Flying Butterflies

[Loupey]

I must say that butterflies are quite difficult to capture in mid-air. Much more so than flying dragonflies, flying songbirds, or flying hummingbirds.

Why?

1. A much higher shutter speed has to be used (1/1000s at least, 1/1500 is OK) due to their erratic flying
   
2. They are nearly impossible to track in flight
   
3. They don't give any notice as to when they will take flight

What helps though is that they are easy to approach, generally start a flight up/forward, and they are here in droves right now.

After countless attempts, here are my better ones. Hope to try again soon to get some better ones. Have a save Labor Day for those in the U.S.

[readingr]

You make it look too easy.

Excellent

Roger

[Knight]

Hell these are Great Captures Loupey ,300mm and 2X ?

[mjs1973]

Well done Loupey! I really like the last one.

[slayer7124]

yea, i'll get right on it

excellent shots though!!

[Loupey]

Thanks, guys!

Knight - 300mm yes, 2x no - I needed too much speed so the converter could not have been used.

Most of what I shot during the day was scrapped. After finishing several hours of shooting, I settled in at a nearby fast food place to get rehydrated and review the shots. That's when I realized that anything under 1/1000s wouldn't cut it. So I went back and had just enough sunlight left to get #3 and #5.

[Loupey]

Tried to do the same with those small moths. They are an order of magnitude harder than the butterflies. Even 1/1500s is too slow. Got lots of shots of empty air.

Then came my favorite, a clearing hummingbird moth. Quite slow in comparision and I was able to get an angle that I had not previously so it made up for it.

[Copy_Kot]

These are outstanding Loupey! I tried doing the same thing this weekend and didn't get one shot sharp enough to post. Roger is right, you make it look too easy.

[mn shutterbug]

Loupey, you sure have the method figured out. I've been tempted to attempt this myself eventually. At least I've got some advice now, from "the master of shooting butterflys in flight". Thanks for sharing the photos and tips.

[Loupey]

Thanks, Copy & Mn

There's actually a couple different techniques here:

1) point to a dead space ahead of a perched butterfly/moth and prefocus there. Pull your head back about 6" away from the viewfinder so you can better see the perched target. Hit the release the moment it leaps. Even with your eye away, you can still see if you're pointed at the general spot.

2) find a popular bloom and prefocus to a spot where you anticipate the butterfly/moth will be coming. Again, watch with both eyes and shoot when anything gets close.

3) track a flying one like the dickens and hope you don't fall over in the process.

Have at it! At least the subjects are cooperative.

[AmberC]

I really like the third and last of the first series and the first and the last of the second! I saw a bunch of those hummingbird moths too, but did not get a good shot.

Amber

[scott-devon]

Man....these are excellent shots. Great advice too! Thanks Loupey!

[Loupey]

Couple new ones.

Have only caught a few with the wings on the up-stroke. Looks kinda weird all contorted like that.

[Yarrow]

Wow Loupey! These are fantastic.

[Loupey]

Thanks, Yarrow - I appreciate you taking the time to look.

Here's another one from that last day. Caught him just before he left my frame - but going in the wrong direction and facing the wrong way. Butt shot but again during a not-so-typically captured upstroke.

[Knight]

One word . Awesome

[Alison]

I don't know how you do it Loupey! I can't even get a decent shot of a stationary caterpillar!!!

Now I know these aren't exactly macro's but you being the macro King and all, I thought you might be the best person to ask. (Although, I do love Payn's flower macro's).
Is my 70-200 capable of getting a good macro shot or am I better off with a decent macro lens?
I have my dream lens now but I never seem to be satisfied! I always want more, more, more!

[Loupey]

Knight - thanks a lot.

Alison - I've used that lens for macros. I recommend getting a set of extension tubes to see how you like shooting macros first before spending a lot of money on a "true" macro lens. Besides, the extension tubes work well with the 50mm f/1.8 lens as well.

Image quality is always going to be better using primes with the tubes, but here are some examples of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with tubes.

Thanks for looking!

[Alison]

Thank you H. And I know you have advised me to buy some extension tubes before. I WANT to shoot macro's so badly.
Y'know, when I see a caterpillar I want to be able to see what the naked eye cannot.
I mean, I got a shot of a Dragonfly the other week using my 350D and my 17-40 L, it seems that lens will allow me to focus much closer than my 50.

I have noticed that my 40D allows me to focus much closer than my 350 with any of my lenses attached.
It's sharper and the colours are much better too.

[Loupey]

I have noticed that my 40D allows me to focus much closer than my 350 with any of my lenses attached.
It's sharper and the colours are much better too.

Regarding the focusing closer - that's odd because the lenses will operate equally in both cameras (same crop factor, same distance scale, etc). As for the sharpness and colors, I'm sure that the new imaging sensor is a huge factor in these areas. Still, to compare apples to apples, try shooting the same scene with both cameras set to the same settings - preferrably with all settings set to null (sharpening, saturation, contrast, color tone).

I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison (of your normal lovely subjects) using the same lens with the two cameras.

[SmartWombat]

I have my dream lens now but I never seem to be satisfied! I always want more, more, more!

Yes I understand, I want a 400mm prime at least, if not 500mm
Roger and I took dragonfly pictures from the meet with the 100-400 L IS at 400mm With and without all the tubes (71mm) but at a distance of about 4 feet. The problem with that is the shake.

When shooting 35mm film, I found 135mm prime the best compromise in weight and working distance (about 2 feet) but I was chasing insects with a tripod back in my teens

I would think you'll find the 70-200 good with tubes, I think it's much sharper than the 100-400, but it is heavier, and with all those bayonet mounts in the tubes there can be a little slop between the lens and the body.

I would prefer a macro lens for the ability to focus from macro to infinity without removing the tubes, I get so much dust in the camera

[Loupey]

Alison, keep in mind that you have one HUGE advantage with your 70-200mm - it has IS. It makes a huge difference in what you can do with it out in the field.

However, the big downfall is that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is extremely heavy - literally a barrel full of glass. Makes handholding difficult if you need to wait for a scene to develop.

With this lens, only a single extension tube (36mm) would open up the macro world.

[Alison]

Thank you Loupey. I might look into getting some decent tubes because I don't think macro is something I would be shooting all the time.
My reason for choosing this lens was for geat close ups at wedding ceremonies, although, my 50mm, on September 1st, didn't do too bad to be honest.
And i know what you mean about the weight. My wrists feel weak after the little bit I did today!
It's just nice to shoot other things from time to time.

[SenorNikonMan]

Fantastic shots Loupey! Makes me want to go out in the backyard and try my hand at capturing something in mid-flight. Hmmmm, I wonder how high up I can throw my dog?

BTW, I've seen quite a few bumblebees in my backyard. Have you had any luck with them?