Photocameras

2/92 in the same shooting conditions, even slightly darker.

Pictures:

P5234374.jpg — (443.56к)

The first stray is even worse than my magnifying glass. But the scale, of course, there is brutal, few when such a need. And what is the strange effect of a white stripe above the beetle in the picture P5234432.jpg?

This post was edited by ENO - 05/23/2016 20: 40

And what is the strange effect of a white stripe above the beetle in the picture P5234432.jpg?

This is the magical radiance of Soviet engineering

But in general, this is some kind of aberration, and it is everywhere in the photos, where there is a transition from dark to light. Clearly, the Soviet engineers did not put something in this object, it weighs even less than 200g

I tried to unscrew the front lens from this object-what is interseno, still works more or less clearly, but beautiful color aberrations appeared
And it zoomed out.
One photo with the lens still in place. Well, even the eyes of the hay eater are visible, and even the hairs on the antennae, what else do you need? True contrast of course really bad, muddy..

This post was edited by Hierophis - 05/23/2016 21: 23

Pictures:

P5234524.jpg — (415.92к)


P5234517.jpg — (432.35к)


P5234519.jpg — (446.81к)

Strange aberration. It's good that the Soviet engineers reported everything to my magnifying glass, even though it weighs less than 16 g. I'll probably buy an A540 anyway, if it keeps the batteries and the photos from it are pleasant. In theory, everything should be the same as it was in the A550 + completely manual control (no CHDK is needed) + full-fledged embryo bayonet. True, it is 1 megapixel less, but, in theory, there should be less noise. I also liked the IXUS 700 (a large matrix (but ancient, so I didn't notice much smoothness in the test images), the optics are much better than the A5**, judging by the test images found in one review, its telemacro (with zoom enabled) with 30 cm is about the same in resolution like a powershot pseudo macro with 5 cm (they don't know how to zoom at all), and with 5 cm in general, the sharpness is fucking awesome, metal case, metal tripod socket in the right place (and not plastic with a light edge), normal lithium battery, Japanese assembly. There are no manual modes, but the CHDK is suitable. However, I was scared off by the slightly smaller multiplicity and aperture of the lens, and most importantly-the complete absence of even a rudimentary mount, that is, you can only hang something on the protruding end of the lens, you can't even think of other options, straining your imagination. And the existing magnifying glass attachment probably won't fit, the lens is completely different in shape. And the price is twice as high as that of the A540. But that kayak Sonkovskaya, by the way, disappeared, there is the same, but twice as expensive (900 UAH), well, whatever.

P.S. Only the first panov photo (as I understand it, with the existing lens) is suitable, the other two are a return to the best traditions of last winter. So Pan is extremely contraindicated to compete with Soviet engineers in lens construction.

