Nature Shots

[paul1598419]

Oh, that makes sense. I was sure you were just using a phone camera. Must have been thinking of a different member here.

 

[Nutball]

Other than the high amount of noise, this small sensor camera has the advantage of compact zoom and light gathering power over a big DSLR. I once tried coupling the 50mm lense to a 77mm diameter 200mm DSLR tele lens, but the 200mm zoom couldn't get past the internals of the 50mm, so the picture didn't turn out well even at 50MP (see below). With the small camera the ISO is almost always 100, up to 400-800 in extreme cases, usually 1/250-1/800 shutter speed, and f4-6. But the picture below with the LEDs on was with ISO 1,000, 1/20, f32. After the math conversions, my camera is still doing way better. I might upgrade to a 1" sensor sometime though as Panasonic has a 10x zoom pocket camera like that.

 

[paul1598419]

It will also depend on what type of sensor you use. A CCD doesn't seem to differentiate colors as well as a CMOS sensor does. But, that is only my observation between several CCDs and only two CMOS cameras.

 

[Nutball]

I've never noticed that, I guess they are kind of bland. I've wondered what the differences were, and after looking up the comparison my conclusion was CCD is better at small videos that do not contain very bright spots, picture quality is the same, and CMOS is otherwise way faster and better in gerneral for that reason. I'm using CMOS hence the 10fps ability. I'm interested to see how the foveon sensors compare to CMOS. I know I've had decent color from my old 6MP CCD camera with nature pictures, and I blame the high noise at high ISO ( only 800-1000) on old tech, not CCD in general.

Considering how people can make due well enough with the noise of small pixel sensors, I think it worth while to make a 35mm 500-600MP sensor. Then your zoom is contained in the pixels, and you could possibly have the processor combine pixels for a lower effective pixel count for low light use. Think of the resolution benefit when shooting stars.

 

[paul1598419]

Yeah, CCD, or Charge Coupled Device, sensors came into consumer use around the early 1980s. They are still a good technology, but my CMOS cameras seem to differentiate colors better than the CCDs I own. It may be that there are some CCDs that are available that do the job as well if not better, but I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Nutball]

I just might quit, I don't think I can top these

It's an other world down there...

...and a huge part of what makes it looks so good, now I'm realizing, are the evenly spaced ring LEDs.

 

[BowtieGuy]

Those are incredibly sharp photos, Nutball, I can see where you'd be tempted to quit after these beauties, but I'll bet you're just going to get better and better with these! :yh:
:kewlpics: +rep!

 

[paul1598419]

Those are some very sharp close ups of dew on flowers and other foliage. Very nice, indeed. + Rep.

Imagine being the size of an ant and having the skin tension of water holding it together in spheres where you could reach out an touch it.

 

[Nutball]

Thanks guys, God put the subject matter there, all I do is push a button. I'll search the yard for some interesting weeds, but otherwise I'll just have to go into the woods sometime on my dad's land.

That was moss, by the way, in a flower pot covered in pine needles. In the afternoon too, and it still had dew.

These are my favorites for sure.

 

[paul1598419]

For macro photos you got some good depth of field in a couple of them.

 

[Nutball]

I think that's mostly an illusion because of the water drops acting like lenses, and the lack of size reference. That's partially why it's my favorite. Though the depth is good for this particular subject, I thought at the time it was still lacking, but then again that allows me to get the same shot twice with a different focus for a much different outcome between the two as seen between pics 2 and 3. Those moss seed pods? were probably no bigger than 1mm thich if even a half mm. And the leaves just look like fuzz with the naked eye even up close.

If you guys want, I can try resizing from the original some of these to be used as desktop backgrounds. The quality will go down, but I've had them still come out good on a 1440x900 desktop. I'd just need to know your screen resolution.

 

[paul1598419]

I thought the depth of field in photo #2 was pretty good, but like you said, photo #3 is just the same photo with a slight change in focus. I have taken some photos of devices at X200 magnification and know from experience that the depth of field is maybe 100um. You need to get what you are looking for in focus because everything else won't be.

 

[Nutball]

That's what sucks about microscopes. You need the whole range of depth to see what you need to, but can't get it. Even 100x has a pretty slim depth. One would think the tech exists to have a camera take several pics over a range of focus, then process it into one pic showing the whole range at once. I know you can change the focus of one picture afterward, but you can't keep the whole range in focus at the same time with today's cameras. I think they should give cameras the ability to bring the aperture down to the 64-128 range for up close stuff. There's room left to do that, but there could be issues with the light bending.

 

[paul1598419]

It's not a technology problem. It's a physics problem. You cant resolve light to any depth, or to any size. You are limited by the wavelength of the visible spectrum. That is why there are electron microscopes. You can resolve those frequencies down to small fractions of a micron.

 

[RB astro]

I just might quit, I don't think I can top these
It's an other world down there...
...
God put the subject matter there
...and a huge part of what makes it looks so good, now I'm realizing, are the evenly spaced ring LEDs.

Very nice Nutball, well done.
Yep, ring lights are a must when you don't want shadows in macro shots.

One would think the tech exists to have a camera take several pics over a range of focus, then process it into one pic showing the whole range at once.

That's why people doing serious macro photography use a technique called focus stacking.
:yh:

It's not a technology problem. It's a physics problem. You cant resolve light to any depth, or to any size. You are limited by the wavelength of the visible spectrum. That is why there are electron microscopes. You can resolve those frequencies down to small fractions of a micron.

Exactly Paul. :beer:

I can't remember if I've shared this one before but here's one of my favourites I did a few years back.
Love this type of photography, thanks for reminding me Nutball.
:beer:

 

[paul1598419]

That is very nice, Andrew. I like these macro nature photos. + Rep. :yh: