I'm inclined to agree with JGOAR that the hand looks unnatural.

I'm also wondering about the eyes. The whites look to have been whitened a bit, which is fair enough, but is it possible that in selecting the area for attention you've damaged the circular part at the bottom? Especially the one on the left as we look at it, they don't look quite the right shape to me.

Otherwise I can see why George approves.

Could I suggest that you post this in a larger size? It's very hard to assess a shot that's as small as this.

About 800 pixels is a decent compromise between too small to see the detail properly, and too large to fit on the screen.

Not quite what I meant - obviously for a wedding there's very good reason to use both cameras.

I was thinking more along the lines of a second one as a backup - but presumably not wanting to cart both of them around all the time.

How do people use a second identical body?

Do you use one exclusively, aiming to keep the other in 'new' condition, or do you use them about equally?

I can see pros and cons of each approach.

Thank you, not at all, it's been interesting. Hope you've got something out of it too - if nothing else than that there are lots of options out there other than expensive macro lenses.

Ok, a couple more results.

28mm lens, normal orientation attached to 65mm tube: Magnification 2.4

28mm lens, reversed on to 65mm tube: Magnification 4.2 (5mm of ruler scale occupies almost the entire width of the frame).

And just to add a very modest, but I'd contend, more practical contribution to the amazing 'IRB test', this was taken with the "28mm reversed on to 65mm tube" configuration:




Not wanting to take anything away from Dan's amazing effort on the other thread, it remains the case, surely , that in any "mine's bigger than yours" macro competition, you have to divide the magnification by the price of the lenses, converters and tubes used, to obtain the true MCC (macro competition coefficient).

My lens was 6 quid, the reversing ring was 12, and the tubes were about 30. So that makes my MCC equal to 4.2/48 = 0.0875. Still probably way back in the also-rans

I've come by a 28mm Tokina lens with a 49mm filter thread (not bad for £6).

Just stuck that on the reversing adaptor, and here's the result:




It's not at all sharp - I just hand-held it to get this, but as you can see, the magnification is much bigger than with the 50mm lens reversed.

It's about 1.9. So more than the 50mm and the tubes.

I have the A-series 100mm macro - you should be aware that its magnification is not as great as the 50mm with extension tubes.




As you can see, the frame shows 4.55 cm of actual distance, so the magnification is only 24/45.5 = about 0.5, compared with 1.4 with the 50mm and the tubes.

You're absolutely right, my apologies.

I photographed a ruler as you did, focused as close as I could; standard 50mm 1.7 lens, 65mm of tube.

Magnification 1.4, as you say.

I guess the spider was bigger than I thought. It was a money spider - tiny. I guess when I measured its size it must have had its legs much more curled into its body - it is quite stretched out in the photo.

Thanks for the correction. 3:1 did sound a bit unlikely, I must admit.

That's how I took this:




It was about 4mm across including legs, and occupied half the original frame width. If the sensor is 24mm wide, that makes the image 12mm wide, so I think that's more like 3:1 than 1:1.

Or have I misunderstood how to calculate the magnification?