different species; i don't say what they were sold as because it bias the identification.Are they all the same species? The first one looks a bit different than the others.
What was they sold as?
-r
Even if you would tell what they are supposed to be, the best positive answer you could expect based on these photos would be "possible". There are simply too many, too similar nijsseni-group species.i don't say what they were sold as because it bias the identification.
The first one is suppose to be a. sp Ladislao; the others are suppose to be a. wolli but i would not be unhappy if they were a. payaminonis.Even if you would tell what they are supposed to be, the best positive answer you could expect based on these photos would be "possible". There are simply too many, too similar nijsseni-group species.
So not telling us what they are supposed to be, but expecting that we tell you exactly what they are is simply a joke!
Anyway, 1) & 3) could be A. sp. Ladislao (or one of the similar species), but this is just a wild guess given that almost no relevant diagnostic features are visible on the two photos. The other ones look like one of the species closely related to A. payaminonis (#5 might be a female).
A. wolli is one of the species closely related to payaminonis, so it's very well possible that your fish are wolli. They are distinguished from payaminonis mostly by showing one lateral spot (instead of two), the shape of the females' caudal spot and some markings on the chin and chest area.the others are suppose to be a. wolli but i would not be unhappy if they were a. payaminonis.
Asking the seller if he knows the catch location.A. wolli is one of the species closely related to payaminonis, so it's very well possible that your fish are wolli. They are distinguished from payaminonis mostly by showing one lateral spot (instead of two), the shape of the females' caudal spot and some markings on the chin and chest area.
To exclude another closely related species (A. sp. D3): have they been imported from Peru?
Well this begs the question; is there a better way to get a good picture; i don't really like the idea of holding them up by the tail and trying to take a picture with the other hand; in the display tank I find it virtually impossible to get a decent picture between tannis and hiding area - for example the ortegai are virtually unidentifiable (different thread); i know there is a trick to this game since people do show decent pictures - maybe a bare bottom five for a couple of days?The rounded corners on the container definitely distort the head!
One of my female A. wolli just came out with a brood. I'm always shocked at how small they are when they are first freeswimming!
Yea - i'll work on it - one of these days i'll get a real camera it is more of an issue of what system to buy into.Think about a photo tank that is only a few inches wide. Another more popular option, like my avatar, gently push the fish to the front of the tank while photographing it with a decent camera.
Ok. On the camera thing I'm leaning towards Sony but it is a matter of finding a good lens; part of the issue is the phone ability to zoom is convenient. there is also the connectivity issue; with the phone i can 'email' the pictures to myself to transfer them to the computer; but with the camera none of them are going to play nice with linux so moving one or two pictures to the computer is some what annoying. Maybe the newest models have improved. The other issue what i really want is a wide angel zoom macro - the lens issue for the camera is part of the issue - the nicest wide-angle zoom for sony is both my arms and a leg; Fuji is a little better in that department. The phone optics are ok but the sensor amplification is not very good in low light in part due to the size - anyway I'll bite the bullet one day and either get a fuji or sony - it is just a bit lower on my priority of things to address. I miss the days of film - and doing my on darkroom work (b&w).I have been keeping A. wolli since 2012. I find them one of the most out-going apistos, very confident when comfortable with their environment. Just give them time and they will appear whenever they see you. As for cameras, there are very few really poor quality cameras anymore. As for cell phones, well as you found they are not the ideal camera. They are replacements for "point and shoot" snapshots, but not for critical photographing. Actually reviewers claim that the sound quality of phone have gone down as more other abilities have been added. They are "a Jack of all trades, but a master on none".
So i take it you are using Fuji and not Sony - which camera/lens do you have ? I know fuji has a macro 30 and macro 60. Is the auto focus on the newer bodies good enough?I think phones have very good cameras, but not for this type of shooting. A huge advantage of a separate camera is the ability to control the focal plane + fast autofocus. It's still not super easy, but it's virtually impossible with a phone.
Also, a camera will have a much more sensitive detector, which is needed for low light in tinted water.
I've found that a fixed macro lens (60 or 100mm) works well. I personally wouldn't find a wide angle zoom as useful for aquariums, especially with a deep tank like yours, because I tend to shoot with a larger aperture. I do love them for other types of photography, however. And the good ones are quite expensive.
The newer cameras do have bluetooth connectivity. I have found the camera apps (for Fuji) to be terribly designed, however, to the point where they're nearly unusable for me. So I just transfer the images from a card.
Yea - i sold all my old stuff - i always avoided nikon since nikon-usa was a horrible company for various reasons - cannon usa was much nicer and they always provided good service and assistance (I'm not talking about the quality of camera or lenses just the coporate policies and attitude). Anyway for a new system i think i will skip both companies. Enough off topic.I'm using very old Nikon cameras for the aquarium, and the autofocus has been sufficient. A D90 and D300 with a 60mm macro. No bluetooth connectivity on those. It does get confused sometimes as to what you're spot focusing on, because the fish are small and they move fast. It takes practice and patience.
I do have a Fuji X100t that I use for street/portraits/travel, so that's how I know the app is terrible. It's an older camera that doesn't have bluetooth, it uses wifi to connect. But there are reviews from newer users with bluetooth and they say it's just as bad. Great camera, though.
I've also been thinking about the X-E4 or whatever comes next. But I already have Nikon lenses.
In principle yes. Females show these black markings much more regularly and much more pronounced than males. The problem is that sneaker males also show them (to some exctend) and that these markings (like all other black markings) are mood dependent.I was looking at Tom's website; and noticed the female for a. sp Ladislao has black petral fins and black on the start of the dorsal fin; is this a uniform trait that can be used to identify females ?
There are 4 similar forms/species: A. sp. Ladislao 1-3 and A. sp. Amaya. They show more or less differences in the caudal pattern and the markings on the head of the males and perhaps some in black markings of the females, like lateral spot/blotch, caudal spot and those on the head. However, to distinguish them savely, the exact catch location is needed in most cases. Black anterior edges of the ventral fins and blackend first few membranes of the dorsal fin are shown by females of all Apisto species (depending on mood).My vague understanding is that there are two catch location for a. sp ladislao so maybe the other one doesn't have the black ?