Photocameras

  
Here rhopalocera.com also, the GRIP was not enough, it was necessary to make at least three frames of focus in the brekiting machine gun mode, then in the end both the paws and the mandibles would be sharp.

Actually, it's dynamic... Have you seen how kravchiki bite the grass?

 

Here rhopalocera.com also, the GRIP was not enough, it was necessary to make at least three frames of focus in the brekiting machine gun mode, then in the end both the paws and the mandibles would be sharp.

PS Pan Hierophis ran to Google "brekiting focus" and think about how to arrange it on his Olympus...

You still underestimate me=). It's not the first year I've been shooting macro photos .

Oh, this is much better (compared to my soapbox attempts, this is just fine). Still a DSLR is a DSLR. And what is the secret of the miracle of increasing the GRI? Stacking or deconvolution? But there wasn't enough magic on the front left paw anyway.

Ah, that's all, I realized - this is just the second frame of the stack. Is there a third one for the paw?

This post was edited by ENO-03/25/2016 20: 09

Oh, this is much better (compared to my soapbox attempts, this is just fine). Still a DSLR is a DSLR. And what is the secret of the miracle of increasing the GRI? Stacking or deconvolution? But there wasn't enough magic on the front left paw anyway.

Ah, that's all, I realized - this is just the second frame of the stack. Is there a third one for the paw?

And I think it's not a "stack", but just one good picture.
The author of the photo also wrote: "Canon 550D + Canon EF 100 mm Macro (not L)"

This post was edited by Yuriy352-25.03.2016 21: 35

I didn't understand it at first either. But no, these are TWO good photos from the same stack, before gluing them together. Compare the areas of sharpness in both frames: on the first one, the left side of the pronotum, the left side of the head of the head and the left elytra - on the second one, everything is the same, only the right one, plus both mandibles and legs of the right side (except for the front paw). The only question is whether the focus was shifted by refocusing the lens or zooming in on the camera.

rhopalocera.com, Do you mind if I try to glue this together by posting the result later, in order to dispel Pan Stepovoi's misconceptions about the impossibility of field stacking. Although in the case of a DSLR, it is probably better to glue RAW (if there are programs that can do this, I was not interested) or at least TIFF.

I didn't understand it at first either. But no, these are TWO good photos from the same stack, before gluing them together. Compare the areas of sharpness in both frames: on the first one, the left side of the pronotum, the left side of the head of the head and the left elytra - on the second one, everything is the same, only the right one, plus both mandibles and legs of the right side (except for the front paw). The only question is whether the focus was shifted by refocusing the lens or zooming in on the camera.

I agree, most likely two different snapshots, but not "Stacking"

These two images (and maybe even more) are raw materials for stacking focus, and high-quality-kravchik did not have time to move anything in between. Rather , it is a pale shadow of the raw material for stacking, probably intended exclusively for publication here - a strongly compressed zhpeg. Although I did sew this case in CombineZP with subsequent minimal debugging in GIMP, it turned out quite watchable (despite compression artifacts), with permission rhopalocera.com I can publish it, along with instructions for the dumbest eurointegrated ones.

This post was edited by ENO - 03/26/2016 01: 51

For God's sake, post it=).

The frame was taken by hand, and the focus was shifted by simply moving the camera. A total of 15 shots were taken in the series, taken at f/6.3 with a shutter speed of 1/500, ISO 200, burst shooting with the lens moving away from the subject. I decided to try a lighter 550D (I usually wear a Mark II, but it is much heavier than the 550, it is very difficult to shoot with my hands - the "wiggle" immediately climbs out, there is nothing to do without a monopod), I liked it - in general, the image quality is quite up to par.

Here are examples of other images taken with the same camera on the same day

Yes, after all, the DSLR GRIP is smaller at the same apertures as on the soap dish, here is a photo of Mikey ka kraz at an aperture of 6.3, and Kravchik at 3.2, and ISO 200, because fast shutter speed was needed.

Pictures:

P32206926.jpg — (528.32к)


P3220789.jpg — (359.45к)

Pan Stepova, with kravchik in general, a complete miss came out, only the left probe is in focus. But the hairs on the grass came out wonderfully. well of course. When Pan takes pictures "from the hip" believing in autosuggestion that now the autofocus does not smear such a thing in his pictures. obviously in the order of things. I would destroy this image on the spot (so that it doesn't take up memory) and immediately make a normal one there. Although no, I would immediately make a stack and there, by definition, at least part of the frames the object will fall into focus. Or does Olympus not know how to do this? The T-shirt is also dumb: although it seems to be in the GRIP, the colors and contrast are off the scale (personally, these indicators are much more modest in my eyes), but there are only traces of the sculpture of the covers. That is, there is no permission. Although it may not be the lens's fault, but a terrible resize, go check it out...

