Photocameras

And my kayak superzum is called "Kodak Z550". But in vain pani drooled, even if she finds such a photo at the flea market, she will not get such smooth (without)DSLR-like pictures without very serious communication with gimpozhops and/or RAV-konvertars (and RAV is written there for 15 seconds). Because, as I have already said, the noise of the matrix, despite all its innovation, is quite strong, and in a camera run, these noises are generally transformed into a kind of film grain. Although, if Pani liked the "antique" stripes on the pictures of Pan Alex's smartphone, then maybe even the Kodak grain will check it out. I prefer to clean up these "coccus colonies", and as you can see from the previous examples, it turns out very well and with minimal loss of small details.

Here is a raw camera run for comparison, exif is present:

By the way, that's what it means-a liar-most of all shouts that everyone is lying

I wonder why some people can't bear to discuss entomological matters without turning any harmless topic into a political dump.

Well, yes, I mixed up the numbers a little (apparently, I crossed them with the deceased Kenan A550), so the new camera didn't have time to learn the name yet. And this is not a lie, because lying is a conscious action (for example, cheating with test snapshots), and anyone can make a mistake by accident.

On the fence, too, it is written, just regarding those prichdalov, to which pan (i) suddenly began to show a keen interest,but if I carried tal, except for splinters, the result is unlikely to be. This camera really slows down, but only with some memory cards, and the role is played not by the speed class of it, but by something else. On the other hand, it turns off automatically. But the 500Mb card, which I got in the load for the A550, despite its 2nd class and, obviously, a very turbulent past, came up perfectly, no brakes (except when recording RAV). Autofocus in terms of speed and tenacity is about the same as in the A550 and much better than in the A540, there are no complaints. There is a tracking mode. there is burst shooting, the speed of which is simply cosmic, even compared to the A540, not to mention the A550, which took 5-10 frames at maximum resolution and took a break for a few seconds. The previous owner said that compared to the " Nikon d[some small figure]", it really is a brake, but I haven't had a chance to compare it yet.

It is about such a picture - with a blue sky in large blue polka dots, really with this camera you can forget, but it would be better not to remember at all. By the way, judging by how often Pan (i) gives a picture of this buzzard, this is the only successful attempt to shoot a flying bird. It must have been circling slowly overhead, and low.

Here, for example, is a squirrel that has climbed to the very top of an oak tree, so that the eye could only see a small red spot, ISO400:



In this case, the resize is quite justified for the reason that due to noise on a full-size small details are not much more visible. When viewed, even a green acorn above the top of her head was found.

What I didn't like about fotik:

1) noise and especially the nature of their processing in a camera run;
2) there is no white balance according to the sample, although you can't really balance it in the field with this sample, so this feature is more theoretically useful, I've never used it on power tables;
2) an extremely non-ergonomic menu, for example, to change the shutter speed from the smallest to the biggest one, requires more than dozens of clicks of the navipad, which also does not add speed to shooting;
3) At maximum zoom, the lens is somewhat dark, in the "maro+" mode it becomes generally dark, despite the fact that the flash is forcibly turned off; obviously, the designers did this because the lens in this mode would still cast a shadow on the object, the possibility of light overvoltage by the user using simple devices, obviously turned out to be higher from understanding;
4) The optical stabilizer does not turn off. For example, if you want the moon to stop in the sky and not float slowly around the frame, you need to wait a few seconds after the camera is fixed, and it will probably stop far from the center. But the stabilizer itself is very good. However, as I have already written, when macro shooting moving insects, it is of little use. Here the moon, in principle, can be photographed with an acceptable result at maximum zoom and with your hands. Although from a tripod, of course, it's better.
5) You can't turn it on in view mode, only in shooting mode, which requires removing the lens cap. At the same time, it moves out a little, which means that there is an extra consumption of energy and mechanical resources. In my opinion, this is the biggest and completely incomprehensible flaw of the manufacturer. Omeryga in electronics rules, yes!
6) In the teleposition, the sun in the frame gives a strong illumination in the form of ghostly spots of irregular shape. Although judging by the article on the link of pan(s), this should not be the case. Apparently, the dust, which is very small inside the lens, still got to some critical place. But this problem is no longer directly related to the company "Kodak".
7)Heavy and huge, kayaks-and that says it all...

I'm still happy with everything else. The transfocator works very quickly and quietly compared to the A-series power shots, reaching 30X twice as fast as the last 4X ones. At the same time, the sharpness does not drop at all, only transverse HA are added, but if you shoot in RAV, then they can then be easily painlessly removed in the converter. The dynamic range is wider than in the A540 and much wider than in the A550. The flash blows down powerfully, but without the feeling of an exploding firecracker. It is located high - you can forget about red eyes. But, in general, portraits with it come out very special, in order not to get a camera from the model in the face for revealing all the horror of the microrelief of her skin, you will have to do a wavelet decomposition. Still, you need softer lenses for portraits. Here, too, you can set the "soft mode", but this is just a stupid blurring with a disgusting result. The video is simply gorgeous compared to the poor powershot VGA, I haven't noticed the wavy effect characteristic of CMOS matrices yet, although according to reviews, it still happens sometimes. The sound, however, is not very good, although it is stereo.



I couldn't have bought anything better for that price anyway. Even the Olympus masters are worth more here. Although I look at Kenon's superzumas, which are sold 2-3 times more expensive, and, especially, I look at the frames from them with envy, they are still much better, just like the EOS 300-400D DSLRs, which are on sale on the secondary market in Donetsk for 3000 - 3500 UAH. With even greater envy, I look at the "Pentax K-x", offered in almost new condition, there, the stabilizer is directly on the matrix, you can cling to any Soviet lens, including tele - and it will be no worse than Kenanov/Nikonovo, and there is practically no noise even on ISO 800, and the size is very compact as for DSLRs, but I do not have an extra 5500 UAH, as, indeed, 3500. But I look at all sorts of" markovki " at the price of a good foreign car rather with bewilderment: are there really such wealthy khvotograkhs in the current Donetsk, and will they take security with them when going to shoot?

Finally, in appearance, I found this epic projectionist, originally stupidly called pan/pani (all right, decide quickly with your European choice, otherwise it's not convenient to write like this every time) "OP-92": http://radojuva.com/2014/11/92-2-leti-60-m-fun-lens/ The illumination on the front lens is also peeling off?

Missed it.

I wonder why some people can't bear to discuss entomological matters without turning any harmless topic into a political dump.

Here, in fact, they discuss more photographic matters, and only two people have been actively discussing them lately, and if they sometimes casually mention politics in passing, I think this is excusable. Here you currently have something to write on the topic of photography? If so, please write to us.

I notice a very unpleasant phenomenon: many entomologists try to ignore politics, ignore it, and criticize those who remind them of it. It's like going out into the desert without water, trying not to notice your thirst, and being angry at a fellow traveler for reminding you of it with his act, word, or just the presence of a flask on your belt. Because, you know, you didn't come to the desert to drink water, but to catch black-calves. I assure you that such abstraction from vital problems cannot end well.

This post was edited by ENO-08.09.2016 23: 18

Sanctions, Esox, sanctions..

As for the quality of images - this image is not just cropped, but also increased from 500 to 1200, that is, a plus size. And this is a 3 MP source and 10X zoom

Pictures:

P928064469.jpg — (219.64к)

After all, one of the halves of the personality of pan/pani is shamelessly lying, because the last time the same picture was claimed to have been taken not just with a 10x zoom, but also with a 10x tambourine:

Here is the developer
These are pictures of the same moon, but there's something different about them, isn't there, Esox ?
If that's what it is, THIS original frame is just from 10X without cropping and zooming in.. About spots and details-it's generally sad The point is that really, with this framing and in comparison with megazum.. It remains only to sympathize with such a resolution of this "megazum" ..
More than that, poor Ezox..

Pictures:

P928048869.jpg — (24.56к)

Now repeat the same thing, but in Russian.

The fact that all the pictures in this topic capture the same moon, I guess, because no one else in the Solar system or beyond, even Panov magaprebpribduda 10X10 will not finish. Or does pan deny that here-this and this just one picture, I don't know what it was taken with? In this case, he should give lessons in godless lies to Ukrainian politicians. But the last picture, most likely, is different: the white balance on it is different and the spots are just invisible. Pan claims to have miraculously created the first of them? And the recipe for this alchemical action is possible? And I warn you: in case Pan tries to cheat again by changing the pictures, I saved a copy of this page.

With this short euphemism, Pan admits the fact of his blatant lies about the pictures of the moon?

