The Eyes Have It

[MrSquished]

testing out a zoom lens on my niece. panny 12-35f2.8 at 2.8. 1600ISO - very happy with my copy, sharp. RAW, processed in LR4.

after seeing my niece's beautiful eyes, decided to shoot my cat. low light, 3200ISO, 60mm macro lens at 2.8:

this one shot at 1/40 second, handheld, pretty close with a macro - IBIS works well

you know you are getting old when you take pictures of your cat. he is a cute lil furball though. the DOF was so shallow, i missed his eyes barely and they are already starting to be OOF:

 

[Spoooon]

Last shot is a little dark for me, but cute.

I take a ton of pictures of my cat, he puts up with a lot more and doesn't fight back... unlike my wife.

 

[MrSquished]

Last shot is a little dark for me, but cute.

I take a ton of pictures of my cat, he puts up with a lot more and doesn't fight back... unlike my wife.

ha! that was funny.

yes the last one is a bit dark now that i look at it more. can fix that in post. i f'd up the curves, probably shouldn't have messed with the darks too much.

check out these things, they are like alien antennaes for a camera:

i forgot i had them, used them for the one shot.

 

[Spoooon]

What are those antenna things called? They don't seem like they'd be very bright. I had been trying to shoot water drops and just can't get enough light on them. I don't want to spend money on a flash.

My cat:

 

[MrSquished]

What are those antenna things called? They don't seem like they'd be very bright. I had been trying to shoot water drops and just can't get enough light on them. I don't want to spend money on a flash.

the Olympus MAL-1

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ght_MAL_1.html

 

[fralexandr]

What are those antenna things called? They don't seem like they'd be very bright. I had been trying to shoot water drops and just can't get enough light on them. I don't want to spend money on a flash.

Brightness of a subject has to do with 2 things , power output of the light source, and distance to subject (with relative distance having potentially more effect, in theory, based on the directionality of the light source).
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/1overR2-more.html

fiber optic illuminators are often used with dissecting microscopes.

Those arms would significantly reduce the distance to subject on most 1:1 or greater macros

That macro arm light looks spiffy. Why don't pentax/canon/nikon etc make any?
Just have to go with a ring light I suppose . There's a cheapo JJC "antenna" light that apparently has lights that are too heavy for the arms to support . With these cheapo arms, you have to get a bit creative, maybe rubber band it to the lens, or jury rig some kind of support.
the antennae just look so awesome though

maybe you can use some hug lights, like in this dpreview thread
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41498557

I know one of my professors that shoots nikon would probably love one of those MALs for pictures of insects and moss .

 

[iGas]

Brightness of a subject has to do with 2 things , power output of the light source, and distance to subject (with relative distance having potentially more effect, in theory, based on the directionality of the light source).
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/1overR2-more.html

fiber optic illuminators are often used with dissecting microscopes.

Those arms would significantly reduce the distance to subject on most 1:1 or greater macros

That macro arm light looks spiffy. Why don't pentax/canon/nikon etc make any?
Just have to go with a ring light I suppose . There's a cheapo JJC "antenna" light that apparently has lights that are too heavy for the arms to support . With these cheapo arms, you have to get a bit creative, maybe rubber band it to the lens, or jury rig some kind of support.
the antennae just look so awesome though

maybe you can use some hug lights, like in this dpreview thread
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41498557

I know one of my professors that shoots nikon would probably love one of those MALs for pictures of insects and moss .

Much cheaper on the pocket book than a dedicated ringlight.

 

[MrSquished]

Brightness of a subject has to do with 2 things , power output of the light source, and distance to subject (with relative distance having potentially more effect, in theory, based on the directionality of the light source).
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/1overR2-more.html

fiber optic illuminators are often used with dissecting microscopes.

Those arms would significantly reduce the distance to subject on most 1:1 or greater macros

That macro arm light looks spiffy. Why don't pentax/canon/nikon etc make any?
Just have to go with a ring light I suppose . There's a cheapo JJC "antenna" light that apparently has lights that are too heavy for the arms to support . With these cheapo arms, you have to get a bit creative, maybe rubber band it to the lens, or jury rig some kind of support.
the antennae just look so awesome though

maybe you can use some hug lights, like in this dpreview thread
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41498557

I know one of my professors that shoots nikon would probably love one of those MALs for pictures of insects and moss .

these are pretty good. got good reviews so when they were on sale for 39 bucks i bought them. no issue with the motion being too loose, you set the lights and they stay in position. it's a perfect length with the oly 60mm macro, even though these were out before the lens.

for the cat's eye pic they changed the shot, not only did my shutter speed go up like 5 stops, but it gave the eye that depth and illumination - macro studio lighting i suppose.