This post was edited by ENO - 05/23/2016 21: 32

So I did the same involution to A540. Among the advantages (compared to the A550): significantly higher "rate of fire", slightly less noise, manual settings for everything and everything. You can set the shutter speed to 1/2000 even when shooting with flash. True, in this case, you have to give the maximum power, similar to the explosion of a firecracker, so I limited myself to 1/500. This is quite enough for shooting with hands during the day - there is no space half-grease. Let me remind you that the A550, with a flash, almost always gave a shutter speed of 1/60, as a result of which normal pictures with a lens were obtained only at dusk. Turning on macro mode does not add sharpness and does not affect the aperture, as a result, macro images are not as sharp as those of the A550,but they are honest. The exposure camera is normal. The lens has almost no backlash. Then there are the cons. First, no matter what anyone says, the lack of a single megapixel is felt, especially when shooting insects with standard means. when you need to make a crop later. Not critical, but not happy either. Secondly, the autofocus smears a lot. Not always, but often, especially with a magnifying glass nozzle. On 550, too, I often smeared it, but at the same time I honestly reported it until the shutter button was fully pressed. And on this, it emits a confidential double squeak, but in the end it still turns out to be a miss. But there is a manual focus, while the crop of the central part is displayed on the screen, and you can quite accurately assess the sharpness. But it seems to me (and, if memory serves, I met such information in some review) that it does not work quite correctly, and at the moment of pressing the shutter, the lens still refocuses a little. It's especially disappointing that when half-pressing, fixing the focus, the crop disappears, and by the full frame on the screen, although it is a third larger than that of the A550, you can't figure out what. Due to the low image quality, I will not include a larger screen size in the list of advantages. The size is larger, but the quality is still the same. Everything is even worse when shooting with an orange-lit flash. The diode does not shine quite there, with MDF in macro mode - in the upper right corner of the frame. The center is still dark - the autofocus doesn't smudge, only if you additionally shine a flashlight. Auto-white balance is also often wrong. It seems that all this was brought to mind only when creating the A550. Further, switching between shooting and photo viewing modes is not done with a touch button, but with a lever, which is inconvenient and mechanically vulnerable. But all this pales in connection with the main disadvantage - the sharpness is less compared to the A550. I think this is partly due to more primitive in-camera image processing. Still, the A550 is obviously tricky and unobtrusive by default, and the A540 either doesn't sharpen at all by default, or makes it weaker and more primitive. You can adjust the increased sharpness in a special menu, but this is a completely primitive unsharp mask with a bold white halo, noticeable even without pixel-by-pixel viewing of the photo. In the A550, even in macro mode, where sharp is the most rigid, some much more cunning filter is applied, leaving much less artifacts. So the sharpness menu had to be abandoned in favor of sharping on the computer. Therefore, additional time costs. However, there is a silver lining - deconvolution in Smartdeblyure goes much more smoothly than with photos of the A550. But unfortunately, I have a deep suspicion that the problem is not only in processing, but also in optics. Anyway, when shooting with a lens, HA is bigger. than the A550 had. But the lenses look exactly the same, and not only in appearance: the viewing angle, focal length, and aperture are also exactly the same. But the motors (zoom and focus) of the A540 sound louder and more unpleasant, as well as give a more noticeable vibration to the body. Can a worse mechanic raise HA? Separately, it is worth mentioning the bayonet. It turned out to be very cunningly arranged and without a branded Kenan mount, it will be problematic to attach something to the tug. Unless you stick it to the most removable protective ring. But the same thing could have been done with the A550, which has essentially the same ring there, only tightly welded. It would be better if there was a stupidly cylindrical protrusion, on which you can find a suitable adapter in any plumbing store.

Here are some examples of photos. No nozzle, natural light:




Without nozzle, flash without reflector:



Without nozzle, flash through the reflector:



With nozzle, natural light:



With nozzle, flash through reflector, day:





With nozzle, flash through reflector, twilight:





Most of them are unprocessed, some are cropped, some are slightly lightened. By the way, yes, whether because of less noise, or because of a different off-camera processing, lightening with a watchable result has become easier than with the A550.

In general, for scientific work it will do, but for a sense of aesthetic satisfaction, apparently, you will have to buy something more, so that it is not like my old camera, but even better. But so far, no suitable candidates have been found at online flea markets (or they are found for the wrong amount). But first I'll look for a suitable Soviet lens, maybe with it as a nozzle and this camera will have better results.

Unexpectedly, I found in my closet another tool for attachments - a slide projector "Etude". Or rather, me, it's over. I knew the beast was out there somewhere, and I'd even seen it a couple of times in my childhood, but I didn't know how it fared in terms of optics. And things are as follows: there is a full-fledged Triplet-3 lens. However, judging by the catalog, its sharpness is very mediocre. But I decided to try using it as a nozzle anyway. The process of making the adapter turned out to be very hemorrhagic and creative, since there was no Zeeman ring LA-DC52F, or anything with a similar mount. As a result, I made a multicomponent holder with a mount in a tripod socket, creepy in appearance. But, if you try very hard, with the help of it, this "Triplet" can be fixed coaxially to the native lens of the soap dish without backlash. Tests in residential conditions showed the following:
1. The sharpness really leaves a lot to be desired. I think the magnifying glass will have more.
2. The scale is significantly smaller than with a magnifying glass, you can fit large wasps and small butterflies in the frame entirely.
3. MDF and fingerboard are twice as large as with a magnifying glass.
4. The contrast is slightly stronger, the turbidity is less.
5. Aberrations, especially at the edge of the field, are many times smaller than those of a magnifying glass, acceptable image quality is preserved to the very edge, and" cosmic swirls " in Pan Stepovoi's terminology are completely absent.
6. When the front lens of the native lens moves away from the rear lens of the attachment lens, the sharpness drops significantly, so more or less decent photos are obtained only at maximum zoom or without zoom at all (remember that during zoom, the lenses of the A5xx series cameras first move inwards in a tricky way, and only then move outwards). But in the latter case, it turns out to be a huge vignette. However, if you really need to accommodate something large, then you can shoot at medium zoom, somewhat sacrificing sharpness, you will still see more details than with a regular pseudo-macro.

I don't know if there is a gain in light intensity yet, since I shot with a flash and a reflector, and there the brightness of the frame is more affected by the position of the reflector and the amount of shadow cast by the lens, and these parameters, with different attachments, of course, vary. But what I fully realized was the huge difference in mass. If it is 16 g in a forest plantation, then the lens together with the holder is 98 g, and this is very noticeable. I can't even imagine how you can shoot with a kilogram panovym shnobelyastym unit or dvuhkilogarmovoy DSLR. It's not for nothing that DSLRs are so fond of tripods, apparently, it's not just the fight against veseleshenka that matters.

Sample test images with a"Triplet":












It's the same with a magnifying glass:











Appearance of both attachments:




And, in conclusion, the riddle about the number of beetles is now up to me:



This is a magnifying glass, I haven't tested the" Triplet " in the field yet.

This post was edited by ENO-07.06.2016 02: 48

So, yesterday the new nozzle was tested in the field in natural light.

The result of comparison with the magnifying glass nozzle in terms of light intensity turned out to be paradoxical: it practically does not differ:

Lens:




Magnifier:




In both cases, the shutter speed is 1/400 s, the aperture is 5.5, ISO 80, maximum zoom, direct sunlight.

This is despite the fact that the "Triplet-3" is considered a high-power lens with a relative aperture of 2.8 and a light-copying coefficient of 0.9. The illumination of the outer lenses is in order, dust and fingerprints are removed. Inside, the dust remained but very slightly, especially in relation to the area of the lenses, which in this lens is quite large. So the reason for this darkness is not clear to me.

Also, in this example, the magnifier slightly outperformed the "Triplet" in color resolution: 274782 versus 226753.

Further, the spatial resolution, as I have already noted, leaves much to be desired for the "Triplet", but facets can still be considered in some cases.



The main advantage over a magnifying glass is that you can capture fairly long scenes without significant geometric distortions.:




But for smaller objects luponasadka rules! Fortunately, it is possible to quickly replace the attachment lens with it, without disassembling the entire holder.

This post was edited by ENO-08.06.2016 13: 38

Today I tried out in the field a new nozzle in combination with a flash. Quite another matter! After all, there is no life without a flash.







However, a small problem was identified: the reflector designed for magnifying glass with the new shnobel geometry is not very friendly: instead of soft ring light, it turns out to be overexposure in the upper-left corner of the frame and darkness in other places, especially when the zoom is incomplete:



When zooming, the MDF falls and the object is closer to the reflector, which somewhat improves the situation. In general, under the new nozzle, it is necessary to make a new, more cunning reflector.

