have just had a bad sample in the first set.

The only other complaint I've tended to have is feel. I use Nikon and when you twist on a lens you have a satisfying feeling of a very secure snug fit between the lens and the camera body. I don't get that feeling with the tubes. Oh, they mount securely and maintain a reliable secure grip but it just doesn't have the same secure feel you get from a lens.

I also find that they are not as solid as needed when you're using a long and/or heavy lens. I generally have to support the lens and the camera to ensure that the tube combination in use is not distorted in any way. With individual tubes that's not an issue particularly but when you're using all three between a long lens and the body that can become a concern. However with a bit of practice you can manage relatively well.

Since they are very reliable technical support generally isn't needed. I opted for another set of the same brand because the original two of three worked out well enough and it's hard for me to find any other brand at the moment. But if you feel you may need tech support, Kenko would not be the recommended brand.

Yes, setting the camera to Bulb and holding down the shutter button would be the same as the mirror lockup for cleaning the sensor. BUT ... that's very risky.

First of all most cameras will not lock up the mirror and expose the sensor unless you have a certain charge level in your battery. This is deliberate design because you don't want to suddenly have your shutter close and your mirror drop in the middle of a cleaning operation. Using Bulb doesn't have that safety feature it will open the shutter even when there's barely enough power to get it open.

Secondly ... you run the risk of serious damage. It takes two hands to clean a sensor. You don't have an extra hand to hold the shutter down and the moment you accidentally lift your finger the shutter snaps shut. At least with the mirror lockup function you have to deliberately turn the camera off to close the shutter and drop the mirror. That again is a deliberate design to prevent you from accidentally closing it.

Finally, when you lock up the mirror for cleaning the sensor is turned off. So it doesn't try to capture an exposure. In Bulb mode the sensor is active. That may be an issue. If you suddenly get an intense sun hitting an active sensor during your cleaning process you could be in for an unexpected unhappy surprise.

Bulb is for long exposures, not for sensor cleaning. And the mirror lock is for cleaning not taking long exposures. Each function has a different purpose and should be used accordingly.

With respect to when to clean sensors, earlier posts say it well, clean the sensor when you begin to see spots on your images. However I find it's a bit more complicated. I have one camera that has an ultrasonic cleaner while my other bodies don't. I tend to change lenses frequently especially when I am shooting events but also in more sedate settings like my macro work (I have three macro lenses).

With the other bodies (a Nikon D200 & a D3) I routinely clean the sensor when I see the odd spot on my images. I also clean it annually if I didn't do it sooner. I find that most of the time just a blast of air or a quick brush with the Arctic Butterfly is all that's needed. If I work in very humid areas however I find I need to actually wash the sensor when it starts to accumulate dust.

The camera with the ultrasonic cleaner (Nikon D800) is different. I find the ultrasonic cleaner is a mixed blessing. When it vibrates it does indeed dislodge dust which then settles at the bottom. As a result of this when I find a spot on an image I usually use that device first to get rid of it.

However, in humid areas this cleaning device doesn't work. I find instead that it spreads the fine dust evenly over the surface and a simple blow doesn't clear it nor does a simple brushing clear it. In these instances I have to wash the sensor or suffer degraded colours and sharpness.

Having had this experience with a friend's older Canon camera at one time which had the same cleaning technology, I tend to make sure the sensor is washed annually to ensure that sticky fine dust is gone. This issue is very subtle. The degradation is so gradual you really don't notice it until you finally wash the sensor and discover that the images have suddenly improved dramatically.

That's what had happened to that Canon. My friend never, over a few years, cleaned the sensor. By the time I got to it I couldn't blow it clean and I couldn't brush it clean either. It took a rather extensive wash before it was finally clean. The pictures that came out of that camera after were awesome compared to what it produced before. That's when I learned that with the ultrasonic cleaners in humid environments it's a good idea to do an annual wash.

So ... as long as you're in a dry environment sometimes the ultrasonic cleaner is all you need but in this case blow the sensor clean every year to get rid of the accumulated dust or it will simply be spread across the sensor surface.

In humid environments an annual wash is essential with ultrasonic cleaners to ensure that the fine dust doesn't coat the sensor too thickly. With cameras that don't have an ultrasonic cleaner I'd still recommend a wash annually in a humid environment anyway just to make sure that sticky dust is removed. It does affect image quality and the spot healing brush can't fix the problem as it does with particles.

In terms of the later question of whether sensors wear out, I would say no. They are electronic devices not mechanical ones. If something goes wrong they can burn out a pixel or two in which case you'll have some dots that you can't clean away. The control electronics that dumps the sensor data can also burn itself out under some circumstances in which case what you get will be a real mess. But these things are very remote. Odds are you'd burn out something else within the camera before the sensor actually fails.

I hope this helps a little too. Do have a super day.

Earlier posts say it well, clean the sensor when you begin to see spots on your images. However I find it's a bit more complicated. I have one camera that has an ultrasonic cleaner while my other bodies don't. I tend to change lenses frequently especially when I am shooting events but also in more sedate settings like my macro work (I have three macro lenses).

With the other bodies (a Nikon D200 & a D3) I routinely clean the sensor when I see the odd spot on my images. I also clean it annually if I didn't do it sooner. I find that most of the time just a blast of air or a quick brush with the Arctic Butterfly is all that's needed. If I work in very humid areas however I find I need to actually wash the sensor when it starts to accumulate dust.

The camera with the ultrasonic cleaner (Nikon D800) is different. I find the ultrasonic cleaner is a mixed blessing. When it vibrates it does indeed dislodge dust which then settles at the bottom. As a result of this when I find a spot on an image I usually use that device first to get rid of it.

However, in humid areas this cleaning device doesn't work. I find instead that it spreads the fine dust evenly over the surface and a simple blow doesn't clear it nor does a simple brushing clear it. In these instances I have to wash the sensor or suffer degraded colours and sharpness.

Having had this experience with a friend's older Canon camera at one time which had the same cleaning technology, I tend to make sure the sensor is washed annually to ensure that sticky fine dust is gone. This issue is very subtle. The degradation is so gradual you really don't notice it until you finally wash the sensor and discover that the images have suddenly improved dramatically.

That's what had happened to that Canon. My friend never, over a few years, cleaned the sensor. By the time I got to it I couldn't blow it clean and I couldn't brush it clean either. It took a rather extensive wash before it was finally clean. The pictures that came out of that camera after were awesome compared to what it produced before. That's when I learned that with the ultrasonic cleaners in humid environments it's a good idea to do an annual wash.

So ... as long as you're in a dry environment sometimes the ultrasonic cleaner is all you need but in this case blow the sensor clean every year to get rid of the accumulated dust or it will simply be spread across the sensor surface.

In humid environments an annual wash is essential with ultrasonic cleaners to ensure that the fine dust doesn't coat the sensor too thickly. With cameras that don't have an ultrasonic cleaner I'd still recommend a wash annually in a humid environment anyway just to make sure that sticky dust is removed. It does affect image quality and the spot healing brush can't fix the problem as it does with particles.

I hope this helps a little too. Do have a super day.

Greetings All ...

A friend pointed me to this web site so I began to explore a little. I came across a thread that asked for flying bees. So here you are, some flying bees. If anyone is interested I can explain how these are done.

Do have a super day