This post was edited by ENO - 03/26/2016 10: 51

The fly actively behaved, dorkash sat quietly=).

According to what came out of kravchik-later, machine time is still busy drawing maps for a large article=) .

The fly is small, 2-3 millimeters. taken from the hands in one frame.

Pictures:

IMG_5476.1.jpg — (8.36мб)

dorcus will be bigger .

Pictures:

IMG_4865.jpg — (9.01мб)

Cool, but what was it shot with?

The fly is small, 2-3 millimeters. taken from the hands in one frame.

It looks good.
By the way, I once practiced shooting with hands in a series. Even for long exposures, individual frames turn out pretty well. The main shaking occurs exactly at the time of pressing the trigger.
Then we started shooting from RAW, and on a compact it's a few seconds per frame... in general, now either a flash or a tripod. Only large items like butterflies or deer beetles can be handled.

Yesterday the weather was gloomy and cold, so I tried to shoot a stack with a flash on one jaded chironomide. Even in such ideal conditions in terms of object immobility, nothing much happened: while the capacitor was being recharged, the picture crept far away, and the GRIP turned out to be a gap exactly in the middle. At least the eyes got into focus - and that's good:



For such a case, you probably need a slightly different equipment, so that the flash flashes with a strobe light synchronously with the shutter several times a second. Is there such a thing? It seems that once on TV I saw how models are photographed in this mode. And if you add focus bracketing to such a system, then it will generally be charming: you put it on the trigger, and the stack is ready before the insect has time to react in any way. In the language of the military - " shot and forgot."

And without the flash, the A550 has an acceptable rate of fire - about 2 frames per second, stacks of frames up to 8 normally come out, but then the brakes start, obviously related to writing to the map. But with my nozzle, 6-7 frames are already enough, for example, for an average fly, if you take pictures in half a turn. And if on top, then 4 will fit. That's just a weak aperture in combination with a noisy matrix give either a stir or darkness, or a strong noise.

This post was edited by ENO - 03/28/2016 09: 58

I checked the slightly redesigned nozzle today, everything was mostly photographed with an aperture of 3-4, since it was overcast, full shots, with hands,and no photos..shops and gimps

Pictures:

P3270307772.jpg — (437.27к)


P3270381.jpg — (555.79к)


P3270415.jpg — (348к)


P3270419.jpg — (441.1к)


P3270406.jpg — (533.38к)


P3270353.jpg — (482.36к)


P3270375.jpg — (435.41 k)


P3270314.jpg — (354.12к)

I checked the slightly redesigned nozzle today, everything was mostly photographed with an aperture of 3-4, since it was overcast, full shots, with hands,and no photos..shops and gimps

This is not bad for the whole frame (all aberrations and their areas of influence do not interfere with the perception of the plot of the images).

With regard to combined frames in macro photography of living things(which include "stacking"), I will express my opinion: this is essentially more like a collage than a documentary photo (trophy photo).
If the goal of the work is to get an artistic, commercial image, then of course it is justified to use several images for one illustrative frame.
For me, it is more interesting to watch a successful single frame(a moment of life), even if with a small GRIP and c "Motion blur".

And the tasks of any image editor are moderate cropping, moderate color and light correction, as well as very careful use of the sharpness tool(if this is justified).

This post was edited by Yuriy352-27.03.2016 20: 14

Oh, Pan was finally able to overcome the embarrassment and stop turning the lens away when "a fly covers a fly" - this is not weak progress! But regarding the quality of images - again a regression, clearly in the wrong direction "nosey" a little redone. Well, the GRIP with such a diaphragm is simply ridiculous, without stacking, even small ants are not covered, only their backsides. For comparison - similar scenes shot "behind the magnifying glass":

Tetramorium (see pan's photo #6), natural light, a fair amount of resizing without further sharpening:





Lyasius niger (or perhaps platythorax, who believes), flash, for it was very dark, resize:





For comparison, see a snapshot of pan #7, although it can only be used to determine up to the subgenus with confidence).

Well, copulating flies, in my case Pollenia sp., natural light full size, incomplete zoom (on click-full size):

They are the same size as the flies in Pan's last picture, which I know well, but I haven't got around to identifying them yet.