The movement of the movement, but the dark pictures have become that kapets Well, triplet is of course already better than shooting the animal world with a magnifying glass, but still triplets have always been famous for distortions, my self-made nozzle was also essentially a triplet, and if at least tessar Ezox prisobachil, such as Industriar 61, I'm not talking about the projector which he afraid ))

On the A540, only 3 levels of flash power are available in manual mode, at the lowest it barely flashes at all, at the average it turns out what you can see above, and the upper one, as I said, looks like a firecracker explosion, I'm afraid of it, besides it's always overexposure. It is strange that in the shutter priority mode and the aperture priority mode, the flash gradations are much larger, but there is always one of the expopair parameters selected automatically, I am not satisfied (the shutter speed in the flash always turns out to be 1/60 s, which turns out to be a stir, and when fixing the vyderzhdki in 1/500 s. as I like, the aperture is set to 2.8, resulting in a very small GRIP. So I take pictures in manual mode with a shutter speed of 1/500 and an aperture of 7.1 (although actually 14, this is the camera's feature - the aperture setting in the control modes is displayed as for a wide-angle position, even if it is actually in the body, and the same fake F-number is written in exif), GRIP more or less acceptable. At 8.0, the sharpness drops noticeably, and the darkness is already real. And so it's not even dark at all, let the pan monitor turn up. But there are already serious problems with the uniformity of the light field, and the reflector must be completely recycled. But still, I thought that pan would somehow comment on the fact that the aperture with the lens has practically not increased compared to the magnifying glass, as he previously predicted. But it seems that this secret is great.

This example may not be the best, but it's one of a kind. Because in the field - not the place where it is convenient to constantly change the nozzle and the reflector to bend and unbend. And most of the "models" will not wait. This larva of the fly just turned out to be slowed down, in five minutes the position of the body did not change. Brightness-contrast (as well as gamma, saturation, sharpness, and so on) it's up to you to adjust it yourself, as you please, my job is to show the originals.

I have an LED illuminator, but there is only one diode, it is impossible to make a circular one out of it, there is not enough brightness. In addition, diodes with normal color reproduction are not friendly. There is a special external flash with light synchronization, but there is no shoe. I don't have one and I don't expect one, zvinjayte. But I'll redo the reflector a little.

Improved the reflector-the lighting became a little brighter and much more uniform. The shooting parameters are the same as last time (only the zoom is different, see the focal length in exifs), and there is no post-processing.

Pictures:

_____416.jpg — (1.59мб)


_____415.jpg — (1.44 mb)


_____412.jpg — (1.79 mb)


_____411.jpg — (1.48 mb)

Returning to the topic of Soviet lenses suitable for macro photography, here, I came across it by accident today. Ready-made super-duper macro on a DSLR with a dofigapixel matrix, just add a ring. The price, of course, bites, but the price of a bourgeois lens with similar parameters, I think, will not just bite, but swallow it whole.

This post was edited by ENO - 18.08.2016 18: 17

Again, the expert recommends)) Has the expert ever applied such objects to DSLRs/mirrorless cameras? The expert guesses how many rings you need to add there, and what kind of GRIP is obtained at the same time? And nothing that is focal 130 or beyond 130?

Whatever you want to apply, as Pan used to say, " you have to have."

Ezox, are you okay? More outpourings Russophobia
People have already told you here that they have both this and that, that it will never be possible to enter the same grid on a large matrix as on a small one, since the working segment on large matrices is measured in centimeters and even tens, and on small ones - in millimeters.
The bottom line is that to take pictures of something large like scolium-maculate with such an object will not get into the grip, but you can't take pictures of something ultra-small, you need more rings, and even less grip.
The figure that is in that theme is quite large for the desired macro, and at the same time quite small for ordinary shots, but the GRIP there is almost zero..
Here is a photo of similar sized objects, about 3-4 cm in height. From a distance of 50 cm, at an aperture of 5.6 and full frame. So this is clearly a macro, and the GRIP here is half the length of the object.. It's over, kakchestvo not that, but alas, or kakchestvo, or macro
On DSLRs/mirrorless cameras only with chpoking you need to take pictures, and for natural conditions this is nonsense..

Pictures:

P8191873.jpg — (509.16к)


P8191874.jpg — (470.7к)


P81915872.jpg — (164.52к)

Well, yes, on DSLRs with the same optics, the GRIP is smaller than on soap dishes, everyone knows that Pan also discovered America. Nevertheless, "adult makrushniki" shoot on DSLRs, mostly. Many indoor macro lenses SLR lenses give a tiny little GRIP, and this does not frighten anyone, and the price tag does not affect for the better. And "chpoking" - in natural conditions is quite a sense, just pan does not know how to do it.

Oh, Pan went into subject shooting! And what is a good income: it will be costume jewelry for sellers to take pictures. It turns out that pan is clearly better and more stable than shooting insects.

Oh, Ezox finally bought himself an object
And Ezox did not notice that finally)) did his photos look like anything at all? So what about the magnifying glass, which generally had zero detail, that with that triplet it was something tough..
Now Ezox would buy a planar or biotar / metar instead of rolling the panels here, make the mount normal for him,and there will be at least something better.. Because tessaras are also very crooked..


But this should be especially noted

I decided at my leisure to look for information about the Panov super mega lens "OP-92". Google brought me exclusively to this forum. Smart books didn't help either. apparently, there is no such lens in nature and never was. Either Pan got the numbers mixed up, or he saved the focal length instead of the model number...

Just for the Nazis in the Internet restrictions were introduced

This is correct, there is nothing for the Nazis to wander around unseen resources, " The Censor.no" - your everything.

I suggest that Pan khvotograkhv pass the test of his megaexperience in terms of macroadjustments. I upload a bunch of photos that were killed and processed according to his favorite standard (resizing up to 1000 pixels on the large side without increasing sharpness, in some cases-a small crop), which capture the same or similar species of insects and spiders with different attachments in natural conditions, and pan should sort them into four categories: 1) magnifier 5X, 2) "Triplet-3", 3) "Industriar 90U", 4) without a nozzle at all. In case of failure, the drain will be counted.

Pictures:

_______862_.jpg — (558.33к)


_______628_.jpg — (446.08к)


_______807f.jpg — (461.1к)


_____1300_.jpg — (602.18 k)


_______132_.jpg — (601.66к)


_______769_.jpg — (637.94 k)


_______750_.jpg — (666.86к)


_______543_.jpg — (746.02к)


_______810_.jpg — (660.54к)


_____856_.jpg — (606.33к)


_______831_.jpg — (692.52к)


_______822_.jpg — (654.53к)


_____570_.jpg — (762.82к)


_______851_.jpg — (584.41 k)


_______848_.jpg — (515.91к)


_______602_.jpg — (623.37к)


_______467_.jpg — (711.79к)


_______857_.jpg — (494.68к)


_______589_.jpg — (472.35к)


_______601_.jpg — (541.41к)


_______617_.jpg — (492.96к)


_______841_.jpg — (647.51 k)


_______856_.jpg — (455.82к)


_______615_.jpg — (324.98к)


_______149_.jpg — (674.69к)


_______610_.jpg — (523.48к)


_______241_.jpg — (678.54к)


_______740_.jpg — (479.93к)


_____1321_.jpg — (748.77 k)

Well, so be it: the drain was counted, and Pan Stepovoi's expertise, as well as other types of expertise, turned out to be a myth that fluttered like the spores of an old raincoat mushroom in the wind. I couldn't even tell the difference between a magnifying glass and a lens. Attention, correct answer:

856(606.33 k), 851, 822-magnifier;

1300, 543, 570, 602, 467, 589, 601, 149, 1321 - T-3;

740, 856(455.82 k), 841, 857, 467, 848, 831, 810, 750, 132, 807, 862 - I-90U;

241, 610, 615, 617, 628 - without attachments.

What else did this test show, besides the incompetence of Pan Stepovoi? Most importantly: resize is evil! For a visual illustration, I attach several of the above photos in full size:







Just heaven and earth! Here you can immediately see the effect of the nozzles, while judging by the compressed images, their advantage even over the regular pseudo-macro was by no means obvious. Therefore, if some sarozumilyy pan, imagining himself khvotoexperdomom, henceforth declares that the resolution of 6MP is excessive for soap dishes, and the photos taken by them can and should be painlessly resized to 1000 on the big side, feel free to show him the cookie and pass by. Although I don't rule out that specifically in pribluda Pan's optical resolution is such that with photos taken with its help, you really should do exactly what he constantly does. But you shouldn't generalize to others.

