White Beetles Mating

Post your macro and close-up images in this gallery. You may post all subject types whether natural or unnatural, living or non-living.

Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden

Locked
gunn
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Adelaide/KL

White Beetles Mating

Post by gunn »

Image

iso100, f11, 1/250, 20D/100mm, 380ex -1 stop

I've never figured out the ID for these tiny bettles. Their roundish bodies measure around 3mm to 4mm. At one time it seemed to me that the whitish fur on their backs were some kind of fungal overgrowth. Not sure as they appear healthy, and mating away. This is the first time I caught them making out in the open.
The very white fur did make flash exposure a little more complicated than usual. Would really like to know their ID.

best regards
gunn

paul
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:09 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by paul »

Precariously perched, but happily at it! Nice detail in the clasping feet.
I have never seen these creatures, thanks for showing; would be interesting to get an ID.

Best wishes,
Paul
paul h

User avatar
nephiliim
Posts: 546
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:38 am
Contact:

Post by nephiliim »

I think that's powdered sugar! :lol: or coke

Let's call 'em coke beetles.
Sometimes smaller is better!
*nodge nodge :D*

Comments and advice always welcome
My little website

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

These are weird-looking critters! I've never seen anything exactly like them, but they might be scale insects of some type.

Very cool appearance.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

Incidentally, are you getting along okay with the 100mm macro? Been tempted to trade it for the 60?
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

gunn
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Adelaide/KL

Post by gunn »

hi mike

as you had anticipated, i found the 100 better than the 60, having tried both in the shop b4 buying. no regrets with the 100, thanks to you bud. the wallet suffers though. you know mike, now people are saying there's a very good macro lens in the sigma 150. the shop didn't have this model so i didn't try it out.

about the 100mm, have you tried stacking a 250D diopter in front of it? any good? and is the working distance reduced?

how's the mpe65, mike, in terms of focusing ease and working distance? and do you think a 580EX (diffused with the stofen) would be a better all-round acquisition than the ring light 14 or 24 ?
i'm currently using an old 380EX.

thanks and best wishes
gunn

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

I'm not sure if you're serious, or making a joke after my comment about me wanting to spend all your money! :shock:

I wrote this up once for friend who asked about the MP-E-65:


1) I really like the lens, it gives a way to do things in the field that would require reversed lenses, third-party converters, and jury rigs to do otherwise.

2) It has the disadvantages inherent in shooting at greater than 2x, in particular:

3) F/stops are incredible. If you dial the lens up to f/16 in-camera, you are shooting at f/96 at 5x. This means light is a real problem. For anything that's not totally static and rigid, I use flash. Because of the large amount of light needed, reflective subjects produce glare problems. I'm still fumbling with a solution to this.

4) DOF is just a memory. Depending on magnification and f/stop, we're talking about a millimeter or so of DOF at the extreme settings.

5) For any kind of mobile subject, I get a lot of duds. For some of the ant shots you've seen, it's not unusual for me to take 300 shots in a couple of hours, and have 297 of them be complete garbage, and only one be really useable. Focusing on moving ants, as I like to do is extremely hit-or-miss due to DOF and even getting them in the frame because they move left/right so quickly compared to the size of your frame.

6) Focusing distances are minimal. I believe it's about 4 1/2 inches at 1x, and a bit over one inch at 5x. You "focus" by changing magnification, so there's only one distance that a subject will be sharp at a given magnification.

7) And of course, lens stability is a big issue at these magnifications.

In short, the lens has a lot of problems, but they are inherent to what it is trying to do, not the result of some problem with the lens. If you really want to photograph at greater than 2x, and are willing to face the problems mentioned above, I think it is a good way to go. Whether that's the best use of your money and effort is something you have to decide. Mine is not for sale, so I've clearly made my choice!


Unless you're really sure that you want to shoot at over 3x (and deal with the complications I just mentioned, I'd think about trying the 2x, a diopter like the 250D or 500D, and possibly extension tubes (together or separately) before making the big outlay for the MP-E-65. Especially if you do any telephoto shooting (possibly with a different lens) where the 2x could also be used. You might look at the price of the 2x teleconverter, 250D, and extension tubes together and compare how much the MP-E-65 would cost to that. A good start might be to get a 2x teleconverter (you may need a 12mm extension tube to hook the Canon 2x to your 100mm macro, I'm not sure--I don't use a Canon 100mm. I believe third-party teleconverters will hook up without any intermediaries. Sue or someone who shoots a 100 might know for sure).

I've not used the 250D, but I've used the 500D some. I didn't really like the 500D, but I was using it on the front of a huge 100-400 lens and probably didn't give it a fair shot. Lots of people swear by it and produce awesome images with it. Both the 250D and 500D work by making the lens able to focus closer, so working distance is reduced. The link below has some old but still very good information on the 250D and 500D and other closeup options from an official Canon USA person:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eo ... oseup2.htm

A company called Kenko makes third-party extension tubes that work just fine, no need (from what I've seen) to get the Canons. Kenko makes tubes to fit several camera brands, so make sure you go with the ones for Canon EOS if you get any.

If it was me, I'd be wary of rushing into getting a MP-E-65 at least until I'd tried some other cheaper combo at 2x or higher. If you find working at 2x-plus to be easy, then you might want to think about the '65. It can be frustrating to use, and it's not a cheap lens! Incidentally, if you do end up getting an MP-E-65, budget for a ring flash or macro flash (I recommed the MT-24EX over the ring flash); the lens is extremely difficult to use with a normal flash.

