Photocameras

Information to think about.
An example of the operation of the old Canon PowerShot A60 (which I already mentioned, it has a bent matrix), in its own Macro mode.
So there is only a 2MP matrix (maximum frame is 1600 x 1200)
I show you an example, since such matrices are now rare.
Reduced full frame, and a fragment of 100% (in pixels), all without adding sharpness.
[

What I liked about this device was that the resolution of its lens corresponded to the resolution of the matrix, and all further models with an increase in the number of Mp, with almost the same lens, were mostly of commercial significance (unfortunately). And now, when 100% of the "soap box" claims a matrix of more than 10MP, the thought immediately arises, and not by interpolation such super Mp values are achieved, with such a small matrix size, and just the size of the frame in JPG at the output is stipulated, and not the physical Mp of the matrix.

Here you are, as well as everyone else, explain to this ENO that his megafotki that he puts here in megatonnens in a preview resolution of 1400mp, and the full size of 3000 is absolutely useless. if this kenon A520 or 40 gives a resolution of 1000mp, respectively, then this is already very good, and if you still have a + curve magnifier, then you can safely do 640X480..

This post was edited by Hierophis - 07.04.2016 19: 36

I took a picture today with my harness with an additional lens - I didn't really like it. First, the MDF with this lens became approx. 5 cm , all animals run away! The GRIP is small, well, and there are more distortions..
Full shots of everything, the ant is generally small, smaller than the Pharaoh ant probably )

Pictures:

P4071058.jpg — (458.41к)


P4071004.jpg — (386.92к)


P4071017.jpg — (617.58к)


P4070827.jpg — (488.57к)

Also not large spider beetles, but without an additional lens

Pictures:

P4071233.jpg — (420.05к)


P4070975.jpg — (483.03к)


P4071214.jpg — (630.45к)


P4070766.jpg — (557.12к)


P4071110.jpg — (460.67к)


P4071000.jpg — (424.4 k)

For clarity on the question of digital camera matrices.





This is what the 1/2. 7", 2 Mp CCD sensor from Canon PowerShot A60 looks like



And this is what the bounced welding looks like in this matrix (the photo was taken at an angle through a microscope and a simple 0.3 Mp eyepiece webcam).
After 5 years of work, almost half of the contacts bounced back
This is a well-known problem that such matrices had at one time and was widely covered on the Internet(so I won't repeat myself).




This post was edited by Yuriy352-08.04.2016 00: 02

Once again, for particularly thick-legged gentlemen: take this photo, make a resize to 650, or even 1000, and then compare the structure of the eye before and after. Then believe and repent.

Oh, did Pan decide to storm the microcosm after all? Here I have bad news - my luponasadka lives in it:












Not every bird bug from the above [s]will reach the middle of the Dnieper[s] will reach up to 1 mm in length. Here the resize is inappropriate. At first I wanted to make a crop, but after looking at the beautiful anthers of stamens covered with pollen grains, I changed my mind and left it as it was, only cutting off empty space in some places.

Pan, of course, howled a little better, due to a lower ISO (I have 200 and there's nothing you can do about it in natural light) and an increase in the frame scale due to an additional lens. I'll admit: I couldn't take the elephant's eye off with just one magnifying glass. But I can organize a small scale by adding a second lens-a lens (if I may say so) from an ancient film soap dish. But what a small GRP is obtained there, and the focusing distance is like a microscope. For field surveys, see Fig.

But why it was necessary to try to tamp the whole ligeus into this super-large scale, I do not know. I should have just taken a picture of his eye.

This post was edited by ENO-08.04.2016 00: 12

Who needs this vague "eye structure"?
By the way, I also took photos of such beetles, but not successfully, nevertheless, compare, Ezoks, the pictures, and think about where there are more details, in my picture in 1000, or in your megasnimks in 3000?

Pictures:

P4070948.jpg — (395.69к)

Well, it depends on where the details are needed, if the legs are clearly in the span of the pan. Otherwise, Pan has fewer aberrations, no glare from the sun, and more light intensity, but the main thing in both cases is that the GRIP is insufficient, it covers everything else at once.

And who if not this-the very "ixpert" panu "lens from Zenith" and advised when he was still suffering from negative menisci and other garbage?

 
Test shots, my harness, and Industriar. Where vinetirovanie and distortions are Industriar 61.

It is not clear whether the accessory was simply attached to the main lens or to an additional lens. Inverted or not?
Industriar 61 LD-this is from FED, as it were, because of the shorter working period (in comparison with the" mirror "version), the lens itself (from the camera side) is sufficiently recessed in the frame, which can" cut " the frame at the corners (in the inverted state).
Not a bad lens test.
http://pgorlov.ru/2010/08/16/industar-61-ld/

And who if not this-the very "ixpert" panu "lens from Zenith" and advised when he was still suffering from negative menisci and other garbage?

No, well, this person is normal? ))
What other asset is there from Zenit?
Negative menisci in the case, and the object as a lens donor I used reproduction, Industriar11-M is an object from the Soviet xerox, and not from the camera in general.
And "from Zenith", all sorts of Vega ka Kraz do not fit as attachments.

Yes, and the results of my work are noticeable, here are the photos taken "at the beginning of the road", with one lens








And I just took a picture of what I have now.

And what about Ixpert, who in the beginning did not believe that anything could be done in this way? Ixpert grabbed the magnifying glass, and shoots it for what month ))) This is despite the fact that if I hadn't written about this method, Ikspert wouldn't even dream about what the Adviser is taking pictures of right now ))

Pictures:

P4090302.jpg — (341.34к)


P4090309.jpg — (346.73к)


P4090317.jpg — (393.69к)

It is not clear whether the accessory was simply attached to the main lens or to an additional lens. Inverted or not?
Industriar 61 LD-this is from FED, as it were, because of the shorter working period (in comparison with the" mirror "version), the lens itself (from the camera side) is sufficiently recessed in the frame, which can" cut " the frame at the corners (in the inverted state).
Not a bad lens test.
http://pgorlov.ru/2010/08/16/industar-61-ld/

Only the object itself, with my harness, it is not at all friendly Inverted, because in the" direct " version it turns out even worse. And the fact that it is sunk, yes, but not much, just a little bit, at 7mm, there are just very small lenses.
Well, as an object in itself, it seems to be good, the photos on that link are somehow not quite successful, here it is much better.

http://radojuva.com.ua/2013/05/obzor-i-61ld-2855/

Oops, Pan has broken his vow to ignore me! Not for long did his patience last. By "Zenith Lens" (not for nothing in quotation marks) , I meant any Soviet lenses. Pan also claimed that they could not be used because of the excessive weight and in general his homemade devices are cooler. However, in the end, I came to exactly what I immediately advised - an inverted "Industriar". Everything is fine there in the last version, the inversion can be cut off. Yes, Pan has come a long and difficult way from a completely shitty image (with one "Sovdepovsky defense lens") to an image slightly better than with my magnifying glass (with a bunch of lenses converted lens to boot). Since the day I found the magnifying glass in the closet, I have been shooting steadily and satisfactorily without any unnecessary gestures.

Still, the condition of the patient is "stably satisfactory", but the inversion still needs to be cut off ))))

* vignetting.

Caliprobola speciosa
Canon 700d + EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Pictures:

2016_04_09_23_08_50_M_C_R_50_S_10.jpg — (160.85к)

Same fly only with Canon 700d + whale shifter

This post was edited by gstalker - 10.04.2016 00: 51

Pictures:

2016_04_09_18_08_49_M_B_R_50_S_10.jpg — (223.64к)


2016_04_09_21.00.16_ZS_PMax.jpg — (376.86к)


gggg.jpg — (186.68 k)

For photo equipment 5+ (I would like this!), for gluing 3 -, sorry. How many shots were taken and by what method was the"hit-and-run" performed?

No, after all, real life begins only after a flash!

Pictures:

______1656.jpg — (2.48 mb)


______1659.jpg — (1.17 mb)


______1672.jpg — (616.4 k)


______1667.jpg — (1.31 mb)


______1674.jpg — (2.84 mb)


______1698.jpg — (1.82 mb)


______1643.jpg — (2.04 mb)

  
gstalker, what did you do with this fly?

The first Helicon Focus
The second Zerana
And the third like Photoshop
How many frames I don't remember already deleted - I didn't like it, like from 20 to 30
as a" file " to use and I didn't understand what's in Zerene what's in Gimpe

Yesterday I experimented and caught a bee with white fur on the balcony ...
The first is the Helicon Focus Method Pyramid
The second is the Helicon Focus Method Depth Map
The third is Photoshop
and the fourth is the Helicon Focus Method Pyramid
If you tell me the name of the bee I will be grateful (Andrena sp.?)

Pictures:

2016_04_10_19_49_39_M_C_R_50_S_10.jpg — (195.11к)


2016_04_10_19_50_29_M_B_R_50_S_10.jpg — (169.77к)


jj.jpg — (237.35к)


__.jpg — (201.03к)

The first Helicon Focus
The second Zerana
And the third like Photoshop
How many frames I don't remember already deleted - I didn't like it, like from 20 to 30
as a" file " to use and I didn't understand that in Zerene that in Gimpe

In the first one, there are some strange isolines with pieces of background from different layers inside. In a good way, there should have been a background from only one layer, Helikon is a hack. In addition, the first and third large halos are areas where not only the details of the insect in focus are preserved, but also the blurred background around them. This is a common occurrence, apparently, for all progs. Here-this case just needs to be finished, manually replacing the blurred areas with focused ones from other frames in the stack. You can see how this is done in ZS, for example, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...d&v=N6GaoKvU4WQ

In words: the area under the brush in retouching mode is transferred from the left image to the right, while the brightness and contrast are automatically adjusted. It is very simple, but long, do not forget to do re-impressions on the rest of the eyes.

On the second one, which is in the anfaz, the suklptura of the back is doubled, which means that there was a problem with the alignment of frames. And how did you shoot with your hands? I haven't even done anything like this on ZS field stacks yet, if it misses during alignment, then immediately much, it turns out just a Picaso picture. By the way, in the case of a shift, if it is large, ZP copes noticeably better than ZS, it does not produce masterpieces of avant-garde art. But it has serious problems with the alignment of turns. Probably for severe cases, you need to use both programs sequentially, and before that, you also need to trim a little manually in a redkator like GIMP or Photoshop.

No, after all, real life begins only after a flash!

Here's my first test subject:
https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/barrylbm...ew/35349?page=0
I made a conclusion right away, everything is clear here.
Of course, sometimes there is a tripod shooting, for those who sit well and in complete calm. But this is if 1 percent is typed - and that's good...

  
The second and third - marriage, even the largest hairs in places as if cut off.

This is me stamped in photoshop "tonsure"

Today I got another opportunity to make sure that with the flash "not everything is so clear". When I arrived at the shooting site, the sun was in a slight haze and was already sinking. ISO 200 only added noise, but the wiggle was still terrible. I decided to use flash. For the first time in a relatively bright sun. The result was shocking:



I scratched my turnips for a long time, wondering how this was even possible, and finally figured it out. Blame the obscenely long sync shutter speed of the A550 - 1/60 of a second. The flash pulse, of course, is much shorter, so if there are no other competing light sources (and the situation for which the flash application is intended by the developers should not be), then everything is clear and wonderful. But if there is a sufficiently bright sun, then it turns out such an exotic color. Next time I'll try to position myself so that the camera and reflector shade the sun as much as possible, and see what happens.

  
barry, in my case, the conclusion is not so clear: with a flash through an annular reflector, a perfect picture is obtained, but stacking is almost impossible, without it it is impossible to fully cover the grip of even small insects.

I didn't quite understand the meaning of the phrase about the unreality of stacking. Is this about natural stacking or collectible?
Each tool and methodology should be used for its own purpose and for its own conditions. Everyone chooses a niche for themselves and mostly works in it. For example, my main goal is to give the maximum view composition for a trip, and preferably in live form (it doesn't matter if it's shooting in the field or at home). As a result, I came to the conclusion that shooting with flash is optimal in this case.
But this does not mean that I limit myself exclusively to this, although the majority of images are taken this way. Occasionally there is also shooting from a tripod, when there is time, the insect sits normally and it is not so rare. I also have something to hang on the wall... I won't shoot it on purpose - here's a shot from the video:
https://youtu.be/aRln6W3CeTA
But this is not my main occupation, otherwise I would go with a DSLR.

Without a flash on a sunny day, stacking and placing even an entire anthophora in the GRIP is quite real, but it is unrealistic to completely eliminate the wiggle, and large noises from ISO200 are inevitable. A vicious circle...

Well, here you already need to choose your niche or combine it. Either work with a compact flash and get a lot of medium-quality images quickly, or you can already contact the DSLR and get one picture per day, but on the wall. You can also combine it-like walking with a compact, and keep a mirror system in the trunk and get it under the acc. case... but I haven't seen this happen in practice. In principle, it happens of course that avid DSLRs sometimes take pictures on compacts... but this is usually when, by chance, they were somewhere without their own equipment and a CD happened to be at hand... But so that consciously combined - I did not hear.

I don't know what it is with the flash for life begins, but only in vain the mosquito eyes lit up that flash, here-no flash, and all the eyes are in place

Pictures:

P4130495.jpg — (531.51к)


P4130413.jpg — (497.76к)


P4130167.jpg — (302.39к)

By the way, my bug with eyes, and at the same time nikago chpoking
And I also made a diffuser from the strip from the LCD monitor matrix, its joke is that it works like a shadowless lamp, shadows and sharp transitions disappear, while the efficiency of such a diffuser is very high, the shutter speeds are the same as in the sun.
Examples of photos of flowers in the clear sun and with a diffuser.

Pictures:

P4130170.jpg — (271.37к)


P4130138.jpg — (361.8к)


P4130130.jpg — (308.06к)


P4130128.jpg — (333.75к)


P4130137.jpg — (455.61к)

Spreader of what? Suns? So the light filter is called, if the monitor is the film that I think of, polarizing. But what does the shadowless lamp have to do with it? Or is it meant to disperse the flashes? But how then is it fashionable to save shutter speeds, as in the sun, there is also a synchronization shutter speed, it is fixed and quite large. In general, Pan clearly framed the idea improperly, and to put it more simply, he wrote some garbage.

Sun spreader ))))) This is tin )

Ezox, you give out garbage all the time, competing with your gas station, and I have a diffuser, and not flashes, but a sunny light, except for polarizers in monitors, there are other films, but Ezox is an expert, and that says it all))
This is a diffuser, or rather a homogenizer of the light flux - in fact, a whole system in a sheet of optical film, the light that hits it is "mixed" inside and emitted evenly from each point of its surface. Thus, if it is slightly bent .. In general, the idea, I think, is clear to ordinary people, and experts rest))

It turns out that this film is made of a screen located between the sun and the subject? Given that the pan takes photos from at least 30 cm away, the hefty one should be a "moron", however. Doesn't the wind blow you away? It would be better if I tried to muddy the polarizing filter from the same monitor, they say it helps a lot against glare from the cuticle of insects.

Yeah, and a mirror or prism for a flash, and drag it all around the fields. In my A550 for such purposes, the bad thing is that there is no rotary display, you have to take pictures blindly, relying entirely on autofocus. Ideally, you would need something like A650 IS.

Yeah, schasss, polarizers in monitors with very low efficiency, not only does any polarizer cut off 50% of the light by default , but they are "special" in monitors - there is a lot of all sorts of mud for expanding the viewing angle, anti-glare, and so on. Here it is better to buy a polarizing filter, but again - -50% of the light.

Ezox, and the mirror to attach to the screen of the camera is not? )))

4 Ideally, you would need something like the A650 IS.

A good device in its class, I now have the main one for macro. The first was the A640. In principle, I was satisfied, but the battery cover does not hold. The second one was the SX30, I thought it would increase due to the large zoom... but it turned out that the distortion is crazy, although at medium magnifications it is quite normal to shoot. In general, I use it now for large-scale photography (landscapes, biotopes). Well, the third - A650, took used for 900 UAH. The Gx series is also quite good, but the price is also good. Canon also has some kind of compact with a CMOS sensor (like DSLRs), it would be nice to see it in operation, in theory, there should be less noise and dynamic range should be given. I once wanted to take it for a sample, but for some reason the SX30 outweighed.

I won't buy a mirror anyway, I don't have a trunk and I won't be able to get one in the near future.

You can also visit kravchuchke... Watched a recent video-inspired...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGguQeYtSBo
Make a sistainer for a mirror system, with all the bells and whistles... With flares coming out, a sun screen, a diffuser - and off into the fields...