In a message dated 7/31/01 4:53:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< I'm about to invest in a macro lens, in order to be able to photograph
bees close up. I've checked out the manufacturers' claims, and
listened to the salesmen. But I have a suspicion that I need some
comments from experienced hands in the field >>
I had a photography business years ago, and used mostly 35 mm. Last year
I decided to take some closeups of wild and honey bees and other insects and
got out my old equipment. I have never used a fully automatic 35, so perhaps
my comments may lose some relevancy, but I think not, as I usually am in
manual mode anyway.
It was a real exercise in frustration. I have a big box full of prints,
most of which I cannot use for anything, as they are not up to my standards.
Bees are among the hardest subjects in the world to photograph. The
tiniest bit of wind on the flower will move the subject in and out of focus.
Bees move quickly, so you have to keep the shutter speed up, yet you want the
lens stopped down for depth of field. Many times I've snapped the shutter
only to have a picture of a bare flower, as the bee either spooked, or moved
on to the next flower. Here's one of my 35 mm shots:
http://pollinator.com/gallery/bumblebee3.htm
This spring, when I retired from commercial beekeeping, I went digital
and really got serious about the bee pics. For the cost of the wasted film,
I could have done it much sooner and been money ahead. I have a Nikon
Coolpix 990, and hope at some time in the near future to get a second,
perhaps an Olympus E-10 or one of the newer and even better ones. I figure
I've saved enough on film to pay for it.
With digital you can fire away as fast as the camera will let you
(sometimes I wish it were faster, but it's still a lot faster than 35) with
no worries about wasted film, and no waiting to see the results. The quality
is actually superior to anything I ever got with my Pentax Takumar lens. I
have taken several thousand bee pictures this year, and will have a couple
hundred that meet my standards. Many times I go thru the ones I have taken,
and delete half or more within the camera before downloading them. In the
computer, I go thru another round of deletion. Up to the point of printing
photos there is little cost, only battery power.
They are printed on a $100 Epson printer and can be simply gorgeous. Only
a pro with a loupe could tell they are not film based prints.
If you are not yet convinced to go digital, be prepared to spend a lot on
film. But first try extension tubes before you invest in the higher cost of a
macro lens for outmoded technology. I paid $30 for my extension tubes and
used them mostly with a 105 mm lens that I already had. You could still get
a cheaper digital camera for less than a good macro lens, and see if it works
for you. The most important thing is to make sure it has pretty good macro
capacity already built in. The Sony Mavicas are good starter cameras, and I
was fortunate to have one available for practice, but not have to buy it, as
I soon saw that I wanted more.
Here's a Mavica 91 shot:
http://pollinator.com/gallery/March/wasp_nest.htm
Here are 2 Nikon 990 shots:
http://pollinator.com/gallery/halictid_bees.htm The upper shot is of one
of the spookiest bees I've ever gotten. The lower shot is an uncommon bee
that I tried to photograph for over a year, also quite spooky. You have to
learn to "stalk" them.
Well, I'm off to look for flowers, and hope there to find bees.... One
of these days I'll get a lot more posted on the net.
Dave Green SC USA
|
