Archive for the ‘Fujifilm EF-X500’ Category

Post update: Cordulegastridae exuvia

February 16, 2018

In a recent blog post entitled Cordulegastridae exuvia, I was able to identify the specimen to the family level. Since then, I was able to identify the genus and species.

The dichotomous key for Cordulegastridae larvae that appears on p. 330 in Dragonflies of North America, Third Edition by Needham et al. was used to identify the exuvia.

dichotomous key: a key for the identification of organisms based on a series of choices between alternative characters. Source Credit: Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

The first couplet [1, 1′] is as follows.

1. No lateral spines on abdominal segments 8-9; western [2]
1’. Lateral spines present on segments 8-9; eastern [3]

No. 1 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (ventral)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

Since the preceding annotated image shows lateral spines on abdominal segments eight and nine (S8, S9), proceed to the third couplet [3, 3′].

3(1’). Palpal setae 4; usually 5 large and 5 small premental setae present; some setae on margin of frontal shelf spatulate (Fig. 391e) [erronea]
3’. Palpal setae 5-7; 5-9 large and 3-5 small premental setae present; all setae on frontal shelf slender, not spatulate (Fig. 391f) [4]

No. 2 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (inner prementum)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

The preceding annotated image shows the inner side of the prementum. Four (4) palpal setae are present, plus five (5) large- and five (5) small premental setae. The premental setae on the lower-right side of the prementum seem to be more intact than the ones on the upper-left: the large premental setae are labeled using white numerals; the small premental setae are labeled using red numerals.

The setae on the frontal shelf are mostly missing, as shown below. It’s possible they were broken off either when the larva burrowed in stream sediment (personal correspondence, Sue Gregoire) or when I cleaned the specimen.

No. 3 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (frontal shelf)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

Genus and species

The number of palpal setae strongly indicates the specimen is an exuvia from a Tiger Spiketail dragonfly (Cordulegaster erronea). Further, the rudimentary ovipositor shown in Photo No. 1 indicates this individual is a female.

The face behind the mask

Do you remember the way the female exuvia looked with its mask-like labium in place? In my opinion, she looked exotically beautiful!

No. 4 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (face-head)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

Well, that was then and this now. The following photo shows the face and mouth of the exuvia after the face mask was pulled away from the face in order to count the setae on the inner side of the prementum. Look closely at the full-size version of the photo. Yikes, that’s the stuff of nightmares!

No. 5 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (face and mouth)

Tech Tips

The following equipment was used to shoot macro Photo No. 2, 3 and 5: Canon EOS 5D Mark II digital camera, in manual mode; Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens (set for 2x); and Canon MT-26EX-RT Macro Twin Lite. A Sunpak LED-160 Video Light (with a white translucent plastic filter) was used for some photos.

The following equipment was used to shoot macro Photo No. 1 and 4Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera; Fujifilm MCEX-11 extension tube; and Fujinon XF80mm macro lens. An off-camera Fujifilm EF-X500 external flash unit and Sunpak LED-160 Video Light (with a white translucent plastic filter) were used for Photo No. 4. A Raynox DCR-250 close-up filter and Canon MT-26EX-RT Macro Twin Lite was used for Photo No. 1.

Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 was used to annotate selected images.

Related Resource: Cordulegastridae exuvia, a blog post by Walter Sanford featuring an exuvia collected by Mike Boatwright.

Copyright © 2018 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

How to calculate magnification

February 12, 2018

By definition, a true macro photo is one with a magnification of at least 1/1, that is, one unit in the real world is equal to at least one of the same units on the camera sensor. Magnification can be calculated using the following formula.

actual size of image / size of camera sensor = magnification

Both measurements must be expressed in the same units in order for the units to cancel during division.

For example, let’s look at the following “full-size” image of a Corduligastridae exuvia. “Full-size” means the image is uncropped (4896 x 3264 pixels).

The photograph shown above was taken using a Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera, Fujifilm MCEX-11 extension tube, and Fujinon XF80mm macro lens. The specifications for the macro lens lists the maximum magnification as 1x. Question is, how much is the magnification increased by adding the 11 mm extension tube?

