Seeing a lot of different answers to your question (at least some of
which I think might be off the mark a bit), I searched my hard disk for
some stuff I'd put together when I still had my MX-10. For what it's
worth:
With the macro extension, YS-40 strobe, and (assuming ISO 100 film):
Dark subject : f/16 (DoF will be about 30 mm)
Normal/light subject : f/22 (DoF will be about 40 mm)
Focus, of course, is fixed. The framer works pretty well, but you
might want to zero it in with some test shots at both f/16 and f/22 to
see how far inside/outside the DoF extends, and if possible to pin down
where exact focus is relative to framer bars. (I never used the
vertical bars that screw in to the extension, just try to imagine the
plane I was trying to shoot and try to get the camera body as parallel
to that as possible.) To my mind, the attachable macro lens is really
more of a close-up lens than a real macro lens. OK for very large
nudibranchs, but don't expect see see much if you're shooting anything
small.
The base lens has a fixed focus at 1.2 m (3.9 feet). Your correct
instinct to get much closer than that won't work unless you've got the
lens really shut down. These are the theoretical settings:
f/4.5 0.91 - 1.66 m 3.00 - 5.45 ft
f/5.6 0.87 - 1.80 m 2.85 - 5.90 ft
f/8 0.78 - 2.40 m 2.56 - 7.87 ft
f/11 0.70 - 4.00 m 2.30 - 13.00 ft
f/16 0.60 - infinity 1.97 - infinity
f/22 0.50 - infinity 1.64 - infinity
The camera worked better for me with the 20 mm attachable wide-angle
lens than with the straight 35 mm. If you haven't got the 20 mm, get
it. Here's the settings I used (below), with the proviso that getting
the strobe to actually illuminate something 5.5 feet away is probably a
fantasy - never worked for me. If you stick within 1.5 to 3-4 feet and
f/5.6 through f/16 you should get some shots. I don't think the strobe
output is that consistent, either.
Here are the settings to use with the 20 mm w/a extender:
Range and Depth of Field (ft):
f/4.5 2.8 - 6.5
f/5.6 2.7 - 7.6
f/8 2.3 - 12.6
f/11 2.0 - 132.6
f/16 1.7 - infinity
f/22 1.4 - infinity
The range-finder that comes with the 20 mm extender is a bit funny.
Try aiming below the subject (quite a bit) or you'll find you're
getting a lot of shots of the top half of a fish.
Regards,
Frogfish (Robert Delfs)
On Fri, 3 May 2002 21:24:46 -0400, Reef Fish wrote:
>Before Sue and I ruin all our macro shots of those seahorses smiling
>at us (in Las Palmas, La Francesca, and Tormentos on previous days,
>and Dalila/cedra today, and are sure to be seen again before we leave),
>here's the setting and the question.
>
>The camera is a new MX-10 with YS-40 strobe.
>The macro lense and frame (correct one for the camera) was the gift of
>Zeus at the bottom of the Ocean in Palau (such gifts never come with a
>manual!) hence this question:
>
>What is the appropriate f setting for macro shots (they range from 1.1,
>2.1, 4.5, 5.6, ... to 11, 16, and 22)?
>
>I know the photogs on this list don't mess with Push-here-Dummy (PhD)
>cameras like the MX-10, but I thought perhaps the principle of the
>appropriate setting might apply, or perhaps somebody here actually HAS
>a manual to answer the question of the f-setting for macro lense with
>YS-40 strobe.
>
>Ob scuba today:
>
>Sunny sky and calm water for the 5th day in a row. Besides three grande
>seahorses (two yellow, and one red) we saw two turtles at Columbia
>(with no earth on their backs), a dolphin, two swimming nurse sharks,
>two large porcupinefish, and the usual assortment of reef fishes.
>
>In 2000, on the occasion of my 1000 dive in Coz, I "planted" a gold
>chain (a real, but expensive one) on a black coral at 218 fsw, at some
>location in Columbia Reef with the notion that I could retrieve it if
>desired (as I had done so once before with a piece of perosnalized
>1-lb lead.
>
>Since 2000, I had looked for it several times without success, not
>finding the exact features that would help me locate such a spot, at
>218 fsw. :-) But TODAY, the features look right on descent, so I
>went for it again, and was so sure that I had found the right ledge
>that spent a minute of two at that depth looking through the black
>coral branches where it might have been hung. Alas, it wasn't there.
>So, I'll have to make another try some time, under more ideal conditions.
>
>I ascended to join the group at 90 fsw, and even though everyone started
>to ascend to shallower depth because two Utah divers were already OOA
>(very close to it) at the 30-minute mark, my Uwatec Nitrox Pro was
>such a CONSERVATIVE pita on air-setting that it had incurred a nearly
>30-deco on that dive (at the time my ORCA had already CLEARED for NDL!}
>
>The deco schedule was something like 6 minutes at 30, followed by 9
>minutes at 20, and 15 minutes at 10. But the worst part of it is that
>if I ignored any part of the deco, that damn thing would lock out for
>24 hours. .-) So, I played along for the 30 and 20 ft decos, and
>seriously considered using the computer-solo-deco-on-a-string trick
>for the long 10-ft deco, but since there were a few things to look at
>drifting along the shallow coral heads, I played out the deco ... and
>thereby recorded a 233 ffw dive (which was only 225 fsw) for 60 minutes
>BT with 700 psi to spare, on an AL80, with which I could have gone at
>least another hour on the Aldora-type of depths at the end of their
>dives. :-)
>
>The captain and DM can vouch for these stats, since I had signalled
>the DM he could go up with the airhogs at 30-minutes, while Sue and
>I finish the dive -- and Sue finally ascended while I signalled
>to her that I was finishing my deco ... but she thought I was just
>telling her I had more safety stop to do ... and so she didn,t tell the
>crew I was doing any deco. So, while they were not unduly concerned
>when I surfaced at the 1 hour mark, they were curious enough to look at
>my computers and gauges. :-))
>
>-- Bob.
Robert Delfs
Reply to: <[log in to unmask]>
Tel: +852 2812-6290
Fax: +852 2812-6970
|
