FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

butterflies

Page  <12
Author
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3486
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2019 at 08:07
TRIGGER TRAP! *droooool* very hi-tech, Heikki!
-on the wishlist only so far-.

but no need to waste hundreds of pics? (MHO?).
it's possible to shoot flying b.flies -or hummingbird hawk moths ;-) - the same way you would shoot a flying bee?
(https://myalbum.com/photo/TQ3T4xtItY1I/1k0.jpg (speeding, not hoovering. man, those things are fast!). even after lowering the s.speed? -although not 'high quality' as requested-. but agreed- fluttering can be VERY annoying. I've shot some very 'artistic' pics that way. c/b nice though?).
for a 99% success rate you could also focus next to their next landing spot.
and wait. they can be so predictable? ;-)


Edited by angora - 29 June 2019 at 08:22
 



Back to Top
woodrim View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 October 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charleston, SC
Status: Offline
Posts: 1670
Post Options Post Options   Quote woodrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 June 2019 at 19:02
Originally posted by angora angora wrote:


for a 99% success rate you could also focus next to their next landing spot.
and wait. they can be so predictable? ;-)


So true - but they can also tell very quickly if the nectar has been depleted, then they don't stay long.

I typically shoot wide open, so DoF is very shallow. A successful shot has the head in focus as much as the wings. In-flight captures are very satisfying, especially when manually focusing.
Regards,

woodrim
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3404
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2019 at 07:12
Originally posted by angora angora wrote:

TRIGGER TRAP! *droooool* very hi-tech, Heikki!
-on the wishlist only so far-.

but no need to waste hundreds of pics? (MHO?).
it's possible to shoot flying b.flies -or hummingbird hawk moths ;-) - the same way you would shoot a flying bee?
(https://myalbum.com/photo/TQ3T4xtItY1I/1k0.jpg (speeding, not hoovering. man, those things are fast!). even after lowering the s.speed? -although not 'high quality' as requested-. but agreed- fluttering can be VERY annoying. I've shot some very 'artistic' pics that way. c/b nice though?).
for a 99% success rate you could also focus next to their next landing spot.
and wait. they can be so predictable? ;-)

I had one in my garden last year - most amazing thing - but I failed to get an image with the wings anything but blurred. Yes, the wingbeats are really fast!
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3404
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2019 at 07:27
There are lots of lenses you'd think would be good for butterflies but in my experience :-

- For the bigger and friendlier butterflies you don't need a specialist macro lens, just a lens that has a reasonably decent MFD and magnification (0.3, say). Cheap consumer APS-C zooms and primes are usually a *lot* better in close-up than most FF lenses, I don't know why. The little Sony DT lenses are amazingly good. MF can work well.

- The smaller and more active butterflies & insects can need something longer and sharper. Most long primes and long teles won't focus close enough, or else get quite soft near MFD, especially older film-era ones, or have terrible bokeh at MFD, and short macros often aren't long enough to fill the frame with one before it takes fright (unless you can find one feeling lazy or thirsty!) so you may end up cropping heavily. I find AF is essential here.

The setups I use for butterflies are (a) whichever of the Sony DT lenses I have on the camera for the big friendly ones, and (b) the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro with 2x TC for the ones I can't get close to. If I had the super Tamron 180mm macro I'd use that

Edited by Miranda F - 30 June 2019 at 07:31
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3486
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2019 at 09:58
a brilliant catch, Mike! beautiful!
fact that I think capturing those in flight can be done, doesn't mean it's easy? I consider it top sports!

(still after a lady bird taking off/in flight! :-s caught 1 but from the wrong side? ;-)).
Back to Top
beccles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 May 2012
Country: United Kingdom
Location: windsor
Status: Offline
Posts: 248
Post Options Post Options   Quote beccles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2019 at 10:24
interesting what a variety of focal lengths people use - kind of mirrors my experience - i've had good results from the tamron sp 70-300 at 300mm (when i've been looking for birds),and at 200mm cropped; from the cosina 100mm though the AF on that is a bit creaky, and now surprisingly, from the sony 16-50 at 50mm and extremely heavily cropped (like to filling the frame when you can hardly see the subject in the original pic). I should add i'm very picky about the pics and like the whole thing to be in sharp focus, so obviously i have discarded lots!
 



Back to Top
angora View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2014
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 3486
Post Options Post Options   Quote angora Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2019 at 11:01
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

I had one in my garden last year - most amazing thing - but I failed to get an image with the wings anything but blurred. Yes, the wingbeats are really fast!

hummingbird h. moth? but you did capture it, didn't you?!!

totally unpredictable, other than perhaps speeding towards the next plot of land. when you see one, you'll literally have to keep your eye on it, or you'll loose it and will have to start searching all over again.
I think they are adorable, totally cute! but have only seen them 4 times in my life?
1st encounter at dusk! (sept. 9, 2015) meaning high ISO and all, so frustrating. wished for a 2nd chance and found it again the next morning. (my luck that the city chose to plant approx. 30 meters of buddleja shrubs farther up our street, kept low. downside? often busy BGs!).

after taking a couple of pics, (it does have wings ;-)), I tried to capture why it is called 'hummingbird butterfly' -in dutch- by lowering the shutter speed. while it was fueling up in mid-air. (not sharpest pic, but showing how it moves backwards). but beware- under 1/40s it will become wingless!
(3rd time I saw one (may 2017, @4.30 am), I was in a hurry and this year met one in our garden, very brief encounter).

I for sure am not the only one who often uses ancient MF lenses as well. (weirdest stack ever: a 50mm/1.4 + 1.7 tele converter + a full set of -3- extension tubes to capture b.flies with sharp eyes and bubbly wings. because 'sharpness is overrated'? ;-)).

Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.