The dragonfly exuvia is approximately 35 mm in length (3451 pixels). The following proportion can be used to solve for the length of the entire image, in millimeters (mm).

x mm / 35 mm = 4896 pixels / 3451 pixels

x = 49.65 mm, or ~50 mm. In other words, if a metric ruler were placed in the scene then 50mm of the ruler would be shown in the preceding photograph.

The X-T1 features an APS-C sensor (23.6 mm x 15.6 mm). Calculate the magnification using the following formula.

50 mm / 23.6 mm = 2.11x or ~2.0x

The subject is actually ~2.0x larger than life size on the camera sensor.

1.19x is listed as the theoretical maximum magnification using an MCEX-11 extension tube mounted on the 80mm macro lens. If we round the spec’d magnification to ~1.2x, then it’s clear that the actual magnification of ~2.0x is slightly greater than advertised.

Related Resource: Photomacrography using Bellows and Extensions (13:11), by Gale Spring, Adjunct Associate Professor of Scientific Photography at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia.

Copyright © 2018 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Cordulegastridae exuvia

February 6, 2018

My good friend Mike Boatwright, a fellow Virginian and extraordinarily good odonate hunter, collected an exuvia on 22 June 2017 in Amherst County, Virginia USA. Mike sent the exuvia to me for identification. This specimen is a member of the Family Cordulegastridae (Spiketails).

Photo No. 1 enabled me to see all of the critical field markers required to make an identification to the family level for this specimen. Here’s the decision tree I used to identify the exuvia as a spiketail dragonfly, based upon the excellent Vimeo video, Identifying dragonfly larva to family (8:06).

  • The specimen has a mask-like labium.
  • The margins of the labium have “deeply jagged, irregular teeth.”

Of the four families of dragonflies that feature a mask-like labium, the crenulations on the face of Corduligastridae are unmistakeable!

No. 1 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (face-head)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

The specimen is ~3.5 cm long (~1.4 in) and ~8 mm wide (0.3 in) at its widest. Notice the dorsal side of the exuvia is covered by sandy grit. The specimen will need to be cleaned in order to get a clearer view of the frontal shelf.

No. 2 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (dorsal)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

Photo No. 3 shows a ventral view of the exuvia.

No. 3 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (ventral)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

Photo No. 4 shows a closer view of the “rudimentary ovipositor,” located on abdominal segment nine (S9). An ovipositor is used for egg-laying by all adult damselflies and some species of adult dragonflies: females have this feature; males do not. Therefore, this individual is a female spiketail.

No. 4 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (ventral, rudimentary ovipositor)

(See a full-size version of the original photo, without annotation.)

Photo No. 5 shows a closer view of the mentum, a two-segment hinged “jaw” that is used to grab food: the prementum is the segment of the labium closer to the mouth; the postmentum is the segment closer to the base of the head. Only the prementum can be seen in the following photo.

No. 5 | Cordulegaster sp. | exuvia (ventral, prementum)

Determining the genus and species

Although it’s easy to identify Cordulegastridae exuvia to the family level, it’s more challenging to identify a specimen to the species level. First, the exuvia must be cleaned in order to show the small hairs and brown dots on the frontal shelf. Second, the labium must be pulled forward to show the inside of the face mask in order to count palpal- and premental setae.

Tech Tips

The following equipment was used to shoot all of the macro photographs featured in this post: Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera; Fujifilm MCEX-11 extension tube; and Fujinon XF80mm macro lens. An off-camera Fujifilm EF-X500 external flash unit and Sunpak LED-160 Video Light (with a white translucent plastic filter) were used for Photo No. 1-3 and 5. A Raynox DCR-250 close-up filter and Canon MT-26EX-RT Macro Twin Lite was used for Photo No. 4.

Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 was used to annotate selected images.