I know personally several people who use a Sigma 180 and are very pleased with it. The 150 appears good but I don't have personal knowledge, even from observation only, of it. Either would probably be a good lens if you find the 100mm lens working distance a limitation. The tradeoff for the working distance is dealing with a heavier lens, of course. Other than working distance (which is admittedly a very big deal with insects!) I don't know of any real advantages they'd have over your 100mm, though. With Sigma, you do run the risk of it being incompatible with a future DSLR purchase down the road, though.

A fellow named Larry West has a book called "How to Photograph Insects and Spiders" in which he talks a great deal about using combinations of extension tubes, teleconverters, and closeup "filters" to get higher magnifications. Good book, and not terribly expensive.

Speaking of flashes, the 550EX is an excellent flash. I haven't used it, but I'm sure the 580EX is fine also. But do they really offer advantages THAT YOU WOULD USE over your 380EX? If you feel you need one of these, you might see if you can find a used 550EX that someone trading up to the 580 wants to sell. If you shoot lots of other stuff than macro that uses flash, either would (clearly) be more generally useful than a specialized macro flash. I bought a specialized macro flash early (arguably too early) in my photo work so haven't done much macro work with a "regular" flash, but lots of people do excellently with it. Depends on how much you use a flash in more normal photographic pursuits versus how much you do macro.

If you want to ask more questions about this, just mail them in an envelope addressed to "The Cur who wants to spend all my money" in Oklahoma, USA and I"m sure I'll receive it! :wink: On a more serious note, I'd be careful about rushing out and spending a lot of money in a hurry.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm

The above is an interesting table that shows magnifications and such for the 250D, 500D, and extension tubes with various lenses.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

User avatar
nzmacro
Site Admin
Posts: 1604
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:25 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by nzmacro »

Hmmm, bellows, Canon 25mm photomacro objective and hello macro at 30:1 :D

So right out there in public huh. tsk, tsk, no sense of pride. :D . Neat shot here gunn and never seen white. Amazing. Almost like white stink bugs.

All the best gunn, nice work and capture.

Danny.

gunn
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Adelaide/KL

Post by gunn »

mike: thanks for the painstaking explanation. it was helpful to me. appreciate it. thank you also for the bob atkins links. they were very helpful too.

i'm a little surprised that nobody here has seen such a white bettle before. would really like to know what it is known as. maybe Tom would know if he sees it? anyway i'm posting a second image here which shows the bettle's underside in the hope that it will aid identification.

Image

danny: hi there. glad to see that you are back here where you belong!

mike again: i'm sure you would have noticed the dust-spots on my two-week old 20D. i'm not too amused with canon's quality control, hah! can i trouble you for an elucidation of the best ways and means to clean a sensor? at the moment i find it as frighteningly intimidating as opening up my wife's 20k Rolex to change its battery!

many thanks to all.
gunn

User avatar
Sven Bernert
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 2:42 am
Location: Dessau, Germany
Contact:

Post by Sven Bernert »

I like nephiliim's sugar comment :lol: I've never seen such a beetle before, neither in nature nor in other peoples pictures, what a great species to photograph! I like the second image better but I'd rotate it by 180°

Well done gunn.

Mike, some great advice above. Add me to the group that is/was really happy with the 180mm Sigma.

Best,
Sven

User avatar
MikeBinOKlahoma
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?

Post by MikeBinOKlahoma »

gunn wrote:can i trouble you for an elucidation of the best ways and means to clean a sensor? at the moment i find it as frighteningly intimidating as opening up my wife's 20k Rolex to change its battery!
I think the insect is a plant pest known as a scale insect. I feel pretty sure about that. If pressed, I'd say it was probably a wax scale, ceroplastes species of some sort, but not at all confident in that. Check this out:

http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/entomology/4 ... 4-622.html

As for sensor cleaning, what I try to do as much as possible is just use a blower bulb. You need to use one that puts out as much air as possible. I use a brand of blower called a Giotti that looks like a little rocket. Available in most camera stores here.

When things get really grim, I use a kit from copperhill, described in this link. I bought their basic kit for about US$30 and it should last for many years. It's hair-raising to do, but I haven't had any problems, and they do provide EXTREMELY complete directions. Be careful, especially in getting grit off by blowing first if at all possible. It certainly looks to me like you CAN damage your sensor with this method, though I haven't heard any reports of it that I'm convinced are reliable and not due to operator error. I still hold my breath and grit my teeth each time I do it!

http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning

Click on each of the small pictures here for more description.

The "hot new thing" is a method called sensor brush, that uses compressed air to put a static charge in what appears to be a standard artist's brush. Appears to be very good, and to elminate risk of physically damaging sensor (though I've heard some worry about static charge doing damage over time--I don't have an opinion). Because it's new, and because the company involved is charging an outrageous price for what appears to be a common brush, I've delayed trying it, but it appears to be very good. I don't have a link handy, but if you google on something like

sensor brush clean

you'll find their website.

The blower brush (like the Giotto I mentioened above) is the safest and easiest until you get something really nasty stuck on your sensor (allowing moisture to condense on the sensor, as when you take it from cool to warm temps abruptly in high humidity should be avoided, as it helps this process along). I'll bet the blower brush will solve your current problem, and probably most of your problems--I went for two years without needing more than that.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin

(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)

daidunno
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 3:09 pm

white beetle ID

Post by daidunno »

I dunno the sp, but they are some sort of tortoise beetle, family chrysomelidae... don't remember the subfamily off the top of my head.

Locked