Photocameras

Oh yes, finally I seem to have managed to get closer to the mega-artistic picture given as an example by Diogenes, so to speak, " open the insect "(tm))))

Pictures:

P4300314.jpg — (476.87к)

Objective OP-92 as a macrolens
MDF approx 7cm (!!!) when the frame field is 9mm.
Full frames + cut-out eyes

And by the way, the eyes are perfectly visible in the photo of 1000 on the long side, and no tapestries of 3 mega-pixel with thumbnails of 1400 are needed, in which there is nothing but mud

Impressive. Can I specify the shooting conditions? What kind of camera was there, with or without flash, with hands / with a tripod?

Impressive. Can I specify the shooting conditions? What kind of camera was there, with or without flash, with hands / with a tripod?

Well, I took photos at 5 o'clock, in oblique sunlight and in the shade, without flash and with hands, shutter speeds at aperture 4 were about 1/500 or less.
Olympus SP510UZ, here is a photo of the most stray assembly

The object is excellent, but the mount must be very reliable, it is quite convenient to take pictures - the center of gravity turns out to be on the edge of the "bagpipes" from the objects, you hold it in your hand and it's normal, but you don't need to carry such a kayak ) Well, I have it removed very easily, the main one is a homemade nozzle, I use it to take a large photo of everything used, it weighs only 50 grams, a photo of a butterfly is from it, also today's.
And this object can be taken for micro-shooting, for animals from 5 mm and smaller.

Pictures:

IMAGE_965.jpg — (487.44к)


P4300367.jpg — (481.95к)


IMAGE_966.jpg — (466.97к)

No matter what kind of "nose" from whatever cotton-wool Soviet lens pan mutil and no matter what awesome test photos he gets at home, the same garbage comes out in the field of view, the quality is approximately at the level of previous versions. Still, no optics can fix the curvature of the hands. But on a small zoom, the GRIP is still acceptable, so I take my previous words on this subject back. But stacking is still better!

An interesting example of how the aperture spoils detail. Fotkal from one installation with the focus of the camera in the wall, and with a series of pictures, the result is repeated 100%. Where the details are better visible, and the GRIP is smaller, the aperture is 3.7, where it is worse, and the GRIP is larger-8.
So, due to winning in the GRIP, detail is lost, and quite significantly.. Diffraction probably affects soap dishes even with such not very large diaphragms..

Pictures:

P4300507.jpg — (571.38к)


P4300505.jpg — (505.14к)

In my opinion, the artisanal version of Olympus Pan should be named "Pinocchio", because her nose grows all the time. Soon it will grow, as in the photo with the money, which I twice brought for the sake of humor.

And this object can be taken for micro-shooting, for animals from 5 mm and smaller.

My magnifying glass also copes quite well, it is fashionable to study the structure of trichomes on a sheet:



A golubyanka at changing about the same turns out without any third-party strays. True, I didn't get any pigeons today, but a fathead will do.:



And somewhere in the range of scales...






By the way, all of these (except for the butterfly) were stack frames. I just cut so many of them today that I don't even know when I'll glue them together, probably in winter. In general, today I had an epiphany: macro photography as a hobby is an evil that interferes with scientific work. As you approach summer, it is worth stepping over the threshold, as so many interesting and photogenic animals come across that until you reach the target area, you lose half a day, the entire battery charge of the camera and half of the memory card. And when you get home, the free space on your computer's hard disk is also consumed at a rapid pace. Since there is nowhere to get more money to buy a new one in our military-political situation, you will soon have to save it directly to an external one, or to a laptop (and, most likely, both there and here without duplication).

An interesting example of how the aperture spoils detail. Fotkal from one installation with the focus of the camera in the wall, and with a series of pictures, the result is repeated 100%. Where the details are better visible, and the GRIP is smaller, the aperture is 3.7, where it is worse, and the GRIP is larger-8.
So, due to winning in the GRIP, detail is lost, and quite significantly.. Diffraction probably affects soap dishes even with such not very large diaphragms..

I explained this to Pan a month ago, when he advised Odessa to set the maximum aperture for which there is enough light. What an interesting example of Panov surzhik - "winning".

No, listen, this 2/92 is just a bomb

Almost all the photos were taken on ISO 50, even in the shade, the aperture is 3.7-4 basically, everything is practically in the mode-I brought it with my hands and clicked and went further, in general, I filled the entire flash drive with pictures, this was not yet =0 I took all the little things that came across ))

Pictures:

P5011072.jpg — (471.1к)


P5011043.jpg — (508.13к)


P5010701.jpg — (358.46к)


P5011023.jpg — (503.77к)


P5011089.jpg — (387.83к)


P5011252.jpg — (563.88к)


P5011167.jpg — (465.74к)


P5010674.jpg — (415.02к)


P5010951.jpg — (378.05к)


P5011248.jpg — (577.18к)


P5010544.jpg — (330.01к)


P7775010543.jpg — (387.64к)


P5011049.jpg — (449.46к)


P5010935.jpg — (390.34к)


P5010653.jpg — (379.81к)

These are the first normal field images from pan. You can see that yesterday's criticism was reeled in and the lopsided attitude was somewhat suppressed by willpower (let's see for how long). Although, probably, everything is explained more simply-today the sun in Nikolayevshchina fried rigidly. But I can't understand why the GRIP jumps like that: here is the whole nomad enters, but only half of the newborn spider. ISO 50 looks beautiful, almost like the "adult" makrushnikov, I have no such thing. Although still with my aperture in natural light, the choice is only between 100 and 200. However, my nozzle has advantages of a different kind - it does not weigh 400 g, but 16. Plus the camera itself is just over 200 g (with batteries). Put a photo camera in one breast pocket, a magnifying glass in a compact makeshift case in the second, and go ahead to new photos. If necessary, you can even put both items in one pocket. And Pan, apparently, with a bag has to climb on the beams or with a backpack...

This post was edited by ENO - 01.05.2016 21: 08

Pictures:

______3288.jpg — (1.46 mb)

I would say where these items can and should be put, especially megalYnza

Come on, Gentlemen, let the people once again feel your cultural level.

Gentlemen of the warring parties, stop measuring pipiski. At the moment, Hierophis photos are definitely much better (I would say, by an order of magnitude) than ENO's pictures. But there is still much to strive for.

Everyone takes pictures the way they want. Some people shoot as best they can. Taking a larger object is not the most important thing in macro photography. The main thing is to convey the moment, dynamics, and action. This is when you are photographing a dead insect, you can shoot large and without strain, since the object does not move.

Like obvious things.

No, listen, this 2/92 is just a bomb

I think weight also plays an important role here, so don't be afraid of it. I've also done experiments on this subject in my time.

However, my nozzle has a different kind of weight - it does not weigh 400 g, but 16.

For manual shooting, I would attribute this to a significant disadvantage. It is better to wind the hammer with electrical tape, the difference will immediately be felt.

You also need to break your head over the manufacture of fasteners-these are two. I'd rather walk around the fields at this time.

Well, if this causes such problems that it makes it impossible to "walk in the fields", then only a watering can will save Ezox
Because, in fact, that And61 that Vega have a weight of less than 100g, there are enough adapters for mounting from a cardboard box, wrapped with the old faithful blue electrical tape, to check so accurately. And if you like it, then the epoxy will help to add an element of eternity to the design.

And there are plenty of objects in Donetsk, which was several times richer than Nikolaev under the USSR, so just there flea markets should be flooded with them, another thing is that not everything is good in the vast expanses of the young and proud republic, that people are afraid to trade at flea markets.. although, maybe the fact is that Ezox is afraid to walk around the expanses of his republic? Or is he afraid that he will buy the object, but he won't be able to make fun of it? ))))

I think weight also plays an important role here, so don't be afraid of it. I've also done experiments on this subject in my time.

It is clear that with a larger weight of the camera, there is less wiggle, in addition, it is much more convenient to hold a long object. BUT-the weight itself is important when the route is 20-25 km, while you need 3 liters of water to carry, or even more, + other things, as a result, the backpack is already under 10 kg, and even the additional 400g is not particularly pleasing, and unlike water, they do not disappear at the end of the outing ))) Although I have adapted a case for this nozzle-a purse from an old film soap dish, and I wear it on my belt when I need it, you can quickly take it out and put it on.

But still, yes, apparently, a large input pupil and good detail is alas a lot of weight by default.. All high-resolution objects are only biometars with 6 -7 -8 lenses, and tessars and triplets are getting worse.

It is interesting, of course, how Marumi and similar lizosborki will be compared to this biometar 2/92, their weight is clearly less, but the price is clearly more )

I tried to make a test of the resolution of all my attachments.

As a "mira", a fabric woven from hairs about 7 microns in diameter, arranged in a row and woven into strips, was used. One strip contains about 18 hairs.
Based on these parameters, 1 mm contains about 120-130 such hairs, taking into account irregularities and gaps.

The images were taken in the same light conditions, using ISO 50, with a maximum zoom of 10X (360mm eq. FR) with a fixed target and a camera.

Data on the resolution of the objects used(taken from the Internet) for the center of the frame, and the diameter of the entrance / exit pupils (calculated).

INDUSTRIAR23U 50l/mm, 24 / 10mm(similar)
Industriar 61LD 44l/mm, 12 / 4mm(similar)
Industriar 11M 35 L / mm, 33 / 40mm(looks like a low-scale discount)
Projection object 1: 2 92mm ??, 46 / 17mm (Judging by the results, about 100 l / mm or more)
3x lens attachment ??, 50/31 mm(judging by the results, no more than 20L / mm)
Standard macro mode of the camera, with 3cm(the resolution is indeterminate due to the low zoom level)

Input pupil of the used SP510UZ camera at max. zoom is approx. 14mm.

In the file name, the numbers after the object type indicate the focus distance and frame scale.

In principle, the Industrial 61LD object is quite good, but this resolution is good only in the center, respectively. it can be used as a micro-nozzle(18 diopters!) on a camera with an entrance pupil of no more than 2 mm, and this is the majority of low-intelligent soap dishes. Weight without helicoid and extra strays 55 grams.
That's why it can be recommended for small soap dishes as a cheap macro nozzle.


Industriar 11M is suitable for anywhere, but it has a small magnification, only 3 diopters, low resolution, but good clarity.

1:2 92mm - fits anywhere as a high-resolution, 10-diopter high-power nozzle.

Industriar23u - a lousy object, glare, twists close to the center, there is no clarity, as the macro nozzle is hardly suitable. Suitable for a pupil of 5-6mm, or even smaller.

Pictures:

Industar23U15sm15mm.jpg — (184.27к)


StandartSuperMakro3sm.jpg — (173.94к)


industar62LD5sm4mm.jpg — (166.33к)


Industar11M60sm5sm.jpg — (189.53к)


nasadka2F92_7sm9mm.jpg — (188.44к)


Nasadka30sm3sm.jpg — (180.75к)

N - yes, the possession of the simplest techniques of vector graphics, as it turned out, is also not among the skills of pan. But why does he have all these, if I may say so, models of photosystems focused on infinity? And why does everyone have a lens diameter much much larger than the native object? Does Pan think there's no other way? But it was he who offered me Vega 11A, which, according to him, has the same entrance pupil as my Kenon. And what would there be enlightenment was not svetosily compared to the lack of a nozzle, this is definitely not going to add.

Ezox, did you accurately measure your pipisk correctly?
Something very horse-sized turned out, despite the fact that in fact I see the feather in that picture from the lines except for the tips

To Zachot was, it is necessary that individual hairs were clearly visible, and not some kind of porridge.

I found a feather on the balcony, but it is not dense, of course, nevertheless

Pictures:

P50300172.jpg — (191.07к)


P5030017.jpg — (498.59к)

Guys, how old are you?
Feather, hairs... I haven't seen such an obvious pipiskomerstvo in a long time.

BUT-the weight itself is important when the route is 20-25 km long

Yes, this is understandable, everyone chooses what is more important to him. I just voiced why this is so, i.e. in the end result, not only optics play a role. I took the Raynox CM-3500 kit for myself precisely because of its convenience and compactness. Three lenses cover the entire magnification range. All in one set, one common adapter (ordered from a turner), one thread.
With lenses, when you look at the market, it is difficult to predict both the magnification and the final result, i.e. you actually buy a cat in a poke. Although I once went with a camera, immediately put it on, looked... but this is still a rough spontaneous assessment, the final result is still obtained at home in a leisurely environment.
Again, it is advisable to choose the same set for different sizes of insects. Because butterflies and 2 mm beetles are different things.

It is interesting, of course, how Marumi and similar lizosborki will be compared to this biometar 2/92, their weight is clearly less, but the price is clearly more )

Marumi I know only one-5x, this magnification is quite weak, such as for butterflies, deer beetles, etc. I think the CM-3500 is optimal, there are three nozzles (6x, 12x, 24x).
In general, about the lens - I'm amazed. I have a day With HANDS in cloudy weather, so it does not happen. And I think (as I said above), the weight in this case went to the advantage.

I have a set of marumi x2 x3 x4, you can use summing. I haven't seen any problems yet. and the price of 1500 rubles did not bother me at all.