Related Resources

Copyright © 2018 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Top 10 Photos of 2017

January 1, 2018

The following gallery shows 32 finalists for my “Top 10 Photos of 2017.” The photos are presented in reverse-chronological order beginning in November 2017 and ending in April 2017.

The Top 10 photos will be selected using reader feedback. Please enter a comment at the end of this post listing the number for each of your 10 favorite photos. If listing 10 photos is asking too much, then please list at least five photos, e.g., No. 5, 8, 14, 17, 21, etc. Thanks for sharing your selections, and thanks for following my photoblog!

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

27 OCT 2017 | MRA | Autumn Meadowhawk (mating pair, “in tandem“)

No. 4

No. 5

No. 6

No. 7

No. 8

No. 9

No. 10

No. 11

No. 12

No. 13

No. 14

No. 15

No. 16

No. 17

No. 18

No. 19

No. 20

No. 21

20 JUN 2017 | OBNWR | Calico Pennant (immature male)

No. 22

No. 23

10 MAY 2017 | HORP | crayfish (underwater)

No. 24

No. 25

No. 26

No. 27

No. 28

No. 29

No. 30

No. 31

No. 32

Editor’s Note: The following location codes are used in some photo captions, shown above.

Copyright © 2018 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

New discoveries in 2017 (odonates)

December 28, 2017

There’s always more to discover/learn! My odonate-related new discoveries in 2017 are presented in reverse-chronological order.

Fine-lined Emerald dragonfly

A Fine-lined Emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora filosa) was spotted at Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Prince William County, Virginia USA. This individual is one of several males spotted during a period of a week-or-so in mid-September 2017.

Immature male Calico Pennant

20 JUN 2017 | OBNWR | Calico Pennant (immature male)

A Calico Pennant dragonfly (Celithemis elisa) was spotted at Painted Turtle Pond, Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Prince William County, Virginia USA. This individual is an immature male. Notice its coloration is similar to female Calico Pennants.

Allegheny River Cruiser dragonfly

An Allegheny River Cruiser (Macromia alleghaniensis) was netted by Mike Blust at Hardware River Wildlife Management Area, Fluvanna County, Virginia USA. This individual is a male.

Harpoon Clubtail dragonfly

09 JUN 2017 | Highland County, VA | Harpoon Clubtail (male)

A Harpoon Clubtail dragonfly (Phanogomphus descriptus) was spotted at “Straight Fork,” Highland County, Virginia USA. This individual is a male. Sincere thanks to fellow Virginians Karen Kearney and Mike Boatwright for guiding me to this unique high-elevation habitat.

It’s worth noting that I saw two more new species during the same trip: Riffle Snaketail (Ophiogomphus carolus); and Dot-tailed Whiteface (Leucorrhinia intacta).

Those who know me well are familiar with one of many “Walterisms”: “I haven’t ‘seen’ something until I have photographed it.” My rationale is two-fold: 1) A photograph verifies a sighting. 2) The detail visible in a good photograph exceeds the acuity of the human eye. Suffice it to say I saw two other species but haven’t seen them. Makes sense to me!

Swift River Cruiser dragonfly

A Swift River Cruiser dragonfly (Macromia illinoiensis) was spotted at Riverbend Park, Fairfax County, Virginia USA. This individual is an emergent/teneral female.

Spine-crowned Clubtail dragonfly

A Spine-crowned Clubtail dragonfly (Hylogomphus abbreviatus) spotted along Bull Run at Hemlock Overlook Regional Park, Fairfax County, Virginia USA. This individual is a male. A female was spotted on the same day at a nearby location.

Epitheca cynosura exuvia

A Common Baskettail dragonfly (Epitheca cynosura) exuvia was collected at Painted Turtle Pond, Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Prince William County, Virginia USA.

Epitheca princeps exuvia

05 MAR 2017 | Prince Baskettail (Epitheca princeps) | exuvia (face-head)

A Prince Baskettail dragonfly (Epitheca princeps) exuvia was collected from an unknown location. This specimen was on temporary loan from Huntley Meadows Park, Fairfax County, Virginia USA.