Yes, I know that these photos have already been posted by me in another topic, but I'm not sure that all visitors to this topic have seen them. These are just links to what was previously filled in. IMHO, it is quite obvious whose images are more useful for scientific purposes. The only thing I don't like about my nozzle is the significant distortion of the optics when the zoom is incomplete, which is why I am concerned with finding software methods for correcting aberrations. Yes, GIMP didn't help here.

This post was edited by ENO - 27.03.2016 20: 31

This is not bad for the whole frame (all aberrations and their areas of influence do not interfere with the perception of the plot of the images).

With regard to combined frames in macro photography of living things(which include "stacking"), I will express my opinion: this is essentially more like a collage than a documentary photo (trophy photo).
If the goal of the work is to get an artistic, commercial image, then of course it is justified to use several images for one illustrative frame.
For me, it is more interesting to watch a successful single frame(a moment of life), even if with a small GRIP and c "Motion blur".

And the tasks of any image editor are moderate cropping, moderate color and light correction, as well as very careful use of the sharpness tool(if this is justified).

That's it! I somehow do not set a goal to sit over photos and retouch for several hours Already wrote more than once - all photo processing takes no more than 10 minutes, even if there are 100 of them, resizing + normalizing contrast and brightness in auto mode, that's all processing. Today, of course, the conditions were not very good - very heavy cloud cover, but I must say that after another revision, the aperture has increased significantly+ the detail has become better. In general, the dependence is such that the higher the aperture, the more distortion, especially chromatic, and especially with open diaphragms. Geometric distortions, on the contrary, are more clearly visible on clamped apertures and at a reduced aperture + detail with such parameters drops terribly, especially on clamped apertures. But in general-do not care about chromatic, increase in aperture= more likely to somehow take a picture, and + detail, it is better to take a picture that is not sharp, but in pleasant semitones, than angular crumbs.. by the way, almost all of today's animals were photographed in motion, ants and a tick and a nogokhvostka-they all climbed and, alas, did not really want to stop ))) So you need more at the norm. don't take a picture.

And now I will take pictures of everything as a whole frame initially, because the main problem with soap boxes is noise, which is best shown when cropping, while cropping also destroys the plot. Here, for example, are some clippings from today. And this is also ISO 100! At 200m in general, there would be a sieve, and 50m can only be a stationary photo, and they are too lazy to switch them.

Pictures:

P32703812.jpg — (407.89к)


P32703755.jpg — (326.77к)


P3270412.jpg — (429.64к)


P32704125.jpg — (284.8к)

Cool, but what was it shot with?

Canon 650D + Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro - муха
Canon 40D + Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro - рогач

For such a case, you probably need a slightly different equipment, so that the flash flashes with a strobe light synchronously with the shutter several times a second. Is there such a thing? It seems that once on TV I saw how models are photographed in this mode. And if you add focus bracketing to such a system, then it will generally be charming: you put it on the trigger, and the stack is ready before the insect has time to react in any way. In the language of the military - " shot and forgot."

And without the flash, the A550 has an acceptable rate of fire - about 2 frames per second, stacks of frames up to 8 normally come out, but then the brakes start, obviously related to writing to the map. But with my nozzle, 6-7 frames are already enough, for example, for an average fly, if you take pictures in half a turn. And if on top, then 4 will fit. That's just a weak aperture in combination with a noisy matrix give either a stir or darkness, or a strong noise.

Don't you use the CHDK? There is a lot there, including programming shooting with bracketing, stacking with changing the focal length, etc
. The flash in the compact can not flash often due to the fact that it takes a long time to recharge. Is that about the external some think. Models are not photographed on A550.

Hmm, it turns out that Olympus has noise cancellation, but it's turned off by default. I turned it on, disturbed the familiar spiders and hay eaters, and took a picture of the scales along the way, like the norms, I'll try to use it.
For example, two photos of the grinder, one lighter with noise reduction, the second darker-without.
PS
With a hay eater and a grinder - these were clippings, for comparison-what the full frames look like. For this nozzle, the scale limit is 12 mm on the wide side for a full frame, that is, a frame, for example, with a hay eater has a size of 12 mm on the wide side. And all the same, for pictures of, say, 1-2 millimetre animals, this is not enough

This post was edited by Hierophis - 27.03.2016 23: 19

Pictures:

P3270442.jpg — (318.54к)


P3270449.jpg — (279.43к)


P3270438.jpg — (305.18к)


P3270488.jpg — (276.42к)


P3270493.jpg — (256.8к)


P32704428.jpg — (356.21к)


P32704882.jpg — (253.7к)

Dear ENO, if you found an opportunity to replace the simplest and not intended for your purposes attachment lens (by the way, I have exactly such a 5x magnifier is on the desktop) with an achromat lens, and it is better to choose a lens from a 35mm camera(although here you will also have to take into account the coordination of I / O pupils), then the"the "viewability" of images will increase by an order of magnitude. Your good pictures are spoiled by a simple magnifying glass, and it turns out that the GRIP seems to be large, but due to the loss of the overall frequency response and color, this is normal for a single lens (this strength is approximately more than 20D!!!).
Maybe I just missed this information somewhere, but what kind of device do you have?
I shoot the question, I found it, you have a Canon PowerShot A550, its younger" brother " Canon A60 served me for several years, until the 2MP matrix bent, they have a good macro lens in itself.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-28.03.2016 00: 30

Yes, I have already told him many times that he should change his magnifying glass, but ENO lives in his own world))) Well, if a person really does not see that this lens simply destroys the detail to zero, and takes the result of excessive zooming as "detail".. At the same time, this magnifying glass is not yet enlightened, it probably gets very dark, in theory the aperture should grow, but it clearly falls.

A fotik there is not bad, I have, for example, in terms of macro even worse will be, and the matrix there is more like. Attach a tube there with a height slightly higher than the full flight of the object, fixing it directly on the body of the camera, fix the bayonet on the tube and then attach anything there, all this is collected at the flea market in one visit on a weekend at a price no more than $ 10 for everything, including for the object, and maybe for two (I bought an industriar for $ 3)
Well, or gut the object, and assemble a "lightweight" corrected macro lens, which can also be fixed in a simple cardboard tube..

I had it easier, on the Canon A60 in the center (around the lens), the thinnest extension ring from the kit was glued to the Zenith and, if necessary, the remaining rings were installed(the standard Canon A60 lens was obtained inside), and any lens from Zenith was already screwed on them as a nozzle lens.

And now I have a similar device for re-shooting old slides and films 1:1




Two consoles and Industriar50-legacy from Zenith.
There is also a Nikon Zenith transition ring with a working segment correction lens.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-28.03.2016 02: 13

Don't you use the CHDK? There is a lot there, including programming shooting with bracketing, stacking with changing the focal length, etc
. The flash in the compact can not flash often due to the fact that it takes a long time to recharge. Is that about the external some think. Models are not photographed on the A550.

No, although I've read about it. But in the point about brekiting focus, I was alerted by a remark. that it only works in manual focus mode, and on my model there is simply no such mode. I thought that after I suffer with the installation, only a small part of the described functions will be available, and it is not known which one. As an expert, a question for you: is it possible to adjust the flash with this thing? And then I recently began to puff very excessively in macro mode, the flash exposure correction helps but not to the end (in the menu the minimum level is -2 Ev), it feels like -3, or even -4 is necessary. Direct adjustment of the leading number is not provided at all. And to the master to carry dumb, which is good, dolomaet and the rest. And the rest is still functioning normally. And as for taking pictures of models - I'm purely theorizing on the topic of what prichdalami it would be possible to shoot macro kindling with a flash, without straining, naturally realizing that I can't afford it.

Yuriy352, Big GRIP, you must be joking? Or do you judge by the flies? So the same stacking, 6 or 8 frames, I don't remember exactly. And not at the largest zoom. At the maximum, the GRIP is about 1 mm, at most - 1.5, depending on whose taste. You'd better take a look at the bell ringer, where even the whole chest doesn't fit. This is at an aperture of 7.1 (the camera in macro mode with flash gives only this). There is no way to replace the lens there, there is nowhere to attach it. In general, the telescopic lens of the soap dish itself is very flimsy and has a little backlash even without additional load. My magnifying glass attachment weighing 10.6 still holds, but what is heavier is unlikely. On the hull, too, there is nothing to cling to, not like in Olympus. And just HA doesn't bother me too much. And to fix all the others, you need not just a lens, but a certain apo-all-that-can-be-mat lens, weighing well over 100 g. And special macrolenses, for example, the same polaroid in terms of aberration compensation, and in general something did not really impress me. Plus, they're all weak. It will be necessary to look for all sorts of different Soviet lenses in the stash boxes. Still, under the USSR, they did better than the current Chinese consumer goods. And modern non-Chinese is too expensive for me.

No, although I've read about it. But in the point about brekiting focus, I was alerted by a remark. that it only works in manual focus mode, and on my model there is simply no such mode.

Well, you just need to study this issue more deeply, everything can be. In principle, CHDK simply opens access to a variety of functions embedded in the chip, and the chip is almost the same on different models. Anyway, I would recommend putting it up, at least for a leisurely review, you will probably discover something else interesting for yourself. It doesn't interfere with anything, it doesn't take away anything. It is not hardcoded in ROM, although it is called "firmware". It's just some kind of extra program. You can run it manually or automatically when you turn it on, or you can not run it at all. It gives you access to a variety of functions that are embedded in the chip. It is natural and focus management is embedded in it, it is quite possible that the CHDK gives it some kind of access.

And about household lenses, people are generally right, they are fundamentally not able to give a sharp image over the entire field of the frame. Only the center works, the edges are still torn, even if the plane is removed. Through the magnifying glass, you can simply look at the text and everything will be visible. In principle, I can take a picture of what is visible through a regular magnifying glass and, for example, through some macro converter.
Therefore, it is highly desirable to use specialized macro converters. They are multi-layered, made of several glasses with different refractive power, and they contain distortion compensation. Of course, their prices are also appropriate. It's like Raynox, Marumi Achromat Macro (! but not the Marumi Close Up Set). In principle, you can pick up good glasses from some optical devices, use inverted lenses. For example, I have quite a decent lens from a microscope (at 10x somewhere), it is multi-layered with compensation.
I also have tests of various panes:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/test/index.htm
And on the Marumi Close Up Set, you can clearly see how the peripheral zones are blurred. By the way, I was somewhat puzzled by the native macro mode, I didn't expect this. And on household lenses, the situation is much worse.

As an expert, a question for you: is it possible to adjust the flash with this thing? And then I recently began to puff very excessively in macro mode, the flash exposure correction helps but not to the end (in the menu the minimum level is -2 Ev), it feels like -3, or even -4 is necessary. Direct adjustment of the leading number is not provided at all.

In principle, I do not understand the problem with excessive light, but you can simply make the diffuser something "more fragile", smaller or less permeable.
For example, I almost always do not have enough light. I shoot mostly running around at an exposure of around 1/1000. CHDK just helped well in this sense. I have there in Av mode, it works only in the machine (with a copy), through CHDK I turn it forcibly into manual mode, it puffs so much more. Again , using CHDK, you can explicitly override (set) by force any shooting parameters, such as shutter speed, aperture, ISO... regardless of the mode, even for AUTO, this can also come in handy at times.

I did an experiment with noise reduction today, a series of images from ISO 50, 100, 200, 400 and 800. The last digits in the file name. This is a clipping, not a full frame.

Alas, miracles did not happen, what with the noise reduction that without noise is already visible on ISO 100, of course, with a smaller noise reduction, if you do not cut out and do a full frame, then 200 will go well.

And the flash is evil, the flash spoils the same detail very much, because the soap dish does not stretch the dynamic range, which is very wide after the flash, there are a lot of sharply dark and sharply light areas. The lens of course improves probably, but still.. Natural light through small clouds is the best option )

Pictures:

P3280593800.jpg — (368.21к)


P3280590400.jpg — (416.11к)


P328058550.jpg — (307.82к)


P3280583100.jpg — (370.34к)


P3280581200.jpg — (416.15к)

Full shots on 200x iso (beetle) and 100x (hay eaters)
So there is potential here in this noise reduction, and this is mainly at the 5th aperture

Pictures:

P3280547.jpg — (346.43к)


P3280554.jpg — (319.3к)


P3280581.jpg — (325.88к)

  
Alas, miracles did not happen, what with the noise reduction that without noise is already visible on ISO 100, of course, with a smaller noise reduction, if you do not cut out and do a full frame, then 200 will go well.

Canon has some kind of CD on a CMOS matrix, it's a pity I didn't take it at the time, I believed in the persuasions, it was interesting to see what was on it...

Oh, Pan still managed not to get wet with the focus this time, the facets are visible. I just wonder if he can repeat this trick in the field on a live beetle, not turned upside down? Yes, and the scale of the shooting is clearly more, I had to snore over the "nosey" again. The main thing is to get a foothold, and not go to the involution as in the past times. But you can still clearly see how insignificant the GRIP is. And with the aperture closed to the maximum, why doesn't the pan spread? Is everything so terrible there?

