Small Waterfall

Not much water over the mini-falls today, but we still managed the odd slow shutter shot. This one was taken with Martin's 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.

Explore #112 for Nov 20, 2007

See where this picture was taken.

View all photos taken: Sunday, 18th November 2007, This photo: 12:35pm

Previous Photo: Treasury Balls
Next Photo: Damsel Fly


  • said:
    I really love the pattern of the water hitting the rock pool.
    It's a really versatile lens the 100mm macro.
    Beautiful work - as always!
  • David de Groot said:
    It is indeed Michelle. It's a nice focal length on a crop sensor too, just long enough to be a useful medium telephoto lens, but short enough such that you don't have to be a mile away from what you're shooting. The fact that it goes to f/32 with no real-life refraction issues is another bonus too. (I'm sure in lab tests anything about f/16 probably suffers some refraction issues, but in the real world they don't seem to be noticeable at all).
  • Shaun Johnston said:
    An informative article about diffraction can be found here. According to standard calculations, a Canon 400D's sensor will start to diffract at anything below f/9.3, however I've only seen it happening at f/16 or below. Sometimes it can be patched with a nice dose of USM. The important thing to note is that the sensor, not the lens, is the source of diffraction issues.

    Oh - nice photo by the way :)
  • beachut (John) said:
    wow, great shot David...can my lens really do that...hmmmm!
  • David de Groot said:
    Interesting article Shaun, thanks for that. So there you go, this image could have been sharper had I had some ND filters instead of stopping down so far, but I really don't think it matters that much here as it seems fine at 100% on my monitors.

    Sure can John - the only addition to the lens was a fairly cheap circular polarizer I had lying about.
  • ronnietan said:
    haha i have no idea... but as soon as i saw this i was thinking the rocks are taking a wee into the pond :S anyways, great shot :P
  • Shaun Johnston said:
    Yep generally it won't be an issue unless there is fine detail and you are printing at a fairly largish format. In this case, the water is the point of interest and the detail in the rocks / ferns / etc is secondary anyway
  • David de Groot said:
    hehehe, it's slightly enhanced by a small child kicking water over the edge as I was shooting this.

    Ah cool, good to know. I plan to print large (when I eventually print things) but on those the focus will likely be on moving water, etc..
  • rainforest_harley said:
    Never mind the technical aspect thats a nice shot
    well caught David ;-)
  • David de Groot said:
    Thanks :) It's more impressive with more water, but it didn't come out bad.
  • Milena T said:
    so beautiful!
  • David de Groot said:
    Thanks, it's currently about three times this size (rained the morning before last).
  • TiffanyJane said:
  • David de Groot said: