[Paul Rule]

I am seriously thinking of purchasing one of these for my CP4500.

It's prime use would be for photographing insects, but I would also like to have the ability to use it for birds (when I can get close enough).

I have seen some nice results from this piece of kit in the gallery, and I would value comments from any who has used one.

Also if anyone has one for sale I would like to hear from you.

Paul

[Dave Smith]

Paul

If at all possible do try before you buy if your main purpose is for insects. I have the 3x teleconverter which I use on my CP880. I thought it may be useful for butterflies but when I tried it out on a flower it seemed to be almost as close as without the teleconverter. I haven't measured distances, its just an impression and it may well be different with the CP4500. I do however consider it a good buy for birds. Pity you cannot make it to the suffolk meet as you could have tried mine then.

Hope this helps.

Dave

[Dave Smith]

Hi again Paul,

I've just tried it out in macro mode and the Teleconverter actually is worse in this situation. I took a photo of part of a calculator. With the teleconverter, the closest I could get was 8 cm. The camera without teleconverter set at 8 cm gave nearly double the magnification. The camera is also able to get as close as 4 cm to give even more magnification.
So it looks as if the teleconverter is no good for macro work.
Dave

[Paul Rule]

Thanks Dave,

I was not thinking of using it for Macro work, more a case of capturing butterflies, Dragon Flies ect at a few feet. I did go into town this afternoon to see if I could get to try one but typical for Cambridge no one had any in stock.

On the subject of macro though it would be nice to get even closer than 4cm for the really small (but interesting) stuff. Any one know whats available to achieve this.

Paul

[Dave Smith]

I was not thinking of using it for Macro work, more a case of capturing butterflies, Dragon Flies ect at a few feet.

I think you'll find it is not much use for this either - however give it a try.

BTW the CP4500 goes down to 2 cm doesn't it?

[peteh]

Paul,

Have a look at Redwings website, I remember him telling me he uses the 3x teleconverter for dragonflies and the like.
http://www.digitalwildlife.co.uk/

I use mine for birds that are either hopping about in trees close to me, or birds that come too near for digiscoping.
Ive found recently that its quite good for taking pictures of birds in flight as well. (Well better than trying to digiscope them anyways.)
Heres my little tern with the teleconverter.
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat=500&page=1

Pete.

[Paul Rule]

Pete

It was looking at some of Redwings pics that started me off on this. The fact that it should also be able to capture some reasonable bird shots is another good reason to go for it. I will not be taking scope and tripod on the family holiday to the Dolomites so having something like this & a monopod, on mountain hikes should be the next best thing.

Paul

[peteh]

yes I take it with me on dog walks when there is no way im carrying my scope and tripod.
I can put the converter in one pocket and the camera in the other.
Very handy.

[Dave Smith]

Paul

Today I have been on a wonderful trip to Thursley Common in Surrey. I took the opportunity of trying out the teleconverter on dragonflies and yes it is excellent. I will post a couple of pictures later when I have some time. I also took some butterfly photos and went really close without the teleconverter. I think the main advantage is that it may well not be possible to get that close to a dragonfly (as with me today) and so the next best is to use a teleconverter. I haven't been that interested in dragonflies so far but can now feel an urge coming.
Sorry if I seem to have mislead you but when you mentioned insects I thought of macro work and didn't want you to waste your money.

Dave

[Highway Man]

Has anyone tried out the Raynox 1.8X converter it is much more affordable, at £35, than the Nikon 3X.

Mark

[Dave Smith]

Well here is my first attempt. It's a bit blurred but apparently quite rare. Can anyone ID it please?

[Dave Smith]

And the next.

[Dave Smith]

and lastly....
Do bear in mind these are my first attempts.

[Colin]

Dave,
Your first one is a Small Red Damselfly, ( Ceriagrion tenellum ) and as you say is not that common at all.

As far as the quality of pictures is concerned, keep going and they will get better. When I started digiscoping all mine were rubbish and now I am reasonably happy with about one in twenty. Practice and help from the experts (I'm not one) here will do the trick I am sure.

Colin

[Dave Smith]

Thanks Colin. I clearly need to get a good ID book. Any recommendations?

[Colin]

Dave,
The two books that I use are:-

A Guide to Dragonflies of Great Britain by Dan Powell

and

Field Guide to the Damselflies and Dragonflies of Great Britain and Ireland by Steve Brooks, illustrated by Richard Lewington.

The former is good for jizz and the second is very comprehensive with lots of background information on the creatures in general. If I were to buy only one I would go for the second one.


Colin

[Dave Smith]

Thanks again Colin, I'll try the second one first and see how I get on.

I've carried out another experiment with my CP880 and the teleconverter.

At 20cm from an object the image size is just about the same with the converter and without it. Any closer the teleconverter produces a smaller image.

At 30 cm the teleconverter gives a mag of about 1.3 over the camera alone. At 50 cm this becomes 1.5 and at 1.0m about 2.