Copyright © 2017 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Light-modifier

December 20, 2017

Here’s a light-modifier for external flash units like the Fujifilm EF-X500, shown below. It’s simple, and works surprisingly well.

Simple light-modifier mounted on a Fujifilm EF-X500 external flash.

Mount a translucent white plastic foam bag on the flash head, secure it using a rubber band, and voila! In this case, I repurposed a foam bag that came with my Raynox DCR-250 close-up filter.

Thanks to Alan Pezzulich for sharing the idea for this clever light-modifier with me during a walk-and-talk about some of his techniques for field macro photography.

Copyright © 2017 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Banded Pennant dragonflies (males)

August 12, 2017

Several Banded Pennant dragonflies (Celithemis fasciata) were spotted at Mulligan Pond, Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR), Fairfax County, Virginia USA. All of the individuals in this gallery are male, as indicated by their terminal appendages.

Fujifilm X-T1

The first photo was taken using my Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera, Fujinon XF55-200mm zoom lens plus a Fujifilm 11mm extension tube, and Fujifilm EF-X500 shoe mount flash. The lens was set for a focal length of 200mm (~300mm, 35mm equivalent).

The camera was set for an aperture of f/11. I forgot to decrease the aperture to f/16 (one of the lessons learned from recent field testing). Although depth of field (DoF) wasn’t an issue for the lateral view of a male Swift Setwing dragonfly featured in my last post, DoF is an issue for this viewpoint of a male Banded Pennant dragonfly. Notice the head and thorax are in focus; the terminal appendages are not.

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Banded Pennant (male)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150

The photos in the last set were taken using my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 superzoom bridge camera plus Canon 580EX Speedlite, my go-to kit for photowalking.

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Banded Pennant (male)

Is that a head-tilt I see below? Did you notice the male Variable Dancer damselfly (Argia fumipennis) in the background?

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Banded Pennant (male)

Editor’s Notes

What are the take-aways from looking at photo sets of the same subject taken using different camera kits, shown head-to-head?

First, the Fujifilm X-T1 is a good camera that I should use more often. My comfort level with the Fujifilm camera isn’t the same as my trusty Panasonic, but that should develop in time.

Second, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 is capable of capturing high-quality photographs, especially when used in combination with a good external flash unit such as the Canon 580EX Speedlite.

Copyright © 2017 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Swift Setwing dragonflies (males)

August 10, 2017

Several Swift Setwing dragonflies (Dythemis velox) were spotted at Mulligan Pond, Jackson Miles Abbott Wetland Refuge (JMAWR), Fairfax County, Virginia USA. All of the individuals in this gallery are male, as indicated by their terminal appendages.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150

The photos in the first set were taken using my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 superzoom bridge camera plus Canon 580EX Speedlite, my go-to kit for photowalking. Many of these photos are uncropped; some of the images were cropped slightly in order to improve composition.

Male Swift Setwings prefer perching on low vegetation overlooking water. The first two photos show males perching briefly away from the shoreline.

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Swift Setwing (male)

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Swift Setwing (male)

I think the next two photos are strong candidates for my Odonart Portfolio. What do you think?

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Swift Setwing (male)

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Swift Setwing (male)

The last two photos were taken within minutes of each other using two different camera kits. Is that a head-tilt I see below?

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Swift Setwing (male)

Fujifilm X-T1

02 AUG 2017 | JMAWR | Swift Setwing (male)

The last photo in this gallery was taken using my Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera, Fujinon XF55-200mm zoom lens plus a Fujifilm 11mm extension tube, and Fujifilm EF-X500 shoe mount flash. The lens was set for a focal length of 200mm (~300mm, 35mm equivalent).

The camera was set for an aperture of f/11. I forgot to decrease the aperture to f/16 (one of the lessons learned from recent field testing), although depth of field wasn’t an issue from this viewpoint of the dragonfly.

Copyright © 2017 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

Adding a 16mm extension tube

August 2, 2017

Optics theory

The net effect of adding an extension tube between a lens and camera body is the “working distance” is decreased, that is, the distance from the front of the lens barrel to the subject is decreased. A smaller working distance means the same lens will focus closer to the subject, thereby increasing magnification.

The effect is greater at shorter focal lengths, as shown by the following table of magnification for the two extension tubes sold by Fujifilm USA.

Table courtesy Fujifilm USA.

Theory into practice

An Eastern Ringtail dragonfly (Erpetogomphus designatus) was spotted along the Potomac River at Riverbend Park, Fairfax County, Virginia USA. This individual is a female, as indicated by her terminal appendages and rounded hind wings.

Both photos in this set were taken using my Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera, Fujinon XF55-200mm zoom lens plus a “Fotasy” brand 16mm extension tube, and Fujifilm EF-X500 shoe mount flash. The lens was set for a focal length of 200mm (~300mm, 35mm equivalent).

At 200mm, the working distance of the lens is 905 mm (90.5 cm, ~35.63 in), or approximately three (3) feet. With a 16mm extension tube mounted between the lens and camera body, the working distance is reduced to 595 mm (59.5 cm, ~23.43 in), or approximately two (2) feet. At a focal length of 55mm, adding the extension tube would result in photos that look more like “macro” photos; at 200mm, adding the extension tube resulted in photos that look like a lens with a longer focal length was used to take the shots.

The first photo is uncropped. I’ve never been able to get a shot like this using a mid-range telephoto zoom lens such as the Fujinon 55-200mm. The 16mm extension tube is the difference-maker.

The last photo is cropped slightly, but not enough to affect the apparent magnification. I look closely at the edges of my photos. In this case, I cropped the photo to remove some distracting elements and leading lines.

Editor’s Notes

I bought a set of two “Fotasy” brand extension tubes (10mm, 16mm) years before Fujifilm released their set of two. The advantage of the Fotasy extension tubes is a set of two costs a little more than half as much as a single Fujifilm extension tube. The disadvantage is compatibility. The Fotasy extension tubes work with my Fujinon XF18-55mm (27-82.5mm, 35mm equivalent) “kit” lens and Fujinon XF55-200mm mid-range telephoto zoom lens; they don’t work with my Fujinon XF100-400mm (152-609mm, 35mm equivalent) telephoto zoom lens. For what it’s worth, the 100-400mm lens was released after the Fotasy extension tubes. Bottom line: I recommend Fujifilm extension tubes, despite the fact that they are significantly more expensive than Fotasy extension tubes.

The Depth of Field is razor thin, in contrast with shooting without an extension tube. I shot the preceding photos at f/11; f/16 or smaller would have been better.

In order to reduce “camera shake,” I almost always shoot in shutter priority mode using the reciprocal rule. Remember, it’s the 35mm equivalent that matters: since my lens is ~300mm, the shutter speed should be set for at least 1/300s; in this case, it was set for 1/1,000s. A monopod was used for added stability.

Copyright © 2017 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.

“Big Boy”

July 19, 2017

Several Eastern Ringtail dragonflies (Erpetogomphus designatus) were spotted along the Potomac River at Riverbend Park, Fairfax County, Virginia USA. These individuals are male, as indicated by their terminal appendages and “indented” hind wings.

All of the photos in this set were taken using my Fujifilm X-T1 digital camera, Fujinon 100-400mm telephoto zoom lens, and Fujifilm EF-X500 shoe mount flash.

I nicknamed the Fujinon 100-400mm lens “Big Boy” because it’s so big and heavy. I use a Sunpak 6700M monopod and Vanguard SBH 100 ball head to support the lens.

Zoom in on the full-size version of the preceding photo. Notice the terminal appendages are spread apart, revealing a clear look at both the cerci and hook-shaped epiproct.

Related Resource: You complete me – a blog post published on 19 February 2016 in which I shared my first impressions of the Fujinon 100-400mm telephoto zoom lens.

Copyright © 2017 Walter Sanford. All rights reserved.


%d bloggers like this: