Photocameras

Pan Stepov, like a true gopnik, does everything "on the courts": he catches fish and takes pictures of ticks. And he likes to peel seeds in this position?

Oh, there are already "sad whales" swimming in Pan's ocean! It would be better to have at least the most depressing carcass, otherwise it's just scary to look at the grain of the last photo, despite the fact that optically everything turned out very well there. In the meantime, there is no carcass, I want to take pictures in poor lighting, but my flash fear has not passed, so here is my recommendation to pan: "take pictures from your knees" in a series, and then align the results with each other and average (or better- "umedianivat"). So the noise will go away, but the details will remain. Just keep your knees from shaking. In normal people, a tripod is used for these purposes instead of knees. By the way, at a shooting distance of up to 5 cm, as I have on the A550, the case from this camera rolls as a tripod. But for the Z990 + And-11M bundles, you need to pull a real big tripod behind your back, but well, it's better to use a flash. Yes, and the bag with the kayak itself is very little pleasant to pull. And, most importantly, when I take it with me, neither birds nor animals come across (and when I don't take it, they do, the law of meanness is in action), and instead of a normal excursion to nature, some dances around the camera turn out. Here, last time, I came across an old pole, it was the first time I tried to shoot in RAW with standard optics. The sharpness was not enough, but I did not use any methods to increase it (they are always turned on in soap dishes). But the dynamic range was pleasing - it was possible to draw out the glare on the lower surface of the insulator ribs at a distance of about 30 m, which the naked eye could not distinguish at all. Similarly, you can also dim over-lit areas. Therefore, slightly incorrect exposure is no longer a problem. But only noise and posterization can be extracted from a dull run, then in fact there is only one way of exposure correction-to re-shoot everything again.



100% size, strong crop, two options for "pulling shadows" for comparison. The maximum aperture for the teleprompter is 1:5.6, I don't remember the shutter speed, I shot it in aperture priority mode. It's bad that the PNG exif isn't saved.

This post was edited by ENO - 26.02.2017 02: 41

Yeah.. If this is not a wiggle, then it is better not to take pictures of the birds on this ultrazum )))
Even it seems to me that I have a post on a bunch of C-480 with 4 MP and 2-92 with 100 meters better came out

Pictures:

P10170053.jpg — (1.12мб)

On Google Earth, the distance to the dogs was about 370 meters, and at the same time the photo is only from the hands, of course, without any stabilizer. And once again-on a 4 MP matrix with a size of 5 mm. The fact that there was a magpie flew, I only then noticed )))
In fact, the whole point is that no matter how much I looked at test photos from soap boxes-ultrazums, everywhere the objects are terrible.

Pictures:

P10180448.jpg — (1.05мб)

And how is Panov's photo of the pillar better than mine? This is my crop of a small piece. Yes, and the sharpness of pan is definitely increased programmatically, this happens in all soap dishes without exception when recording a camera zhopneg. But, of course, no matter what Soviet lens there is, even if "Helios", it will be sharper than on modern superzums, at least due to the fact that the focal length is constant, and therefore the scheme is much simpler and more reliable. However, what is the color scheme, if I may say so,? Perhaps with such a unit Duce b/w photos detail.

Here is the entire pillar with increased sharpness:



PNG of this size forum refused to swallow, I had to translate into a dull zhopeg. But the pillars are bullshit. Does Pan remember last year's argument about the moon?

Here it is, dear, in one shot:



And here is a cross-link of 10 frames:



True, I already sewed PNG, after noise reduction, because I didn't find a program that could sew rava with a turn. Next time I'll try to take photos from a tripod so that there are no distortions, and then I'll try out the Regax, it should be awesome in general.

But, after all, Rav is a force. Pan I think remembers what sad stuff instead of the moon I got out of the camera run last time.

This post was edited by ENO - 27.02.2017 07: 45

This is certainly a bomb in the field of macrophotos )))
Object based on the object from the Lomo school microscope, can focus from infinity to 10 cm without a macro ring, FR ok 17mm, focal length 15mm.
All photos on this object ) Full frames, + crop eyes

Pictures:

P1010913.jpg — (702.08к)


P1010936.jpg — (521.97к)


P1010951.jpg — (524.14к)


P1010952.jpg — (467.47к)


P1010956.jpg — (642.97к)


P1180068.jpg — (305.7к)

I understand that Pan Stepovoi writes riddles on purpose. so that no one can repeat his experience. "The object from the Lomo school microscope" is the height of a conspiracy idea, given how many different lenses there were, and all as one - "Lomo". About the other components of the system, thanks to which it can focus, too, silent. So love, please and envy my design genius, pathetic consumers of DSLRs and soap dishes.

But while Pan was making a camera lens out of a microscopic lens, I was making a camera lens out of a camera lens (the same lens block from Mir) and kayak Z990 is a real portable microscope. The magnification of the pc is steeper than that of the MBS, and you can count the facets in the insect eye, which are completely difficult to distinguish with the naked eye. The truth and GRIP is appropriate. This is at maximum zoom, but on average it turns out a very good macro, the only trouble is vignetting



The aperture, especially at maximum zoom, is not very good, although it is better than with the I-11m, on a sunny day it is fashionable to take pictures with ISO 125 (at least for kayaks) even from your hands, but it is better to focus, not so much because of the wiggle, but because of the fact that at the slightest When you shake your hands, the area of sharpness often moves very far away from the point of interest in the instant that passes between the autofocus firing and the shutter click. The entire insignificance of the GRI is best seen in this picture of a first-instar stickworm (approximately 2 cm across the body).:



It's not even the thickness of a knife blade anymore. and a safety razor blade...
And this is not yet the maximum zoom. The maximum is here:



In the sun, however, there is a "cosmic" light effect, especially when shooting light-colored insects with a large zoom:




Therefore, it is better to go out in partial shade and zoom in less:




Or even better in the shadow with a flash:








The flash is made through a spreader in the form of a washer made of polyethylene foam with an eccentric hole, the like of which I have often advised Pan Stepovoi to reprimand, but he is still afraid.

I'll take a photo of the nozzle and spreader some other time.

Now don't forget about program processing. The Kodak in-camera tag, as I noted earlier, is just awful. The color is killed, the noise is turned into some kind of large light grain with small black specks. As it turned out later, the chamber shumodv brings only harm, and not a drop of benefit, at least at ISO 125.

Camera mileage, fully standard optics in the"supermacro" mode:



And here is the zhlpeg I received from RAV with the brightness noise reduction COMPLETELY turned off (only chroma is turned on).




If you do not increase it much, it is quite watchable. By the way, I still haven't found a suitable program that could suppress the noise in these images without harming small details. Still, the supermarket lens is quite sharp and gives almost pixel-by-pixel detail. With the attachments, of course, the sharpness drops, there you can already gently reduce the noise without much harm to the image. For example, the result of all possible filtering "to taste" in RawTherapee:



And this is a camera run from the same frame:



It's also at the exit of the NeatImage noise dump:



Well, to top it off, a picture taken using an old nozzle, long-range with "I-11M":



Here it is so dark so dark, with not the brightest sun in order to avoid stirring, I had to bend the ISO all the way to 800, then long and tedious to clean up the noise and increase the sharpness. Nevertheless, it turned out quite well. I also noticed that the shutter speed affects the amount of noise in kodak to a greater extent than in Kenon. And if at 1/1000s, ISO800 is working, then at 1/640-not really. And ISO 400 at a shutter speed of 1/100 looks, perhaps, worse than ISO 800 at 1/1000. The A540 ISO 80 is even prettier at 1/60 shutter speed than the Kodak ISO125 at 1/1000 shutter speed, but the ISO400 is already out of order at any shutter speed. In general, everything is not easy.

Unfortunately, for feeding the forum, everything had to be translated into an ugly ass, which turns the gradients into a patchwork quilt smoother, I have everything converted from RAVs stored in PNG with a 16-bit color depth and looks noticeably prettier than here.

That's not all, I saved the most covered Mega-photos (TM) for next time.

The object is called Lomo 3.7 x, sitting in the helicoid from the infrared eyepiece.
But it's worth admitting that Esox's object turned out to be more artistic than Jupiter.

A picture of the same Oska, on the object from a microscope with two M42 macro rings.
Of course, no art, but the diameter of her eye is about 0.1 mm, in theory, the diameter of each facet is approx. 5 microns

Pictures:

P1010467.jpg — (423.41к)

Wasp riders are only for Americans. So in addition to the school microscope, MBS also suffered in the process of creating this miracle of technology... Is it a full-size crop or a resize? It should be noted that the depth of field for this scale is quite large, more than MBS or my pribluda. But with the white balance, you still need to do something. In general, after the first lens transplant with panova S-480, there is not a single photo that does not go into a deep aquamarine color scheme. Probably, her native lens was very yellow.

But as for the scale, you can't compete with my pribluda panova, well, except that he will wind up a couple of sets of rings.

The length of the body of this one, as pan puts it, beetles is less than 1 mm, it is noticeable only in motion, the size of the eye is already pan himself let him calculate.



And this is not yet the maximum increase, at the maximum only some trichograms to look at. And most importantly, you don't need to unscrew anything-you don't need to fasten it: the zoom will achieve a zoom change of dozens of times. Ah, there was a larger exit pupil. And there are no "arts" there, the lens block is very sharp, reception is all over the field, and contrast (except for the very middle, which, as I already noted, is very scratched), only the native Kodak lens, Schneider, by the way, limits. It loses a lot of sharpness at the far end. But attaching high-quality objects to a noisy soapbox matrix is also a road to nowhere. Because the sharper the lens, the more details in the image will have the same size as the noise grain, and therefore will be lost in it forever. As, in fact, Pan does with a microscopic lens. Therefore, the only reasonable way to achieve truly high - quality images is with Soviet optics (or imported similar ones = very, very expensive) + the carcass of a normal DSLR or mirrorless camera. And I am sure that sooner or later pan will come to this system, if of course the European salary is enough.

Speaking of birds...

The other day, I continued experimenting with an old LG T-300 phone.
Now I decided to get close to the photo matrix itself. In the characteristics stated 1.3 Mp, but it seems still less.
Having disassembled the phone itself in half, the camera lens was easily unscrewed (it was fixed with some glue at two points). The frame thread is approximately 5 mm (with a fine pitch).
Given the diameter of the threaded hole for the lens and the fact that the matrix does not overlap with it, we can assume that the diagonal of the matrix itself is no more than 4-4.5 mm(very small).
Here is such a lens.


Then everything was assembled in reverse order, except for the lens, of course.
As a result, the open matrix was covered by a protective glass that stood in front of the lens, but now it began to shade a little at the corners of the frame (not critical).

A flange from the old Zenith-E was glued to the phone (with silicone sealant).
The main primary tests took place with an Industriar 50-2 lens and a Sport movie camera lens(8Smm), plus a different combination of extension rings.


The result is this design.


Next, test photos from your phone.

1. Option with a lens from the cinema camera Sport (Triplet "T-40" 2.8 / 10mm) shooting with hands,
aperture 2.8.







2. Industriar 50-2 + different rings. Shooting with a tripod, the aperture is 5.6 .


In "microscope mode", about 170mm set of rings (slightly added "sharpness" by hands).


In macro mode.


Mesh in false scorpions with flour mites from a distance of about 40 cm.


False scorpions from a distance of about 40 cm and behind plastic. I had to add "sharpness" with my hands.


"Test object" from a distance of 60-70cm.






All test photos are full frames.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-22.03.2017 02: 00

Cool) But of course, a noisy image, very noisy, is no longer on aesthetic levels, and so the noise just clogs the image.
Well, Industriars and even more so Triplets are very crooked objects.
Try Helios 44-2, although it is low-contrast, it forms an image quite clearly.

The image should be noisy for such a phone and such a matrix, its JPG is intended for viewing on the 320x240 screen of the gadget itself. It has its own unique OS and the settings are the most primitive in reality video capture 176x144 (15 frames/s)
I tried the Zenitar-M lens(1,7/50) with it, it gives a slightly better result, but it is not for such a "device" and the matrix size(about 3.6 x 2.7 mm) is too small for this segment of photo lenses.

P.S.

"Helios" is attached to another "device"

This post was edited by Yuriy352-22.03.2017 02: 07

Well, yes, of course, but for some reason no one takes macro shots on Industriar in practice, and Industriars are cheaper than all other Soviet objects, even from perekupshikov)))
I tried shooting on industriar 61 ld, I11m, and I26U, so the image is much clearer on Helios 44-2.

Maybe German tessaras display something there, but the Soviets ' eagle eyes, alas, like everything else that was done for people in the Soviet Department, are no good.)

Who do you mean when you say that the Industry is "never filmed in practice"? If modern photographers, then everything is correct, do not shoot, because the aperture is small, the drawing is too hard and the zafocus blur is Tessar, torn.
Industriars are cheaper because the glass on the Tessar scheme takes less, and the lens itself is structurally cheaper with a simple helicoid. Plus, all of the above does not allow a hype to appear around these lenses like the one that arose around the lousy Helios-40 in all respects. By the way, Vega-11U is even cheaper, but in macro it will do both Industriar and Helios.
According to the passport, the resolution of Industriar is 61 and Volna-9 have 42 pairs of lines per mm, while Helios has 42 pairs of lines per mm.-44-2 38 pairs of lines. And the expensive Helios-40-2 has only 36 pairs of lines. Helios-81 is good in resolution, but it either has a bad mount for Kiev-10, or a brilliant aperture that glares and negates all the advantages of glasses.
In short, you still have a lot of experiments to do with Soviet optics...

Well, the current cost of objects is unlikely to be affected at all by their retail price of new ones under the USSR, if the same Industriars were at the same level, they would cost quite a lot.
Helios 40 is expensive because rapiareny as a portrait, bokeh all sorts, and so on, and yet, a comparison of Helios 40 and the object from which it was licked - as it says, without comments
http://evtifeev.com/8897-gelios-40-2-85-1-...85-1-4-c-y.html

And your photo is signed Vega 11U, so this object has a different optical scheme, but by the way, the aperture is the same as that of Industriar 61 LD, 2.8.And there are examples of images on Industriar 61 LD? It's on the DSLRs just under the macro)
And then I mean that I have not seen macro images of Industriars, although a lot of people shoot with the same Helios, see all sorts of macro galleries.
If you come across such a Vega now, then of course I will buy it, it's a pity that I didn't buy it before when I was there, and I will try, but I will avoid any Industriars, I wanted to take pictures of Helios 44 and 61 LD for comparison, but I didn't find the last one, did I really throw it out? )

Here are examples of images on the object from the Lomo 3.7 X microscope, its calculated aperture is 2.8, it is also the only one, and I take a picture on it.

Pictures:

17342583_736991876460979_3620976524850805333_n.jpg — (87.56к)


17457481_736991539794346_956491307774254603_n.jpg — (86.33к)

Industriars are also different. Best of all in my experience semi-format I-69 from"Chaika":





I-61 I tried only for relatively large insects:





Like the Wave-9, which impresses with its versatility, it can be used as a standard lens on Canon with the possibility of macro photography.:





I-50-2 is also quite good, but with a flash it is very zaitselovny. It is advisable to build a homemade blend.

Bianor, really I-69 takes good pictures!

For example, I took a picture of an old pupa on Lomo 3.7, on top, and Helios 44-2, on the bottom. The size of the pupa is about 7mm, on Helios the aperture is 4. By the way, it is worth clarifying that the focal length of Lomo is 16mm. And Helios is 58mm. Therefore, the background of Helios is smooth, which is inconvenient for a technical macro, but just right for an artistic one )
I'll find I 61 , take a picture on Helios and I 61)

Pictures:

P1011500.jpg — (523.65к)


P1011503.jpg — (458.37к)

Microscopic, but only 3.7, and with the GRIP, judging by the panov photos, everything is fine (in any case, much better than Helios). Please also note that the Panov miracle camera has a microscopic matrix, I suspect that on a normal one it will cover only a small piece in the center. And Pan has the same allergy to stacking, passing into anaphylaxis, as to the outbreak.