Now I will go directly to the comparison of attachments. The I-90U was similar to the T-3 in most parameters (image scale,MDF, grip, and, oddly enough, aperture). Isn't that why their focal lengths are almost the same? Two things are strikingly different. First, the rear bokeh of the Industriar is very hard and sharp, which is clearly noticeable when comparing images with flies. From the point of view of aesthetics, in my opinion, this is bad. But there is also a positive side: catching an object in the frame has become much easier, since its fairly clear outline appears long before it gets into the GRIP. However, for the same reason, the A540's crappy contrast autofocus almost always gives out an approving double squeak, even when the focus is just crustaceans away. In this regard, I liked the A550 autofocus much better - on the contrary, false-negative results strongly prevailed over false-positive ones, and if it clung to something, it was almost always true.

Second, color reproduction. One gets the impression that somewhere between the lenses of Industriar, some otherworldly entity has settled down, sucking all the juiciness and joy of life out of the passing rays of light. "Triplet" in this regard is much more pleasant, and the magnifying glass is generally out of competition. It seems that the more lenses, the worse the color. The difference in illumination, that is, muti, is much less noticeable, it is in favor of "Industriar", but also "Triplet" when shooting with flash shows a completely satisfactory picture. This is a very big lead for lupa, but not for the better this time.

Now the most interesting thing is the rarity. Interesting, because on this indicator, Industriar did not show any difference from "Triplet" from the word "absolutely". I've been puzzling over this problem for a long time and finally found a plausible explanation: it's all about the resolving power of the native soap dish lens, which is the weak link in the "nozzle-lens-matrix" chain. Therefore, no matter what high-resolution Soviet lenses I put, even though the aforementioned "Era", I still won't achieve pixel-by-pixel resolution. Therefore, the only way to produce macro images with the best preservation of small details of the object is to buy a DSLR and use attachments with the highest magnification, so that these details are no longer small. That is why the louponasadka steers, as you can clearly see by comparing the pictures with the bee, one of which was made with it, and the second with Industriar. And that is why no matter how much Pan pumped his kayak with Soviet projectors , the funnel of the Lake will not work.

And one more thing that the magnifier turned out to be better than lenses-it does not suffer from extreme contrast, does not plunge the slightest pits on the insect's body into the abyss of eternal darkness, and does not make the slightest bumps shine like stars. Still, high-contrast lenses when used in this capacity are rather evil. At first glance, a clean picture is obtained, without turbidity, but if you look closely , it turns out that there is only one "skeleton" without "meat".

P.S. Anticipating the violent protest and vozbuhanie Pan Stepovogo, preemptively send it in the direction of the forest. As you can see from this post, I have for each of his expert pseudo-theoretical blah-blah there are clear results of an experimental study.

Kapets.. The world is just $ 4.5, and you can't buy it...
And the pictures are still dark, as in one place made, well, the PPC is the same )

Yes, in the photo - a small praying mantis, and almost in the shade

Pictures:

P9032356.jpg — (401.92к)

The difference between the "World" and the lens block from the "World" pan does not catch. Those actually have a few blocks, and what I was offered in the jar from the film will fit, the aperture remained somewhere else. Apparently, because the HA is strong, they were compensated for by the entire lens system as a whole, and not for one of its parts.
Regarding "dark photos", I can only repeat my long-standing recommendation to Pan to adjust the monitor.

So where are the mega-images? So far, everything that was-horror, dark, and not amenable to correction, with increasing brightness, terrible noises and blockage of the range, and muddy - there is no detail almost anywhere.

It's all bullshit, Ezox, let's do it again
Well, it's not that, photos without an accent, mutated, well, the butterfly is at least big and somehow stands out, and then.. and bee so in general.. In general, even for science and that.. with a stretch..