And I think (as I said above), the weight in this case was good.

Yes, it has nothing to do with the weight, well, maybe some percentage of its influence and everything is well affected by the long nose itself-the animals are not so afraid of the camera, as if it had a short object, well, the dosutpnost of short exposures, and even on ISO 50, + detail..
Now I have a set of three attachments, but I would like all of them to have the same properties as this object
So I have a question-Marumi these-do they have comparable detail, better, or worse?

Today again after deleting what did not come out approx. 300 pictures naschelkalal)) Well, almost 90% of all spider beetles get photographed, sitting and crawling. And interseno then how, how you sit down to take a picture of something-and there it crawled, then sits, and it started))
And it's so cool - when animals come into focus, everything already shimmers in the viewfinder)

Pictures:

P5030030.jpg — (430.96к)


P5030316.jpg — (365.83к)


P5030529.jpg — (365.35к)


P5030121.jpg — (472.56к)


P5030159.jpg — (444.65к)


P5030114.jpg — (442.67к)


P7775030328.jpg — (377.45к)


P5030487.jpg — (413.96к)


P5030643.jpg — (463.3к)


P5030495.jpg — (413.66к)


P5030545.jpg — (349.36к)


P5030433.jpg — (453.22к)


P5030311.jpg — (353.34к)

I have a set of marumi x2 x3 x4, you can use summing. I haven't seen any problems yet. and the price of 1500 rubles did not bother me at all.

Can you see the pictures through these Marumi's? The price of $ 25, yes, it is quite possible to buy, especially a set, but in the Internet only one 5x lens for some reason costs almost $ 100, and this is already "annoying"

Can you see the pictures through these Marumi's? The price of $ 25, yes, it is quite possible to buy, especially a set, but in the Internet only one 5x lens for some reason costs almost $ 100, and this is already "annoying"

I rarely use them, only for moles. I will try to search

N-yes, after all, Pan Stepovoi has the last "pipisk", despite the huge difference in price, it will be more authentic than anyone else who has put up their photos in this topic, regardless of the cost of their units. As much as I wanted to get such a kayak with a "nosey", although not for permanent use (a kilogram of a camera is too big a piece for me to pull all the time in the fields). After analyzing some points, I came to the conclusion that no attachments will probably help my Kenon. The native lens has a very low aperture. Even at short focus with ISO 80 on a cloudy day, the shutter speed is no shorter than 1/250 at the aperture /2,3. But at short focus, even with these parameters, the movement is almost invisible. However, it is necessary to give the zoom, as the aperture drops even more (shutter speed 1/200 - 1/100), while due to the long focus, the image becomes simply indecent. It's not for nothing that I've never liked using transfocator. In general, in order to achieve quality results similar to Pan's latest ones, or better, without changing the camera itself, we can offer the following:

1) Use a tripod and shoot only stationary objects. Many "adult makrushniki" do this, even special holders for plant stems (so that the wind does not swing) are used. But this path is not pleasant to me, try to command " Freeze!", for example, to an ant.

2) Find a lens or obet that gives sufficient magnification and does not give strong edge effects even when the zoom is turned off, so you can use all the advantages of short focus;

3) Find a nozzle with a huge inlet and a small outlet, so that, as Pan bequeathed, raise the aperture above the standard one and thereby reduce the shutter speed;

4) Just use the flash, the one that inspires Pan with mystical horror:



With the flash, by the way, everything turned out to be not as clear as it seemed at first glance, the synchronization shutter speed is not at all 1/60, as I previously thought, sometimes it is even 1/300. I would also like to be able to force the camera to set the shutter speed always lower, and adjust the exposure only by the flash brightness and aperture. Then it will be fashionable to shoot with a flash and on a sunny day, without the appearance of"special effects".

The magnification is weak. Isn't Pan afraid that the native lens will fall off from such a weight?

This post was edited by ENO-03.05.2016 22: 15

Weak?? 15 mm per frame, this is a macro 2k1 if you take a 36mm frame, the magnification is excellent, especially considering that in this Olympus the zoom is 4x and in kenon 5.
And I61LD with the fokuser unscrewed and the aperture ring weighs 50 grams, what is there otvalitso ) Despite the fact that you do not need to sculpt anything in addition, the helicoid is exactly the size of the object, and there is also a hole for the screw to fix it..