All, enough, in ignore for three months)))

The usual state of a professional thief (or, in this case, a chronic liar) who has been grabbed by the hand is anger and aggression. And does Pan guess what finally proved his deception? Yes, those same red spots, or rather, their identical location on two images and their absence on the alleged "source code". But I wonder how many other acts of Panov's lies remained unsolved? In the old days, I would have believed that the situation with photo manipulation is the result of simple confusion and panovoy dementia: do not remember what, and what fotkal, and where from crop or resize. It would be deplorable, but it would be excusable, and it would only deserve compassion. However, unfortunately, recently Pan's actions have completely undermined my faith in his honesty. So if this forum goes "ignored for three months", or even for the rest of his life, perhaps it will only be for the best. Nevertheless, I can't help but express my gratitude to Pan for several significant pushes of my engineering ideas in the field of creating macro attachments, without which I would have continued shooting with a powershot in normal mode, mistakenly thinking that something more is available only for expensive cameras with replaceable optics. However, Pan should also thank me for creating an atmosphere of healthy competition without which, probably, his megaphotos would still look the same as they did six months ago:

However, I don't hold out much hope in this regard, knowing that pan by its very nature is an ungrateful creature in principle. The main fact is that both of us have gone through an evolutionary path in the field of macro photography this year (even if each of us has his own), which allowed us to achieve very tangible results compared to what happened last year. And that's a good thing.

Here, in fact, they discuss more photographic matters, and only two people have been actively discussing them lately, and if they sometimes casually mention politics in passing, I think this is excusable. Here you currently have something to write on the topic of photography? If so, please write to us.

I notice a very unpleasant phenomenon: many entomologists try to ignore politics, ignore it, and criticize those who remind them of it. It's like going out into the desert without water, trying not to notice your thirst, and being angry at a fellow traveler for reminding you of it with his act, word, or just the presence of a flask on your belt. Because, you know, you didn't come to the desert to drink water, but to catch black-calves. I assure you that such abstraction from vital problems cannot end well.

Most entomologists do not "abstract" from politics, but understand that there are other forums for discussing it and go there if they want. Yes, you do not talk about politics, but simply try to hook, prick, offend, offend the interlocutor with politically colored and other words. And not "for casually, casually", but in almost every post. Decent people don't talk like that. Notice how quickly there are only two people left on this (and other) page. Because your bickering is unpleasant for normal people to read. Well, entertain each other, and we'll discuss macro photography issues elsewhere. and most importantly - with other people.

Information in the subject line.
Previously there was a topic on the forum: how to make a macro photo with a smartphone and a lens from smena, a good idea(when there is nothing else to take a picture with), but a HIGHSCREEN smartphone on Android (with a camera like 2MP?) and it takes disgusting pictures compared to a regular LG phone (with a 1.3 MP camera), I can compare it, since there are both of them.

I travel on the Internet, often come across videos of using a smartphone and lenses from a Chinese pointer to get macro photos. So I just decided to try "nothing to do", since there are still "live" old phones and "non-living" pointers.
The lens is pulled out of the pointer elementary, and the temporary attachment to the phone is spied on the Internet (with an elastic band).
And so the phone LG (T300) + lens from the pointer.
General view.


The lens is set with a more convex side to the subject(as in a pointer).


Geometric distortions can be easily corrected in almost any editor.

But the lens is mounted with the convex side facing the phone. The difference is palpable.


Without a miniature illuminator (preferably a circular one near the lens), it turns out to be dark or in a sliding light.








Sharpness is slightly improved in insect images.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-23.11.2016 23: 12

The contrast is good, the color reproduction is clear, and the HA is very weak (in these pointers, the lenses are aspherical), but the distortion is, of course, terrible. Correction in the editor leads to a decrease in sharpness at the edges, and with it there is already not so hot. I need a slightly larger lens.

Helios 44-2 70th year of release instead of the standard object on Olympus C-480, with 4 MP, which is clearly even a lot
Focusing from 40cm to infinity on pure helios, EFR approx. 400mm, eq. 15X zoom on ordinary zoom soap dishes, when using the F2-92 MDF object from 7 to 12 cm as a macro attachment, the GRIP is certainly much smaller than on native soap objects, but the detail is higher. When using only helios, there are no special problems with the GRIP, but the scale is certainly not the same.

Photos for example from different distances, from 3 km to 5 cm, Helios is light and quite sharp already at 2.0, because only its center works, so you can easily take pictures with your hands without any stabilizers both in cloudy weather and even more so in sunny weather, with the aperture covered. Manual focusing is even better than the soapbox brake, the percentage of sharp frames is higher, even in difficult situations, only the viewfinder needs to be attached to the screen )





The weight of pribluda with helios is 350 g, with F2-92 750g.

Pictures:

P1060034.jpg — (347.1к)


P1010206.jpg — (665.46к)


P1010121.jpg — (650.27к)


P10107153.jpg — (528.07к)


P1017046.jpg — (593.31к)


P1010153.jpg — (687.24 k)


P10107048.jpg — (395к)


P1010163.jpg — (665.85 k)


P10107026.jpg — (741.66к)

About 15X zoom did not understand, there is no zoom lens in any of the lenses. And UZ kayaks are already fse? The experiment is certainly interesting, but the quality is so-so (there is no contrast, the noise is very noticeable), with a kayak without any transfers it was much better (plus autofocus). In general, Pan has a European salary for three years, I would have bought at least a second-hand DSLR carcass, and I would have already clung to it everything that my wild imagination dictates. It will be much more useful.

About 15X zoom did not understand, there is no zoom lens in any of the lenses.

We are talking about the equivalent ("eq. 15X zoom on regular zoom soap dishes").
And the result is not even bad for Helios 44-2.

In fact the result is excellent for Helios
All the problems come from the matrix, but nevertheless, for example, here are more complete crops with processing in Photox-brightness filters, anti-alias, noise removal,sharpening.

And now this is a full-fledged "mirrorless", with a puck from Zenit, everything is reliable, and you can easily change the objects

Pictures:

P10102031.jpg — (517.45к)


P10102061.jpg — (558.73к)


P1080053.jpg — (286.27к)

Great idea (the old camera and a lot of lenses remain "in use").
To improve the contrast, you need to pay attention to the glare surfaces and, if possible, "cover" them with black matte enamel or some other material.
This may be necessary due to the fact that in this case, only the center of the image field from the 35mm film lens will work, and the rest of the light will be absorbed (by the details) or scattered (which is undesirable).

This post was edited by Yuriy352-18.02.2017 18: 59

Object F2 92 with an attached aperture and a thread for Zenith, EFR approx. 640mm, for comparison-a picture with SP510UZ, its maximum EFR is 380mm. They have approximately the same aperture, both photos on the aperture of approx. 4.
A picture of the board from 1.2 meters, at 1.2 m the field of view is 3 cm, without processing.

Pictures:

P10104064.jpg — (1.09мб)


P1080054.jpg — (699.04к)


P10100452.jpg — (1.06мб)

Well, as you might expect, without the soap "Heleos" it turns out much better in all respects. It's just a pity that it's not a macro. And something has to be done with the white balance. And it is necessary to write in such a way that someone other than the author himself, after reading it, can clearly and unambiguously understand what the message is about. Here, for example, what is ea garbage like?

Top SP510Uz + I11m 300mm, distance 70cm
Bottom C480 +F2-92, distance 1.5 m, shutter speed / aperture approximately the same.

Pictures:

P1090058.jpg — (798.92к)


P1010072.jpg — (898.73к)

In general, the baidishchi is more soapy (it is understandable, there are many layers of glass), in the" pumped soap dish", in general, it is sharper, but at the edge of the frame it is worse, especially at the bottom (is the lens attached obliquely?), and we suck badly with the white balance. Is it even possible to change it there at all? But it's better not to take an incomprehensible picture of the board (still, this is not an electronic forum), but at least that dusty hornet. Then at least the scale will be clear. But still, the way to replace shitty mill lenses with normal Soviet ones, which I suggested at the beginning of last year, seems very promising.

Here is this, TK, say, "markrosmka")) you go to yourself, and standing up straight, without bending down, you take pictures )) You don't even need to sit down)
Magpies on Google Earth were at a distance of approx. 250m, it was overcast, and it was barely noticeable even that these are birds sitting, and I took a picture - and you can even see which ones)
The spider was sitting in the middle of a puddle with a diameter of approx. 5 meters, if not more, the size of the spider is about 5mm. This, I understand, is power, F2-92 steers! )))))
Spidey and sparrow - drops, and the rest-almost or full frame )

Helios certainly can not compete with this object, but the weight of Helios is about 150g, if not less, it is light as a feather, while it is quite sharp at aperture 2, although it does not hold the background light and contrast. And the F2-92 weighs 450g along with the diaphragm block and M42 thread, and is sharp only with 3.

Pictures:

P1010136.jpg — (637.04к)


P1010112.jpg — (578.68к)


P1010125.jpg — (705.09к)


P1010238.jpg — (536.73к)


P10104244.jpg — (343.91к)


P1010169.jpg — (664.8к)

Sofa experts-they all know
As for the Industriar LD 61, Industriar, being a 4-lens simple object, is several times worse than Helios, in all respects.Macro they can be photographed, but...

The image shows a number of fragments taken by the 61 LD Industrial Radar, the apertures from left to right are 2.8, 4, 5.6, 16.
As you can see, the first two diaphragms are completely non-working, the working diaphragms 5.6 and 8, 11 and 16 are also not working. Shooting from a distance of 20 cm.

Helios 11 still has quite a working aperture, and 2.8 too, and on 2ke you can completely shoot a portrait or some kind of plant, if straight sharpness is not important. And if you add a macro ring to it, it's only approx. 1cm, then it can take photos from 15cm and closer.

Pictures:

P71010030.jpg — (1.16 mb)

N-yes, it's all crap from Pan Stepovoi, not macro. I recommend going back to the old scheme, with a kayak and a nozzle, it worked much better with it. Well, leave this exotic telemacrophotic only in case of photographing super-scary insects for purely scientific purposes. Well, or in case of a severe attack of sciatica

This is followed by full raw footage taken by an A550 with an I-96U nozzle.:






The shooting distance is 6-10 cm, but this is already too much for me, with the 2-3 cm that the magnifier gives, it is much easier to photograph a stationary insect on the wall using a camera case as a mini-tripod.

Today, if the weather is sunny, I will try to shoot the Z990 in "micro mode" with my hands. Considering how the image danced at the slightest touch, even when shooting with a tripod, the field will be completely tinny, but suddenly it will work. For one thing, perhaps, I'll take a picture of birds, yesterday I saw zimnyaka in the sky, but there was nothing to get.

I bought a macro ring M42 Screwed on my soap dish-mirrorless, in principle, what I understood earlier in theory - the closer the MDF, the worse the GRIP, in general, the goal was to be able to take pictures of macro from the knees, because with the original MDF with a meter from the knees, it is very inconvenient to take pictures, and there is not always enough light from the hands.

The photos show photos of scolia with the original MDF from the meter, with three macro rings, and with one medium, all full frames. All three macro rings give min. MDF about 10cm, medium size from 60 to 30 cm, what you need)

Pictures:

P1010540.jpg — (434.63к)


P1010538.jpg — (520.5к)


P1010534.jpg — (510.12к)

Well, a couple of yesterday's photos, for example, how the projection object 2-92 fells Of course, Helios is worse, but as expected, the Soviet Department did not do normal things for people )))

Pictures:

P1010285.jpg — (700.56к)


P1010373.jpg — (975.73к)


P1010497.jpg — (632.19к)


P1010442.jpg — (495.74к)


P1010435.jpg — (1mb)


P1010439.jpg — (800.54к)


P1010410.jpg — (776.15к)

Mdya.. The expert again veschaet (((
Photographers partretitsy, this is probably those that take pictures of desks, but those that take pictures of portraits-use if helios, then helios 40
And helios 44 is a massive object, according to our comparisons, it certainly does whale objects from simple DSLRs in detail, cool ergonomics, only the aperture preset ring is strong, I messed up the same for 2-92, the focus is very smooth, it feels like when you take a picture of helios and a sad whale from a modern digital mirror - you can't compare but in contrast, it is very weak. This is despite the fact that at that time there were technologies that made it possible to get a good contrast.

Especially today I took photos from the same place from Helios and 2-92 with the same settings. Helios simply fills the image with light, whereas 2-92, and they are almost the same by year of release, perfectly keeps the contrast. More modern helios of the 44m type give a slightly better contrast, but you can't compare it with the whale, although the helios gives out many times more details and is sharp immediately at the open aperture.

Pictures:

P1010616.jpg — (865.13к)


P1010618.jpg — (871.01к)

Tests with macro rings "in nature", it's a pity that it's already in the evening, so it's relatively high for both the ISO 2004 soap dish and the open aperture, but nevertheless. All complete frames, the size of the tick and sclerotia is approx. 1 mm. Photos from knees squatting with MDF approx. 60 cm, this is certainly a force, even in the dark you can take pictures, before you had to either almost lie down or even turn around) The frame field at 60cm MDF is about 19mm, at 30cm (focusing at maximum) 14mm.

By the way, even do not see photos of birds from our megazumschika with 30x zoom ))

Pictures:

P1010568.jpg — (520.56к)


P1010626.jpg — (287.24к)


P1010592.jpg — (621.82к)


P1010561.jpg — (496.59к)