View Full Version : Raynox DCR-250
TravisMissey
07-09-2007, 08:45 AM
I got the Macro lens the other day, and was wondering when people are shooting with this on, what's about the max length away from the subject you can get? Are you using a tripod? Any particular settings on the S3 that work better than any others??? Thanks in advance.
downtrodden
07-09-2007, 08:53 AM
Zoom all the way in and get the end of the lens really close to your subject. Manual focus works best, autot focus will work but sometimes is very inaccurate. Keep the Aperture at F8 because this will make the depth of field deeper. I rarely use a tripod because a lot of the wildlife i photograph is very skittish and moves around a lot. IF i use a tripod, i use it like a monopod and keep the legs folded in.
GOODLUCK!
~Cory
TravisMissey
07-09-2007, 08:59 AM
Thats kind of what I was thinking as far as using the tripod, I did not think it would work that great. I will try to maximize the Aperature.
berniej
07-09-2007, 04:12 PM
I have a Sony close up lens and have yet to get hardly a focused shot. :mad: There is some good information in this article: http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper/Part12.htm although the testing was done with a Sony H series camera.
AtlPikMan
07-09-2007, 05:51 PM
Quick Questions from a Newbie.....How do you mount that lens? Is anything else needed to make it work? Can anyone post pic of their S3 wearing that lense?
TravisMissey
07-10-2007, 07:17 AM
I believe you have to have the adapter. I have the 58mm adapter from lensmateonline.com
Once you have that, it is a universal adapter that raynox supplies with the DCR-250 I think it will go from like 44mm to 67mm, don't quoate me on that though. It will just press on two sides that are spring loaded, insert into the adapter and release the spring loaded tabs.
downtrodden
07-10-2007, 07:36 AM
travis is pretty correct. escept i think you'd be hard pressed to get the raynox to fit an adapter smalleer than 52mm. (ok being i've not seen any adapters smaller than 52mm for the S cameras.)
TravisMissey
07-12-2007, 07:28 AM
Well after playing around last night, I was able to get one descent shot. Still not crisp enough though. I was working in low light, I had to open the shutter to long to get enough light in, and was holding the camera by hand. I guess I shake to much since most shots turned out blurry.
Let me know what you think.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=787677508&size=l
hokeyguy
07-12-2007, 03:56 PM
I think it's time I got one of these.
NoobS3
07-13-2007, 06:34 PM
Well after playing around last night, I was able to get one descent shot. Still not crisp enough though. I was working in low light, I had to open the shutter to long to get enough light in, and was holding the camera by hand. I guess I shake to much since most shots turned out blurry.
I can't get a good shot either using the lens, even at higher ISO. The only good shots i could get are while using the flash. Anyone got any tips? I would really like to get pics with the natural colors without the flash.
Here's one i shot today of a very tiny bug, smaller than a baby cricket.
Shot with my S3, F8, ISO80, and flash on. Photo was cropped & resized.
http://img363.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2257vc0.jpg
toriaj
07-15-2007, 08:18 PM
Looks like great focus and extremely small DOF, NoobS3.
Anyone tried smaller apertures than f/8? I wonder what f/22 would look like?
Visual Reality
07-15-2007, 08:30 PM
Looks like great focus and extremely small DOF, NoobS3.
Anyone tried smaller apertures than f/8? I wonder what f/22 would look like?
F/8 is as high as you go on the Canon S3.
toriaj
07-15-2007, 09:33 PM
oh :o
I'm considering getting this macro converter for my DLSR (shh) I'm sure that some people would bemoan its effect on my picture quality, but right now my macro shots have *zero* quality so I'm not too concerned, it's worth a shot for $40! (no pun intended lol)
downtrodden
07-15-2007, 10:39 PM
Yeah Tori, I agree- if you don't have the money to spend on a dedicated macro lens, methinks this would be a worthy 40 bucks. yeah it may effect IQ, but if you're not shooting macro at all right now- then there is no loss of IQ, now is there? Also, i think with the popularity of the DCR240, even if you don't like it, you'd probably be able to sell it for near what you paid anyway, further minimizing your loss methinks. Either way, goodluck!
~Cory
toriaj
07-15-2007, 11:27 PM
Thanks, Cory! Now I just have to make this a priority ... so easy to piddle the $40 away somewhere else ...
berniej
07-16-2007, 03:15 PM
If I EVER get a shot that good with my Sony close up lens I will be a happy camper. I did get this by resting the camera on a table. The left is the close up lens and the right is macro from what I thought to be relatively the same distance.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/beejay42/th_compare.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/beejay42/compare.jpg)
Visual Reality
07-16-2007, 08:44 PM
You need to be at or near max zoom to see the benefits of the magnification.
TravisMissey
07-17-2007, 06:57 AM
To save up the 40$ just carpool for a week. A tank of gas cost more then that. :)
Or have a birthday, that's what I did.
toriaj
07-17-2007, 10:58 PM
No kidding, gas prices the way they are. Birthday? Hmm, 9 months out :( although I did get a new lens and blower this last birthday! Yea!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.