Photocameras

Community and Forum → Insects photoshooting → Photocameras

Pages: 1 ...11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19... 42

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

14.04.2016 21:09, rhopalocera.com

IMHO "more expensive" and "better" should not be merged into one pile. I have shown examples of how some Soviet lenses "draw" on a good matrix. With all due respect, the quality of the details you have ironed in this topic, in terms of distinguishability, to put it mildly, is somewhat short. I'm talking about the "anatomical component", but as for the artistic one, it's obviously not given to me to understand this. Although how can there be any artistry in a moth on a pin? There, in my opinion, only "antomy" is needed.

Well, let me explain on my fingers.
Both photos were taken with one camera and one glass.
One of them is artistic. The second is about the details.
Soviet lenses draw in no way. Just nothing. Wild soap, only high ISO saves them. Do you really think that if Soviet lenses drew really well, I would use this shit from Canon? Given that I don't really give a shit how much it costs.

picture: 12.jpg

14.04.2016 21:14, rhopalocera.com

I agree with ENO's thoughts on the question of "artistry".
In this field, the concept of artistry is generally vague. If we approach the generally accepted concept of "artistic photo", then I think that for most people, the image (for example) of a spider will cause a far from pleasant feeling, no matter how "highly artistic" the image itself is. In principle, we are talking only about the necessary "lookability" of the photo and the means to achieve this.

If you do not understand the subject more than a log, then it is better not to enter into a polemic. There are quite a few makrushniki who make highly artistic photos of small animals, including spiders. Google it, or go to the macro club - expand your horizons. Well, or look at the well-known photo awards, it also skips there.

If you don't know how to represent an insect artistically, then who is to blame for not being born with a fantasy? Live within your own framework: full face, full face and profile.

picture: beetle_col.jpg

16.04.2016 18:32, Hierophis

I bought an object and a CANDLE at a flea market today for a pupaar

Oh, I wish I hadn't bought it..
And in general, yes, I specifically looked at various tests of Soviet objects, where non-photographic captive images are guaranteed, so they, to put it mildly, lose very much to passport ones. Only single instances are even more or less, while, as far as I understand, the objects of the USSR are also a lottery, you may be lucky, but most likely not.

I was obviously unlucky with this and the ANSWER, or they are just like that in themselves.
The object, at least as a macro attachment, which is included with other lenses, which in itself, is even more significantly curved than the industriar 61, at least because it has a FR of 110mm,and with such a FR everything is terribly curved.
Well, his exit pupil also does not fit with my Olympus, although Lisa is much larger in diameter there. And the pupil is very small, and acc. the object is dark as a searchlight of perestroika )
With venetirovaniem it would be possible to fight with a digital mind, so as not to bother with cropping later, but with such a picture it is better not to take pictures with them. It feels like it was shot through an Ezox lens, and not through a 4-lens object ..

Pictures:
picture: P4160869.jpg

P4160869.jpg — (479.98к)

picture: P4160884.jpg

P4160884.jpg — (571.88к)

picture: P4160897.jpg

P4160897.jpg — (427.04к)

picture: P4161023.jpg

P4161023.jpg — (449.21к)

picture: P4160997.jpg

P4160997.jpg — (378.82к)

Likes: 2

Likes: 1

18.04.2016 12:39, Hierophis

It seems to understand why it twists so much at the edges, alas, after I turned the object over and corrected the lenses, it became less twisted, but it still turns. The fact is that for this and almost all Soviet objects, the resolution is specified, for example, 50 lines in the center and 15 at the edges. And here just the object works with the entire surface, and the edges too, as a result, the curved edges fall into the frame. The conclusion here is simple - use lenses and lenses with the largest possible exit pupil as attachments, for the lens it is equal to its diameter and should be at least as the diameter of the output lens of the camera, but it is better to look much larger, and for the lens you need to look at the place, since a large lens diameter does not always mean a large pupil diameter.

And yet it is obvious that the Soviet objects are not the best, at least because they have completely different grinding technologies, the composition of the glass is improved. If you take Soviet electronics and modern ones, the difference is immediately visible )) And if you take the lenses, it seems that they are all the same, and that and that spherical and shiny, but in fact sovdepovskaya grinding and modern may differ as electronics of the same years

18.04.2016 13:10, ИНО

And if you take Soviet genetics, then in general the seams, one Lysenkoism. But, for example, vehicles that make a soft landing on Venus, created outside the USSR, were not, and still are not. Why make such absurd comparisons? Small lenses to almost perfect condition learned to process long before the emergence of the USSR. And if after its collapse their shape has improved, then so little that on the soapolympus matrix you will still not notice the difference. About the fact that a large lens is better-not everything is so clear, the larger the lens, the harder it is to grind, and the worse it usually comes out. So large and at the same time high-quality lenses should not cost much. And any lens on the edge of the resolution is worse than in the center, even the native Panova kayak. But the human eye is designed similarly, and therefore does not pay attention to the strong deterioration of the image along the edge. But if you try to stitch together a panorama from several partially overlapping frames, the whole horror of the edge zone becomes noticeable. On Soviet lenses, the resolution was at least honestly indicated, and in some samples it was very high, up to 1000 (!) lines per millimeter. And what about modern imported cars? Company secret? Pan will probably want to buy the same lens for 900 CU, fasten it as a nozzle and compare it with the industry. And after that, fall into idolatry of the West or, depending on the result, modestly silent in a rag.

18.04.2016 19:44, Hierophis

Examples of photos via "improved" and Yandex. Checkout.
In general, if someone wants to use it as a macro attachment, then I recommend immediately clinging to it in reverse, and checking the correct location of the lenses, the first two, this object is really easy to understand, the lens hood is unscrewed and one of the lens blocks immediately falls out, and not fastened in any way, so it immediately divides into two lenses, and most importantly- attach it only to an object with an output lens diameter at least equal to the output lens diameter of that object. The central zone, somewhere about 7mm, it has more or less, and this is just the pupil of the same kenon A5XX A6XX.

Pictures:
picture: P4170396.jpg

P4170396.jpg — (516.23к)

picture: P4170298.jpg

P4170298.jpg — (471.15к)

picture: P4170141.jpg

P4170141.jpg — (430k)

picture: P4170200.jpg

P4170200.jpg — (480.91к)

picture: P4170230.jpg

P4170230.jpg — (581.62к)

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

19.04.2016 11:17, ИНО

Both microplanes and corectars sell the same technology, and they believe that the latter have a higher resolution. Probably for a reason. It is unlikely that they just make it up, the difference in price is insignificant. Why do you cite English-language sources? H. Z. who and how measured, and in what condition was the lens at that time (its path to the West, probably, was long and thorny). In the USSR, all lenses were given permission in their passports. Naturally, these are the results for new lenses, ideal conditions, and better films (there was one with 900 lines per millimeter, probably for a reason). There even the wavelength of the light used should be affected. Here-this information and you need to look, obviously, in Russian, and not in Bourgeois.

19.04.2016 19:23, Юрий352

Given a good image, it doesn't tell me anything: how it was made, on what, how many "cropped", one frame or "stacking", why the eyes are in "pollen"or scales(the butterfly is alive or fixed).
Here they clearly worked with everything they can, but for me, these lenses are more for" contrasting text", the halftones disappear somewhere, and without them "something is wrong".
The conversation on this category of lenses(with super resolution) is also purely theoretical for me, I have enough stocks of ordinary Soviet lenses from 37 to 500 mm(from magnifiers and apparatuses) for experiments, you can find time and "fasten" them, but you shouldn't spend money on it specifically.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-19.04.2016 19: 34