First macro shots with my D40

[KmH]

Overread
I have not seen you post in this thread info about extension tubes. What are your thoughts about extension tubes?

I was hoping someone would mention extension tubes as a lesss expensive option to a macro lens.

Kenko makes a decent set of extension tubes.

 

[Raizels]

I agree with the above repliers - great pics! I know from experience how hard it is to get interesting flower pics. But these are good IMO, not trying too hard and sill interesting.

 

[pbelarge]

I am myself interested in trying extension tubes. My skill level at macro is minimal. So I figured instead of spending decent $$ for a 100mm macro lenses, let me try and spend $170 on the extension tubes, Kenko instead of the Canon ones.

Is this a good choice to start with...then maybe expand to an actual macro lens later if I become more interested/talented?

 

[TekGino]

Kmh summed up myfeelings about your second shot - the depth of field is too shallow - and I would have prefered to have had that protruding detailed section more in focus (either by changing your angle of shooting; your focus point and/or using a smaller aperture - though try not to go smaller than f13 if you can otherwise your shots will start to soften as a result of diffraction.)

I just looked at the aperture setting, and I had it set
to f4. Maybe that had something to do with it?

Also, I started looking at extension tubes, and ran
across some guy making one out of a pringles can.
It looked crude, but he had some really nice shots.

 

[pokopelo]

These are certainly close ups, but they aren't macros.

stupid mewbie question... what's the difference between a macro and a closeup? some posted examples would help to better understand the term

 

[Overread]

Overread
I have not seen you post in this thread info about extension tubes. What are your thoughts about extension tubes?

I was hoping someone would mention extension tubes as a lesss expensive option to a macro lens.

Kenko makes a decent set of extension tubes.

Kenko tubes are about the best on the market at present for price and features. Canon and Nikon both make them, but for simple dividers with no glass in them they are horrificly high in price. Kenko you can get a set of 3 varying sizes for about the price of one canon or nikon single tube. So kenko are the most popular choice for many.
There are also ultra cheap ($5) sorts on the market - however these are tubes at their most basic, without any electrical contacts in them (most are also quite thin and of lighter construction than the kenko or canon brand). The problem with this is that with no contacts you can't control your lens in any way from the camera - so metering is affected and auto focus and aperture control are also lost. With nikon some of their lenses still have manual control options for the aperture andwith canon there is a trick to lock the blades shut - however both of those are less than ideal workarounds and it really pays to get the kenko.

The tubes work by increasing the distance of the lens from the camera body, so yes pringles tubes or even looroll would work as a simple divider. With that you lose infinity focus and might only be able to focus the lens a few inches off from it - whilst also having a reduction in the minimum focusing distance. This means you can move the lens closer and thus get a much more magnified image of the subject. The specific distances are dependant upon the lens and the amount of tube length in question.
The very rought maths for tubes is as follows:
length of tubes - divided by - focal length of lens= ratio:1

So for example:
50mm lens and 50mm of tubes
50/50=1:1 or true macro (as detailed in my post before and in my quote below)

50mm or lens and 100mm or tubes
100/50 = 2:1 or twice life size

Thus as you can see tubes work best with shorter focal length lenses. Further the amount of tubes you add will affect image quality and lighting - a full set of kenko is fine to use and will hardly affect either. However start going much longer and you can get difficulties.


My view on tubes is that they are a good solid bit of gear to invest in for the macro enthusiast since they can quickly turn any lens into a least a close up if not a macro capable lens. This allows you to be diviers and use lenses for other subjects incase you don't feel like carrying every single lens you own with you. Also you can do things like use a telephoto lens (eg a 70-200mm, 300mm f4 or even a 400mm f5.6) with tubes to get a closeup lens with fast AF for hunting dragons and butterflies.
I would say that tubes are not as good as a dedicated macro lens and anyone thinking of getting a dedicated macro lens for certain would be better served saving and getting the lens first. Of course if its going to take you ages to save for that lens or if you are not sure if macro is your think then tubes are a great way to experiment for a low cost. They are also good for after you get hte macro lens as you can still use the tubes on a regular macro lens to get increased magnification from the setup.

Kmh summed up myfeelings about your second shot - the depth of field is too shallow - and I would have prefered to have had that protruding detailed section more in focus (either by changing your angle of shooting; your focus point and/or using a smaller aperture - though try not to go smaller than f13 if you can otherwise your shots will start to soften as a result of diffraction.)

I just looked at the aperture setting, and I had it set
to f4. Maybe that had something to do with it?.

Something and everything
If aperture, shutter speed and ISO control is new to you the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson or a good hunting around the net will give you a lot more than I can here. Simply put as the aperture gets smaller the depth of field in the shot increases - and as the aperture widens the depth of field decreases.
Remember though that apertures are backwards - f4 is WIDER/LARGER than f8 and both are wider/larger than f13. So f13 would be a small aperture and f4 wide - hence the term "shooting wide open" when you use the smallest f number your lens has.
Distance however also comes into play and the closer you are to the subject the smaller your depth of field will be. Consider that when close up you might only have a depth of a few millimeters whilst further off the same aperture might give you centimeters, meters or even more. Hence why a lot of macro work is done with smaller apertures such a f8 - f13.

Also an important point for macro (and landscape a well) is that there is an optical process called diffraction which will come into play as you start to use apertures smaller than f8. Up till around f13 on most lenses you still get good results, but after that the softening effect starts to become more and more noticable. Thus you can't just dial down smaller and smaller unless you are also prepared to take the hit in image quality. The actual limits are defined by the lens, the camera sensor (fullframe tend to get about one stop more to play with than crop sensor) and the quality demands of the photographer.

These are certainly close ups, but they aren't macros.

stupid mewbie question... what's the difference between a macro and a closeup? some posted examples would help to better understand the term

I posted the technical difference earlier up in the thread:

As for what makes a shot macro it depends: The strict rule is that a macro shot is where the image reflected onto the sensor by the lens is the same size as the subject is in real life. So if you have a 2mm insect its reflected onto the sensor as a 2mm sized image.
This is called "True macro" or 1:1 macro.
However 1:2 macro shots (half life size) are often considered as macro - such shots would be many flower, butterfly, dragonfly and such sized shots. Even though they are strictly not macro most people consider them to be so.
Going the other way you get 2:1, 3:1 etc.. where the subject is larger on the sensor than it is in real life. A harder (far harder) area to master working in. Currently only one canon lens on the market nativly goes into those higher magnifiactions with the rest all stopping at 1:1 - however there are many methods for getting more magnification if you get a desire to do so.

Sadly I don't have a specific set of images to show you that would show the differences, but for a very rought idea this would be a closeup:
Random I 1000 - a set on Flickr
And this a macro:
IMG_0224 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!
(its a butterfly before you ask )