Miracles: on the 22nd, I spent the whole evening chasing taheens to take a picture at least somehow, and on the 23rd, one of them sat right on the kenon and climbed it for 15 minutes.




Even when I pulled the camera out from under it, it sat on the case:



Probably, from childhood I dreamed of a career as a fashion model.

Eyes, large and small:




And Pan's eyes are only visible on the experimental dead scolia.

And at least one photo of at least some skakunchik pan has?



As is well known, it is not a camera that takes pictures, but a photograph, and if the photographer does not notice anything smaller than melifera, then there will be trouble with the sHidevras even with perfect equipment.

Industriar-69:







Experiments with OKS-15-2. The picture is so-so, inconvenient at work:

After all, I-69 has ka kpo me more aberrations than Lomo 3.7 from the microscope, after all, the object scheme is simple for industrialists, in microscopic up to 10 lenses it can be used for planapochromatic correction.
And another important momet - I still take pictures with my hands without a diaphragm, well, with the factory aperture of Kotoray ok 2.8, and therefore the shutter speeds are acceptable even in the shade with Lomo, and on Industriar, in order for at least something to come out, I had to put 4, and on Helios too.

On small sizes, this is especially evident, here in the photos from 2mm to 5mm the size of spiders and leaf fragments.

+ photo of a mosquito larva from 2 meters with the help of an object 2/92 from LETI, also from hands. So far, this bundle is optimal for me )

Pictures:

P91010577.jpg — (530.12к)


P1011407.jpg — (607.14к)


P1011773.jpg — (503.7к)


P1011743.jpg — (618.39к)


P1011858.jpg — (357.36к)

I still managed to get Pan skakunchik to take a picture. True, almost from behind, but even that is already an achievement. So, you iron, and learn how to properly take pictures over time. And, of course, the optics are excellent, but the Soviet microscope is not a bourgeois soapbox consumer goods.

  
From what I have tested, only the lens block from Mir can compete with it, but as I have already noted, on the contrary, it has problems with the center due to the poor treatment of previous owners. So I finally translated it to Kodak, in this link the muddy spot in the center is not so noticeable, and it turns out quite a Shidevry:

I would like to look at the defects on the lens block from Mir. Sometimes it makes sense to cover a local defect (scuff or scratches) with paint(black) or better with black paper, so that there will be a loss of light intensity , but there will be fewer traces of the defect in the image.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-24.03.2017 17: 37

Now I don't want to take pictures and upload them, it's easier to describe in words: on the outside of the front and back lenses, the illumination is completely erased right in the center, and under it on the glass there are intricacies of the smallest scratches in the form of the Mercurian Caloris crater. Nothing can be covered with paper there - instead of a cloudy spot, there will be a clear black plaque. The only thing that you can try is to drive the soot into the scratches, but I suspect that this will cause the same spot to appear on the pictures only, not light, but dark, and noticeable not in the reverse light, but in any conditions.

This post was edited by ENO-24.03.2017 17: 57

If the illumination is damaged, the" blackening " of scratches will give a very small result. In principle, I am not a supporter of irreversible experiments, here as in medicine - "the main thing is not to harm".

Images taken by Industriar 69
Absolutely no processing, no brightness, no contrast, only crop with the same proportions of focal lengths.
For comparison - a picture on Lomo, the calculated aperture is 2.8, it is also the only
one later And69, the aperture is 2.8, 5.6 and 11
Where the picture on 5.6 is illuminated with a flashlight.
The size of the helmet is about 1.5 mm.