I don't know what there is in terms of film, but the money shows that the scale is small, compared to mine. For large animals such as wasps and bees, this is, of course, a pole, but for nogokhvostka, this panov's photo shoot is like a pellet for an elephant.
Probably on that Olympus just the lens is stronger than Kenon's. I have a backlash on my own, with a semi-light and an LED illuminator (a total of 20-something g), there is a persistent feeling of overload. So if you remake the attachment lens to my camera, then only to the ledge-a rudimentary bayonet and attach it with a screw to the tripod socket. And on the panov S-480, the protrusion will be even better, it will hold up normally even without a screw.

Gentlemen, let's not mix macro and micro photography tasks into one, they are different things and for different purposes.
A scale of 1:1 always means that the size of the object is equal to the size on the matrix (or film), everything else is "a game" on the size matrices of modern digital devices.

And most importantly, take photos for your own pleasure and enjoy it.

Gentlemen, let's not mix macro and micro photography tasks into one, they are different things and for different purposes.
A scale of 1:1 always means that the size of the object is equal to the size on the matrix (or film), everything else is "a game" on the size matrices of modern digital devices.

And most importantly, take photos for your own pleasure and enjoy it.

This is not correct, there should be some standard, and there is one-macro is when the half-frame has a size of 36 mm on the wide side and less, micro - from 3.6 mm and less. For the film format, this is 1:1 and 10:1, respectively. And the matrixes of soap boxes come in a variety of sizes, then it turns out that for my and Esoxovogo fotikov macro starts only from a frame of 9mm on the wide side, but this is nonsense And micro then from how many?

I read today all sorts of reviews of Soviet objects intended for household cameras, and compared them with reviews made on different projection objects. the conclusion is that ALL Soviet objects that are made "for people", that is, for amateur cameras, are completely GMO. It seems that they were specially made crooked, you can see that suddenly a Soviet citizen did not take a picture of something secret and did not pass it to Omeriga.

But technical objects from industrial devices - film projectors, reproducers - they had all the power. Well, some more from photo enlargers. There is a resolution, and the evenness of the field, and the quality of illumination(which is not surprising, otherwise the lenses will simply melt if the illumination is poor).

No, after all, my magnifying glass, even without the flash, is not as terrible as Pan can imagine here. You just need to forget about noise and all other ISO values. except 200, and then you can quite artistically take pictures of even moving ants and not even in the brightest sun.













But the most fertile object of filming is plants, they don't run anywhere, they don't fly anywhere, even if you shoot a thousand frames of the same thing, and if the wind shakes a lot, you can hold the stem with your hand. Here, even ISO 100 often rolls. And most importantly, with my magnifying glass, I completely forgot what the illumination from white and yellow flowers in the bright sun is, which, judging by the reviews, so often annoys makrushnikam (Pan Stepova, by the way, is no exception). It seems that taking pictures of such flowers is her vocation. I wish I was a nerd.






This post was edited by ENO-05/04/2016 22: 54

Yes of course, each Ezoks its own pipi.. umm.. praises the nozzle!
Only here the resolution of it is not very far from zero has gone, as a result of which all the details are crooked, but that's nonsense..
And again, these mega-sized photos

The yellow color certainly presents a certain problem for photographing, but I somehow don't see any special problems)

Nay, sir, the last spider is no good. Again, apparently, Pan believed in the omnipotence of the new toy, weakened his volitional control over chronic crookedness and again slipped to the basic level.

1. Everything is correct, at a scale of 1:1, the insect is 9mm in size, on the Olympus SP-510 UZ it will take up almost the entire frame, and on the" DSLR " only a small part of the frame.

And it should be-it should occupy the same size at a scale of 1:1, especially since most of the standards in photography are tied to the 36mm frame.

I have a set of marumi x2 x3 x4, you can use summing. I haven't seen any problems yet. and the price of 1500 rubles did not bother me at all.

These are ordinary household lenses made of one glass (Close Up Set), they tear the image at the edges. You can just use them to look at the printed text - and everything will become clear. Moreover, a pack of three is a full paragraph...
I'm talking about Marumi Achromat Macro 5x, which is multi-layered and costs about$100 alone. This is the only thing in Marumi that is worthy of use, I do not know the other.

So I have a question-Marumi these-do they have comparable detail, better, or worse?

Their details are decent, I didn't specifically compare them. And I don't have such a lens. In general, it is quite normal high-quality multilayer lens.
But it slightly increases, you can shoot starting from at least large oss for example.
And it does not weigh 400 g, there will be more defects from the grease.

Today again after deleting what did not come out approx. 300 pictures naschelkalal))

Super shots! I think it's hard to expect more from a compact.