Photocameras

 

Much more. Sonka's matrices are the lowest - noise of all Baer's matrices on the market. Even in the latest Nikon 1s, their sensor makes less noise than most mics. Here-I would take such a Nikon, but they don't give it.

And yet, despite everything, and admitting that they make more noise, if I took a camera for hiking right now, I would take a micra. Because there is now a choice of different lenses and the cameras are really compact and do not weigh much. So to speak, a reasonable compromise between quality and convenience.

  
I liked this one the most, especially the average photo, both in quality and magnification.

Well, yes, this object rules in this regard ) Although its resolution is not very high, but small focal length=large zoom level.
True, comparisons of 90mm objects of my projection and tamron are not relevant due to the fact that I do not have an aperture less than 5.6 in fact on it, so the last photo is 5.6 and you have as much as 9.

And there was no processing on your photo, because they write that I participated in photoshop, I did not process my photos on sharp, only resiz

I don't remember what I had there, since the photo is more than two years old, but most likely it was converted from RAV, and there was no noise reduction or sharpening.

If there is a carpet at home, then I would take a picture of the pokavru series ) Here is a type of this, but this is just an example. A series with 2.8 4 5.6 or something like that, how many there are, I don't know.
Because I wonder what it will give out on such rows) aperture 9 is still too hard for active shooting with hands )

Pictures:

2P1250357.jpg — (185k)

Why not a brick wall? In fact, all lenses are designed for a certain focusing distance, and those that take good pictures of the carpet do not have to give a similar result on the "eyes". And this is one of the reasons why it is often used for macro lenses from photo enlargers - they are designed for a similar distance.

In order not to poop in the subject with a bunch of full-size images, here is a link to today's photos of moss (now we have a season of mosses and lichens in the sands):

https://mega.nz/#!1BgiGBbB!_VH0lMEC...Cq60k4rkNSxXDS0

There in EXIF'e all the data is there. It was already taken when it was getting dark, and out of habit I set the exposure correction to negative, so it turned out a little dark, but you can evaluate the sharpness. Aperture numbers 2,8(2 photos), 3,5, 4,5, 5,6, 6,3, 7,1, 9, 11(2 photos), 13, 16, 32 (2 photos). Everything is at ISO 100, except for one of the two photos with F / 32 - it is at ISO 400. At F/32 and F/16, the maximum possible shutter speed of 30 seconds is not enough. The photo shows that the best clarity at F/4 is F/7.1, good at F / 9, at F/11 there is already a noticeable drop in detail, and it is better not to shoot at F / 13 or higher. I usually shoot butterflies at F/5,6 - f/7,1, sometimes at f / 9, but still less often.

Yes, in principle, I wrote about this a long time ago - all Soviet objects, whatever they may be, even projection ones, will not be able to compete with even more or less normal whales, not to mention macro-objects, even if they are relatively expensive, but not expensive.

Even at the 2.8 aperture, there is no light turbidity, which all the scoop lenses that I have have up to 2.8 very strong, and some have. especially industriars and on the 4th diaphragm.

More or less in detail, only an unnamed secret peephole from a flea market for 10 UAH approached the tram, and then everything is still muddying)
But it has a large grip, but modern short-focus cameras will have the same, although they cost at least $ 300 )
On 2/92 more or less macro I take a picture on 5.6, also quite suitable, especially considering its price of $ 2)

But somehow it seems to me that on my 5.6 on the 90mm 2/92 object and on the Trumpon GRIP are different, on mine there is more grip, but less resolution.

The first photo is on 2/92 aperture 5.6, the second photo is 100% crop from the archive of the WaveShtorm with an aperture of 5.6
It seems that judging by the scale, there is a macro ring mode on the Nylon, maybe the GRIP drops from this.

Pictures:

22P1250290.jpg — (196.86к)


22011_01_20_IMG_0085.jpg — (147.82к)

And now we will listen to the expert opinion about the pictures of this wasp
One of them, the first, is made on an unnamed object, and the second on Vega 11U. Of course, it is unlikely that we will see expert pictures of such operating systems, but-such is life)))

Pictures:

P1260232.jpg — (206.2к)


P1260230.jpg — (223.68к)

Yes, and this option, but this approximation with the preservation of the GRIP only with the nameless is obtained )

Pictures:

P1260241.jpg — (232.44к)

Vega is much better, the "nameless" is full of overexposure, it's painful to look at. But the grain is terrible everywhere. Where's LOMO?"

And here we will now see what our expert is good for
We have prepared two images, one of them on a mirrorless camera, the second on a bezmylnitsa, one on a 5mm and 4MP matrix and ISO 50, the other on an 18mm and 12 MP matrix and ISO 320.
The object is the same, the object and lighting are the same.
Processing - only resize 100% of drops.
So, which one is which?

Pictures:

P10100347.jpg — (313.62к)

But somehow it seems to me that on my 5.6 on the 90mm 2/92 object and on the Trumpon GRIP are different, on mine there is more grip, but less resolution.

It may be available, but the GRIP still depends on the size of the matrix.
In the photo above, I prefer the one on the left.

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 12/17/2017 16: 21

It may be available, but the GRIP still depends on the size of the matrix.
In the photo above, I prefer the one on the left.

And how does this GRID depend on the size of the matrix? Maybe it depends on the pixel size?

And the photos are good, but IMHO, this is already what is called micro-photography.

The size of the matrix does not apply of course to the GRIP, and the pixel size is only indirectly, the GRIP depends directly only on the objective, and 95% of its focus, the smaller it is, the larger the GRIP. And it also depends on the resolution of the object, the higher the resolution, all other things being equal, the smaller the GRIP.

From these patterns, I think it follows why the GRIP on the Trumpon is significantly less than 2/92 with equal focal points - the resolution of the Trumpon is much higher.

The pixel size, or rather the pixel density, depends on the density of details per 1 mm.For example, on my converted Olympus, the pixel density is 200 thousand per millimeter, on the mirrorless camera presented, and on most similar cameras, about 55 thousand per millimeter. In the first case, the resolution of the matrix can easily be about 150 lines per 1 mm, in the second case, no more than 50.
Therefore, mirrorless users, and especially DSLRs, are forced to stretch the image as much as possible along the matrix plane, that is, either use a lot of macro rings, or use complex composite objects with high multiplicity, which reduces the GRIP and aperture.

I don't think this is a micro-camera, in my case, the maximum is about about 5 mm per frame, as in the photo of the ruler below ) This is exactly the real working scale with which I take pictures of animals from my hands, although it is not often needed, but for beetles from 2mm it is quite necessary )
But to do this, you need a wide-angle lens, from 30mm and below, and Vega 11U, which is 50 mm, is great for photographing what is from 2 cm to 10 cm.

Pictures:

P1260330.jpg — (177.83к)


P1260338.jpg — (348.08к)

Ixpert veschaet )))
What kind of photoshop? ))) This is footage without processing, who needs to confuse someone here, especially a sad expert who has already knocked himself down with his own expert tips so long ago
And the picture from bezmylnitsa is on the left

And in general, it's been three years since our ixpert, who screamed that fitting a lYnza to the camera's object is nonsense, then applied it. So, all these three years we contemplate on the acc. the images are still the same muddy lynza, overloaded with post-processing, without the slightest technical development.
Lack of initiative and stagnation Someone wrote something, ikspert took over, but even then, at the level - to wind up with an electrical tape
At the same time, the theoretical part is in the same place as the practical one ))
During this time, textbooks and manuals on optical design have been read, a lot of experiments have been made with dozens of different objects , all of them are described, documented, and the results are used in practice, and they allow you to easily and simply take pictures of any beetles in nature, upload them to specialized resources, and find new ones for the field and almost for Other types
And ixpert can only scratch on the Forum, and then turnip)) Although you need to not only scratch, but also work

And we didn't see the expert image of the pooolista

This post was edited by Hierophis - 12/17/2017 18: 33

In fact, the owners of cameras with large matrices benefit from just that,

Guest, are you the owner of Pentax kyu? All competent people know that all other things being equal, the larger the matrix, the more detailed the image. For the illiterate, it is enough just to compare photos with the same glasses on different systems (since the network is full of them now), but personally you can continue to imitate the heroes of your demotivator.

And how does this GRID depend on the size of the matrix? Maybe it depends on the pixel size?

But it's not. If you put the same lenses on both of them with the same aperture, focused at the same distance, then it will be the same, even if it is Panova bezmylnitsa and medium format. But they don't take pictures like that.

Yeah)) Everything is clear, the photo of polista ixpert is afraid to put up, but he saw a hastily photographed ruler, which was photographed on the weight to show the scale, and posted his p.... um, ruler))
And although the sharpness in the center is good, but the edges are skewed, as a result, the useful area of the frame is only in the center ))

But I can also do this, put a fotik and a ruler and do not touch anything))

Pictures:

P1260397.jpg — (282.36к)

And if you also make a crop like this in general, you can see every dot

Pictures:

2P1260397.jpg — (249.97к)

On two cameras with different matrix sizes and the same aperture, the GRIP will be smaller on the device with the larger matrix.

Can I explain this in more detail, why? From the fact that, conditionally, the matrix is increased twice, does the image quality change, all other things being equal?

Evenness, of course, is better than mine, but the scale is not the same! And I didn't put the camera anywhere. But this is at least the first sharp picture in several weeks of panov's stay on the forum, and thank you for that.

So what's the impact of focus on the GRIP? Or does Pan need to read a couple more textbooks and do a bunch more experiments with dozens of lenses to answer this question?

The quality will change as follows: the field of view will become wider (if the lens covers a large matrix) and the small details allowed by it will fit more. As a result, the image will become sharper.

When you speak, it seems that you are delusional.
And yes, what does depth of field have to do with it?

Interestingly, there is such a simple "law" in relation to the GRP - it is much easier in terms of a larger GRP to remove objects that need to be reduced in relation to the photosensitive element.
For example, it is easy to shoot people, cats, architecture, and landscapes as the most extreme example of this rule, there is always a long GRIP.
In this area, its own "theory of relativity" works, for example, a cat that is equally large in relation to a 5mm matrix that is 36mm, and it is not difficult to shoot it both there and there. But a completely different thing - a bug with a size of 1 cm.
For a 5mm matrix, it needs to be reduced by half, and for a 36mm matrix, it's a good idea to increase it.
Therefore, in order to place this 10mm bug by 36mm in a full frame, you will have to increase it by 3.6 times. To do this, you will have to either take a different object with a larger focal length,or apply a macro attachment, or wind up more macro rings - in any case, you will lose the grip. To compensate for it, you will have to clamp the diaphragm, but the trouble is that the diaphragm does not affect the GRIP in a direct way =0 ))) It simply excludes edge areas that form a wider cone, but also contain the maximum amount of detail, from the image formation process. The diaphragm eats up the image details, and with a strong pinch, the opposite process occurs - diffraction on the diaphragm becomes so strong that the amount of muti begins to increase.
Therefore, ideally, the best photos are on the smallest aperture, but this is only if the object is well made and does not "phonize"- it is muddied on the open one, as probably almost all Soviet department objects, so you have to choose the minimum possible one.

As an example, images on Vega 11U with an aperture of 2.8

Aperture 6 (its optimum)

Aperture 11 (already starting to soften)

And for 11, Vega is officially only up to 11, but as on many products of the Soviet Department, there is a significant "undocumented stock"))

Interestingly, there is such a simple "law" in relation to the GRP - it is much easier in terms of a larger GRP to remove objects that need to be reduced in relation to the photosensitive element.

Well, of course, the depth of field strongly depends on the scale of shooting. The larger, the smaller it is.

Therefore, in order to place this 10mm bug by 36mm in a full frame, you will have to increase it by 3.6 times.

But by the way, no one forces you to place it in full frame. If depth of field is important, maybe it's more profitable to shoot with a lower magnification?

but the trouble is - the diaphragm does not affect the GRIP directly =0 ))) It simply excludes edge areas that form a wider cone, but also contain the maximum amount of detail, from the image formation process. The aperture eats up the details of the image

I disagree. My book says that the depth of field is proportional to the square of the aperture number.
Of your images, the best one in my opinion is on 11, but on the last one, diffraction probably eats up the image details.

This post was edited by KM2200-18.12.2017 01: 03

In general, instead of the OS, it would be better to try to take a picture of some chalcide. As they say, here you are not here. It's a pity that it's not summer, although chalcides live in my kitchen.

I recently took a picture of this osk in my kitchen, approx. 3 mm in length, and on the run, constantly running )

Pictures:

P1260119.jpg — (82.69к)

Can I explain this in more detail, why? From the fact that, conditionally, the matrix is increased twice, does the image quality change, all other things being equal?

Why - I can't explain, I haven't found any sensible articles on this topic, but I judge by all sorts of portrait photos. Not the image quality, but the GRIP changes.

Why - I can't explain, I haven't found any sensible articles on this topic, but I judge by all sorts of portrait photos. Not the image quality, but the GRIP changes.

Well, there are also different focal lengths of objects, and here you don't need any special articles. On a small matrix for a portrait, a maximum of 30mm, and then it will already be a "telephoto", and on a 24mm matrix, a 100mm object is also suitable.
But this does not mean that it is absolutely impossible to shoot the same portrait on a small matrix, you just need a super-light width with an aperture number of approx. 0, very bulky, expensive but quite real design, will weigh a couple of kg probably