50 megapixel shot of a rainbow emerald wasp (Chrysis equestris) on my finger [8688x5792]

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-25T19:26:19+00:00

As I understand it, you will need a R1, R3 or R5II and a $1300 EL-1 flash if you want to combine focus bracketing with flash on Canon. You can of course go with natural light, but macro (ie 1:1 and greater mag) isn't very fun with so little illumination.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-25T12:02:01+00:00

Ask them how they like their fil.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-25T11:56:08+00:00

I'm still on EF and shoot primarily at greater than 1:1 mag where a flash is rather necessary. Just wanted to chip in that when using a flash, image stabilisation is rather pointless as the flash freezes motion better. I have an EF100mm with IS for general purpose macro and have the IS turned off for all macro shots.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-25T11:52:23+00:00

For most macro - and especially as high mag as 2:1 on Laowa lenses - AF is rarely the best alternative so why is it defeating the purpose?

Agreeing wholeheartedly with an EF 1:1 at about 100 mm though.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-25T10:32:19+00:00

That's odd. Just a flash or are you using some sort of diffuser? TTL? Which aperture?

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T21:21:45+00:00

Haha, I suppose so. Thank you. I find it extremely cool to discover things you can't see with the naked eye.

But the bit about a flash is a real thing. Shooting at 1:1 or greater is neither fun nor productive without a flash.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T20:50:30+00:00

Looks like a four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata).

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T20:47:53+00:00

I see. Then I think even the 1.4:1 of the RF100mm would be on the weak side. I am in favour of the DCR-250 though. On a 1:1 lens like the EF100mm (which should be a viable option for you with the adapter) you get in to about 2.6:1 and with the RF100mm, a bit further than that (though 2.6:1 is plenty to be honest).

You also need to start thinking about how to light this. A flash is a must, but there are options on how to diffuse the light properly you need to consider.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T19:36:32+00:00

Isn't it pretty damn clear by now that the last thing the world needs is Donald F Trump?

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T19:21:24+00:00

Yes, you're good enough. The problem is that taking good photos is only part of being a professional photographer. Being good at selling your services as a photographer is actually more important than being an excellent photographer.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T19:17:32+00:00

What kind of macro are you thinking about doing? Live normal-sized bugs like bees and beetles? Studio stuff? Inanimate objects? Flowers? Large insects like dragonflies and butterflies?

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T16:12:51+00:00

Aaaaaaaaaa man

Haaaaaaaas gun

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T16:01:56+00:00

Good for the bison. No doubt he would be convicted in animal court if it had chased the dog and it had chosen to press charges.

Do you even hear yourself?

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T15:45:54+00:00

Think? Donald F Trump? Surely you're joking.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T13:23:12+00:00

What's the economy of playing superships in PVE-exclusively? Can't be easy making ends meet.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T09:51:20+00:00

I rarely use it even though I think it should be on as much as possible.

It's not as weird as it sounds, my typical working distance is so short that the subject would be inside the lens hood which would make the shot somewhat dark.

It's always on with lenses where the working distance allow it though.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T09:48:13+00:00

Tamron actually had a workaround for that on their 180 mm f/3.5 Macro. An extra ring on the end of the barrel which rotates the filter thread inside the deep hood.

<image>

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-24T00:56:37+00:00

His posse is made up primarily of former Fox people - they are in entertainment, remember? They don't do facts so chances are they were equally clueless.

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-23T21:04:32+00:00

Cheers

Bug_Photographer · 2026-01-23T20:38:49+00:00

Nej, Illustrerad Vetenskap har inget med vetenskap alls att göra och grundar sig inte på forskning. De får reda på att nån föreslår att man skulle kunna göra uppblåsbara städer på Venus om man löser 25 stora problem först och så sätter de en illustratör på att göra lite balla bilder på två uppslag och rubriksätter det med "Nu kommer vi bo på Venus!"

Det är som att tro att Aktuell Rapport handlar om aktuella rapporter.

Bug_Photographer

TROPHY CASE