With the butterfly photos (Silver-studded blue) that I have posted in the gallery today, I was something like 10 cm from the butterfly, but with the above dragonfly pics the distance was at least a metre so it was well worth using the teleconverter.

I hope this is of some use Paul, and anyone else considering the 3x teleconverter.

[Richard Ford]

Sorry guys I have picked up on this thread a little late.
I have only just started using the converter on dragonflies’ etc this year, as I purchased it in the winter.
I think you are right, that at short distances and for use on the macro setting it seams hardly worth it as you have to zoom out so far to be able to focus this close, so you may just as well use the camera alown.

If you want a full frame picture of a small Damselfly you need to be close to it don’t you as its only just over an inch long, if it allows you to approach this close you may as well be using the camera alown.

With larger species the subject fills more of the frame from further distance, so you may be able to use the converter particularly if it will not allow you to approach very close. This is when it’s useful. But then if it’s that far away you can digiscope it, (yes I do carry all this stuff around with me :-)).

If you have a look at my site the keeled skimmer pictures are both taken with this lens, also at Thursley Common. http://members.lycos.co.uk/digitalwi...a/Keelskim.htm this was ok as I could not get any closer to them without getting wet.

Basically I thing the bigger the subject the more useful it is. But if you can get to within a foot of the subject then you may be better off using the camera zoom alown. I am still experimenting with it and would be interested in others finding.
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat=533&page=1
This photo was taken using it, as were the others here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/digitalwi...ta/gringed.htm
But this is a big insect that allowed a close approach.
If I see a likely subject I would start at full zoom and take pictures as I move closer, if I get very close I would zoom out a little and move the camera closer for a close up (sounds silly doesn’t it). If its still there and allowing photos to be taken within cm’s then I may take the lens off. Lets face it it’s a telephoto lens designed to bring distant things closer, it not really meant for macro work.

The fact that you have to zoom out to use the macro setting, has always bugged me, sort of defeats the object but that’s just the way it is. Is that correct that the 4500 should focus down to 2cm? Because I am sure I have never got mine to do that.

I would be interested in others opinions of this lens and its uses, I am still struggling to judge exactly when to use it and when not to.

All the best

Rich

[Richard Ford]

Dave

Small Damsel (as Colin said)
Keeled Skimmer (I have never seen one anywhere else but Thursley where they seem common)
And a Large Red Damselfly.

I also have the brooks book and find it excellent.

Nice pictures too keep it up.

Rich

[Richard Ford]

Thanks for this Dave I was planning to do this myself eventually with the 4500, i wounder if the same applies to its use with the TC.

Originally posted by Dave Smith


At 20cm from an object the image size is just about the same with the converter and without it. Any closer the teleconverter produces a smaller image.

Is that really the case, I had a suspicion but could hardly believe it, if this is true Dave, there is just no point using it closer that 30cm.

At 30 cm the teleconverter gives a mag of about 1.3 over the camera alone. At 50 cm this becomes 1.5 and at 1.0m about 2.

With the butterfly photos (Silver-studded blue) that I have posted in the gallery today, I was something like 10 cm from the butterfly, but with the above dragonfly pics the distance was at least a metre so it was well worth using the teleconverter.

I hope this is of some use Paul, and anyone else considering the 3x teleconverter. [/b]

Very useful Dave thanks, I just hadn’t got round to doing this kind of experiment, but now I wont bother using it when I am close to the subject. Is there a zoom on the 880

Thanks Dave

[Dave Smith]

Redwing,

Thanks for the IDs. I have ordered the book.

Is there a zoom on the 880?

Yes, there is a 2.5 zoom. However when using the 3x teleconverter the full zoom has to be used to avoid vignetting.

Is that correct that the 4500 should focus down to 2cm? Because I am sure I have never got mine to do that.

It is according to the main review sites. The Nikon site was down when I tried a few minutes ago. I will be disappointed if it isn't as it is one of the features that attracts me to a 4500. (not the main one though)

[Paul Rule]

As far as the 2cm is concerned, Nikon claim this is the minimum focal distance, however whenever I've tried to get this close I have failed every time.

This evening I had a little play using a road atlas as my subject. I have found that you can get that close but only at the wide angle end of the zoom len at a focal length of around 18.5mm you can get up close. Zooming in or out you can no longer get it in focus, and have to move the camera back a considerable distance.

Paul

[cspratt]

I've posted some recent images, of juvenile Cooper's Hawks (2 different days and locations), I took with my Nikon 4500 and the Nikon TC-E3 ED 3x converter which I just received.

I'm very pleased with it. It is hard to "aim" though as it is a large lens and covers the viewfinder. Works fine for big birds in a tree but small birds in the branches can be hard to find.

Bit pricey though.

Chris. Spratt

[robinm]

I've only just read this thread for the first time. I tried getting my 4500 to focus at about 2cm and it did but only at the point on the zoom where the flower indicator turns yellow.

[cspratt]

Can you use the Nikon 3X converter coupled to the Olympus B300, or any other lens to increase the magnification?

Chris. Spratt