Jump to content

Macro Photography for Fish

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_trygon_*

  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:04 PM

I'm not 'ticked off' and the others probably aren't either. I'm just trying to save you some money and time. Please note in the article you linked to in your original post that the author is using a camera with a macro mode, which mean the camera can focus closer than normal with a higher magnification; if your ELPH has a macro mode you MAY be able to make something work with a rail bellows or microscope, or both, but you'll have to get the subjects out of the aquarium. You will have to shoot straight down just like the author's image shows. There are much, much better solutions to this problem.

#22 Guest_Erica Lyons_*

Guest_Erica Lyons_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:12 PM

Erica, people would not have such a hard time with your posts if you made an effort to be a bit more humble. You are talking to some of the most qualified fish photographers in the world. Asking others what they think about this improvised set up would have been more effective than saying "our" ID photos could be better with this technique. Have you looked at Lance's, Dave's or Uland's ID photos? They don't get much better..Do you really think taping lenses to their camera's will help?

I apologize for offending you. I was not trying to refer to you or to Michael Wolfe or to any of the people who already take good ID photos.

Please, can an admin delete this topic? I regret posting it. Fritz? Help?

#23 Guest_daveneely_*

  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:17 PM

Erica, it's OK. Nobody is offended. Relax! Maybe someone else will learn something from this -- there's few things worse than repeating others' mistakes (other than maybe repeating my own)!

#24 Guest_Skipjack_*

  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:36 PM

Erica, the topic is not a big enough deal to delete. I am not a great fish photographer at all. I am not offended. Just reminding you of your audience. I will hide it if you really want, but it is certainly not the worst thing I have seen, and I bet you will not have another thread that goes this direction.

#25 Guest_Skipjack_*

  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:49 PM

Erica, Let's leave this. Like I said it is not the end of the world, and your low budget camera lens may actually work. Report back if you try it.

#26 Guest_Uland_*

  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2013 - 05:11 PM

No worries Erica. I hope this forum maintains a direction for learning no matter how obscure. As an aside...microscopes are not always expensive. Don't get me wrong, in general you get what you pay for, but my fishing buddy Mark linked me to this microscope a year or two ago. I bought it immediately. I can examine details on preserved specimens with great ease. It has provided many hours of fun and education for my children and was well worth the investment. If you poke around there, I recall they offer lens adapters. Sure this isn't a great microscope but it's cheap and it will last lifetime.

#27 Guest_natureman187_*

  • Guests

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:07 AM

Erica, I'm sure you won't let some ingnorant fish folk get in the way of your new found idea. But, before you go purchase some fad junk off ebay, step back and think a moment.
If you intend to upgrade your equipment, perhaps to a DSLR in the distant future, take the time to invest in a name brand lens for you P&S lens reversal project.
I'm familiar with Nikon, and their lenses all the way back to 1959 (F mount) are interchangeable with todays Nikon cameras. At a later date, you can then use that lens on your actual DSLR camera. You save money in the long run.

The old manual focus lenses are still optically superb and built like tanks, unfortunately few appreciate the weight, or want to dick with manual focus and aperture allowing these to run cheap in todays used market.
As a side, name brand stuff holds value for resell.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users