Mdaa ))
They sent me today a broken" BOO " Olympus to replace the lens,, in kovychki, because when I saw it, I almost cried - well, exactly my new Olympus in 2006 bought
It's necessary how I ruined it) But alas, the breakdown there is serious, in principle, it is being repaired, but not at this time, only I decided to rearrange not the lens but the entire object.
In general, the axes in the old object were knocked down this is 100%, well, it's not surprising how many times the camera fell on the object, and how many times I completely went through it, and so on. the enlightenments were blotted out. So now +100 to aperture, +50 to sharpness, + 500 to autofocus speed)
Of course, the aperture value has grown significantly, of course, it has grown due to the macro setting, but compared to the old objective, the shutter speeds have increased by 100%.

Pictures:

P3284007.jpg — (432.09к)


P3284029.jpg — (343.75к)


P3284017.jpg — (236.01к)


P3284047.jpg — (533.76к)


P3284041.jpg — (345.79к)

That is, as I understand from such a chaotic presentation, Pan was sent a camera to fix, and he altered it for shooting hay eaters in his bathroom. What about the owner?

This is how it looks, 9 years of continuous operation in very difficult conditions)
What is good is that the object with the matrix in a bundle changes completely, while maintaining the factory alignment. Potential macro attachment by the way, the front lens is corrected double.

Pictures:

P101000881.jpg — (285.94к)


P101008802.jpg — (275.65к)

I'll continue my story:

The flash works in manual mode(I did it in a hurry, but I still need to work with the white balance).
I specially shot on "cells" so that the distortion in the field was more visible.
Naturally, there is always a Nikon-Zenith adapter (with a thin lens for compensating the working segment).

Nikon D80 + 42mm extension rings (two rings)+Zenitar-M lens. The aperture is 5.6-8.
1. Full frame.


1a. Crop the image based on the subject.


2. Full frame, aperture 5.6.


2a. Crop the image based on the subject, aperture 5.6.


2b. Full frame, aperture 16.


Now I add a 4D attachment lens(achromat) and slightly change the angle of the shooting axis.
Nikon D80 + 42mm extension rings (two rings)+ Zenitar-M lens+4D attachment lens(achromat). Aperture 5.6-8
3. Full frame.


3a. Crop the image based on the subject.


Next:
The following test shots, again without the attachment lens, only Zenitar-M+rings 42mm.
and cropping the image according to the plot. The aperture is 5.6-8.








Some conclusions:
1. The attachment lens for this lens (Zenitar-M) turned out to be ineffective(the display field decreased by only about 5 mm).
2. The Mir-1B (wide-angle) lens was also tested, but it showed very low contrast (decent light scattering), since the subject and flash were located quite close to the very convex front lens of this lens .



This post was edited by Yuriy352-03/29/2016 01: 20

Oh, now the bronze is much better than last time, but we can't live like this. Would you like to try out the diffuser? Do you breed Annamians?

I'll continue my story:

Here it is very clear that due to the noiselessness on such cameras(not necessarily kstti SLR, but simply with a large low-noise matrix), cropping is quite applicable as an extension of the scale. There are also mirrorless cameras with large matrices, but their price is higher than that of DSLRs.
Now a bush DSLR costs a penny in general, and a mirrorless mirror with replaceable lenses, even a boo, is quite worth it
And on soap dishes, you need to strive for the maximum zoom, so that the noise disappears when the image size changes, this is the best option, and all these noise dampeners only spoil the image.

Well, first of all, improve the hardware, a minimum of software processing..

I Googled how much it costs-oh horror. many times more than my photo!

The price is yes, but the result is completely different. There is a package of 5-7 different glasses.

Yes, and probably not available in our front-line city.

I'll have to pick up some pensioner who occasionally goes to the "mainland".
I once ordered from an online store in Zaporozhye (http://www.konvertor.com.ua/), but now it seems to be gone. And as far as I remember, they overstocked in Belgorod.
A friend of mine, for example, is looking for different optics on eBay or in other online stores... they send it.

And what kind of microscope is it that makes the lens fit the camera? They are usually much smaller.

I took it on the market quite accidentally from some uncle, he said that it was from a microscope, I didn't specify then. Uncle didn't even know how cool it was, it was pretty cheap.
In general, you need to look through the lens at something colorful (text, clothing, bark on a tree), if the image does not float on the periphery of the glass, then this is a cool multi - layer lens with compensation. They are usually in a metal or plastic clip to hold a bag of glasses.
You can look at old lenses, they are also multi-layered, with a good image, except that they are bulky. You just need to try on the camera so that the desired magnification is present and the frame is not cut off at the corners. For example, I have "Helios-44", "Wave" of some kind...