Not, of course, the fact is that the illumination on the rear lens is damaged on the I69, the front one is in good condition-probably because of the narrow and deep cone. But still) Yes, and in the pictures above, you can see that 69 is also sick.
Interestingly, its grip clearly seems to be larger even by 2.8, the scale is also larger compared to the Lomov scale, since the focal length is smaller by Lomo.
Through the haze, some details are viewed, but..
It was a good thing it cost half a pupaar at the flea market

Pictures:

P1013019.jpg — (269.92к)


P1013022.jpg — (290.57к)


P1013035.jpg — (318.85к)


P1013023.jpg — (284.52к)


P1013032.jpg — (375.01к)

For the Industriar 69, this is normal work, I have two such lenses and with the same results (especially large light scattering). Its purpose is a "Chaika" camera with a format of 18 × 24 mm (72 frames per standard film and performed its function (the quality of images was limited to the grain of the film).

This post was edited by Yuriy352-01.04.2017 16: 21

So Panov's soapbox frame is much smaller even than that film, and the grain will probably be larger. Immediately, there are no complaints about sharpness, but the contrast is completely abnormal, indicating that one or more lenses are dirty/damaged.

A microscopic lens will always win when paired with a small matrix of the device, it was designed to work at small angles of view, and the "main" photo lenses are designed to work at 50-40 degrees and at the same time it was necessary to achieve a small difference in sharpness and light scattering over the entire image field (center and edges) and other aberrations , which is very difficult(especially in mass production).

This post was edited by Yuriy352-01.04.2017 16: 36

I reviewed the images with this objective (And others) on the Internet, all of them are more or less low-contrast and blurred ) The bottom line is that I shot essentially in half-light conditions, maybe if you try to shoot in sunny weather with the sun behind you, something will work out. But it's over, you can hardly use this particular object, it's better to search for it-in my case, there is no point ) Well, for nothing, And they are cheap everywhere, and it is difficult to find more expensive than one pupaar at ordinary flea markets and even at resellers)

All modes remain as they were, everything is the same, only there are no lenses in the lens) By the way, you can not delete the entire object, you only need to remove the upper glass with lenses, it is also the "nose" that leaves, and the focusing lower lens, it will have to be bitten out since the autofocus sensor is on its frame, the frame will have to leave it. And the lower glass with the zoom engine will have to be left too, in order to deceive the camera, because there are sensors for the integrity of the object. Well, of course, you need to leave the bolt block, just throw out the diaphragm.
And the bayonet, or rather the threaded ring from Zenith-is attached to the native protruding ring of Olympus through the adapter with screws, in general, it is desirable to do everything on screws, reliably, and so that you can disassemble well and not be afraid to drop it, etc.)

Some more information about the Industriar 50-2 and Industriar 69 lenses.
It is clear that these shots are not intended for an accurate comparison of these lenses, since the shooting was from different distances and at different scales, just another piece of information.

In addition to the" experimental " LG T300 phone, I don't have anything with an "open" matrix at hand (a DSLR with a DX crop matrix is not used in such fun ).
And so, apparently (according to the external dimensions of the camera and visual inspection of the matrix),
the phone has a 1/3. 2 " matrix with dimensions of 4. 5mmX3.4 mm, according to the passport there is a 1.3 Mp sensor.
A ruler was superimposed on the full frames, showing the actual size of the image on the matrix and where the division price is 0.1 mm. The frames are full 1280x960.

Industriar 50-2 (F5,6) lens from a distance of about 70 cm


Industriar 69 (F5,6) lens from a distance of about 8cm


This post was edited by Yuriy352-02.04.2017 19: 43

Photo from the Kodak Z1012 soap dish: matrix size 1/2. 3"(10.1 Mp), matrix size 6.13 mm X 4.6 mm( different sources call slightly different data 1/2. 33" (6.08 x 4.56 mm))
Minimal focus (so it soaps the edges) and a distance of about 12cm (native macro).
The image was 3648X2736 and naturally reduced. The scale superimposed on the image reflects the actual size of the matrix, or you can say the size of the image on the matrix (numbers are millimeters) by dividing 0.1 mm.


And almost the central" fragment "of the matrix (with an image), measuring 1mm by 1mm in "full" size.


This post was edited by Yuriy352-02.04.2017 21: 23