Pictures:

P71110541.jpg — (497.08 k)


P73014145.jpg — (469.26к)

Not well MDF 40 cm is already an achievement, but the rest - alas, horror.. Yes, at least 300 megapixels, but there is no detail in the photos..
An accent is when an object is at least somehow highlighted against the background, well, okay, a butterfly, it seems to cover the entire frame, although it also "sinks", but a bee generally merges with the lower part of the flower.. And this is not only compositional features, but also the very" texture " of the image..
You need to pay attention to details that are out of focus, ideally they should not be blurred, stratified into components of the spectrum, and so on. It should be approximately the same proportions and contours, only as if covered with a veil, gradually merging with the distant background without changing their size. Then it will be detailed.
There are also obvious aberrations, and not "drawing", but delaminating..

About the rest - just some kind of tin.. Ezox as a deffochka intrigues with his strays, instead of just writing what he did again.. But of course, do not buy a lens block from the World, given that it is usually biotar/metar, and judging by the test photos, all the lenses were in place, this is certainly strong.. It was necessary to write at least honestly that there was no money )))

And yes, I take pictures at a resolution of 3MP, I have nothing to do to take pictures at 8MP or even more so in RAV if this is just overkill. Esox.. For my camera, the limit is a photo of 1000X700, well, a maximum of 1500X1000, and for yours and 800X600 a lot.. Trying to look for something more, taking into account the features of soapbox objects and matrices, is all the same as catching arapaima in the toilet))

"Drawing and delaminating aberrations" is, in my opinion, something new in the theory of optics, but well, at least this time not abbreviations.

bee-generally merges with the lower part of the flower
Well, how can they not merge when they are behind the zone of sharply displayed space. Of course, I could scratch the bee separately from the flower in order to separate it, but this would be drawing and not photography, I don't do that.

Oh yo.. The treatise..
If Esox had read more, he would have learned that triplets, and resp. and its megaloupe, which is also a 2x or 3x lens gluing, aberrations are given just by drawing(well, a monocle in general). And tessarae twist the image. Although there is no sharpness in focus for triplets, and even more so when shooting with a magnifying glass.
By the way, if Esox were reading, he would know that a planar is essentially two triplets together, of course, the latest modifications of planars are already different, there is no symmetry, but nevertheless aberrations are well corrected in them, which are simply huge for a triplet and a simple planar..

But in general-well, just a takeaway.. Ezox hung around with shabby objects and raging soap boxes and grumbles like an xphotographer who only takes pictures with mamias )) This is the poc, tovarishchi.. I don't like Zhpeg anymore.. RAV in the soap box.. Bokeh.. ))))))

Ezox, so what's a new camera, no mirrorless, full-size at least?))

This pan should read more, calculate optical circuits, design "loopholes" with lenses placed exactly about it, and get garbage at the output. And I prefer to experiment, putting different lenses and lenses to the cameras, preferring to strain my brain in other areas.

Esox.. or is it still Esox? "Strain your brains" - what jargon is slang? ))
So, our Ezoksa still hit the intrigue, instead of saying the normal model of the camera..

As for how to take photos of triplets, industriars and biometars-here is a selection of photos, without processing and cropping, everything is standardized, only the position of the camera was changed in accordance with the standard settings. with MDF and the object itself.

Tri - tessar I23U (110), famous F2 / 92 and Polish triplet AMAR / S 4.5 / 105 Fotik Olympus SP510UZ

First of all-MDF and the type of object, measured from the front lens

F2 / 92 8cm
AMAR / S 4.5 / 105 13cm
I23U (110) 11cm

Well, sobsno pictures. It is worth paying attention to the much larger GRIP of 2/92, as well as to the" drawing " of the dotted line on the sheet and on the galls of the nutcracker, on the soft background of 2/92.. the conclusions are basically obvious.. In general, there are no Chudes, and (consider German) 400g against Polish 70g and industriarovsky (also like a German development) 100g still mean weight And of course, the MDF and GORIP are affected not only by the focal length (it certainly affects and has the main role), but also by the type of objective, advanced planars have more grip and MDF - less..

Pictures:

amar105.jpg — (1.06мб)


F2_92.jpg — (1.1мб)


Industar23U110.jpg — (1.14мб)


P9082566.jpg — (280.98к)