Photocameras

I haven't read many articles on macro photography, including those translated from Bourgeois. almost everyone writes that they are shooting in live view. As for the 19th and early 20th centuries, I did not mean the DSLR itself as a system, but its mechanical components. Here's how you can tearlessly look at something like this scheme in relation to a modern digital camera?
http://www.penta-club.ru/forum/uploads/pos...13195_thumb.jpg
This is all just to close the aperture! I understand that the mechanical drive of the diaphragm is needed for ancient non-eclectic lenses with a "jump", but now most people use either modern ones with a motor and "brains", or without complex mechanics at all, because in live view the "jump" is not particularly needed. Well, they left this rudiment, so they could have assembled it in the form of a compact unit with a separate motor, so that in case of failure, the mirror and the shutter would not interfere. The only thing that the DSLRs are still a little ahead of is the speed of autofocus, but it is in speed, and not in accuracy. And then when inventing various kinds of hybrid systems, this gap is minimized. In any case, paying for a millisecond of focus speed with a dark OVI, a flapping mirror, and at least a half-kilogramm of excess weight is nonsense for the vast majority of photographers. They just have to buy it as a bonus to a good picture and a comfortable grip, which is not particularly noticeable in the mirrorless. But even despite the efforts of the main players in the photo industry, who are trying in every possible way to reduce the mirrorless direction and prolong the life of DSLRs, progress cannot be stopped, and the age of the latter is coming to an end, soon they will suffer the fate of rangefinder and scale cameras.

Even more contrast and magnification, these are almost full frames, only slightly cropped at the edges
I wonder if at least half of what these glamorous macro-projects are worth is given to some group of specialists from the GOI of the old school, but they will make such an object that mitochondria can be considered)))

Pictures:

P1300286.jpg — (279.55к)


P1300289.jpg — (266.53к)


P1300290.jpg — (807.31к)

Miracle: Pan Stepov's faith in Sovdepiya and its science has returned! According to the photos: the light needs to be changed.

This post was edited INO-03.01.2018 18: 52

What it all started with and 2 years have not really passed since the beginning of heavy R & D ))

Pictures:

P1300291.jpg — (497.32к)

Pan reschil in honor of this significant date to roll?

I am aware that in today's Ukraine it is not customary to argue

As you can see, you have already received responses from residents of a more respected country.

And through the glass, too, it turns out )))
Well, the preliminary design
In this object, the components of 6 objects, both optical and mechanical, infinity, focus, aperture, everything is there)

Pictures:

P1300353.jpg — (140.76к)


P1300314.jpg — (104.44к)


P1300327.jpg — (84.52к)


P1290963.jpg — (117.08к)


P1300375.jpg — (81.14к)


P1300367.jpg — (101.3к)

And through the glass, too, it turns out )))
Well, the preliminary design
In this object, the components of 6 objects, both optical and mechanical, infinity, focus, aperture, everything is there)

And what is it in the second frame?

This is acrolux, and those that are large - theodoxusy

Interestingly, the stronger everything is debugged in the object, the better it takes pictures through the glass in the aquarium, if you take just some object, the same Vega or Lomo or some other with macro rings, then everything floats through the glass in general.

I once also had an aquarium, and these acroluxes were bred there, you don't understand where they came from, but I didn't know who they were.

Interestingly, the stronger everything is debugged in the object, the better it takes pictures through the glass in the aquarium, if you take just some object, the same Vega or Lomo or some other with macro rings, then everything floats through the glass in general.

This is strange, in theory it should be the other way around. Glass introduces aberrations.

Acroluxes are very good snails, they are useful, they eat up fouling )
Why is it the other way around? Just the opposite )) Glass introduces its own distortions + distortions of the object, such a coincidence so that the distortion of the glass compensates for the distortion of the object probably does not happen, on the contrary, they overlap and amplify each other. And when the distortion of the object is minimal, only the distortion of the glass remains. If everything was like this, then we would see everything twisted through the aquarium glass with our eyes, which are the most ideal object)))

The design has changed, there will be a black yupochka

Pictures:

P1300380.jpg — (72.8к)


P1300381.jpg — (72.74 k)

I did an experiment, took a picture with the same object in the same configuration (max. magnification, min. grip) but on different cameras, on a panas with a 17.5 mm matrix and a bezmylnitsa from Olympus with a 5.5 mm matrix. The first two photos on Olympus on ISO 50, the second photo on panas on ISO 320, on panas-with slightly cropped empty edges, on Olympus full frames.

Here, the effect of pixel density should be noticeable, as it varies significantly, 200 thousand for Olympus versus 50 thousand for Panas per 1mm square.

Miracles, but no increase in the GRIP on the small matrix did not happen))) even subjectively on the contrary, but the increase in the number of details on a small matrix is also not particularly noticeable, everyone ate noise and low DD, but nevertheless, if you look at the photo of the eye on Olympus, then the facets there are much larger, and if not for DD and noise, it would be like on MPE So pixel density rules, you only need a better matrix, on the pentax kyu it would probably turn out much cooler )

Megafotki specifically for comparison. then I'll delete it)

The first two images are definitely worthy of the basket. After all, I was right when I said a long time ago that the quality of panov photos will increase significantly with a mirrorless camera. Although in fact it has not grown much, but the quality of photos on "bezmylnitsa" has fallen significantly. Apparently, the constant processing of lenses did not lead to good. But how the pan GRIP with the same lens on a larger matrix turned out more is really a question, apparently a measurement error. Cut a lot from the edge.

Cool, che.
But, it's so hard to compare.
It is necessary to make drops of the same size
and one part (either the forehead or the eye) from the same angle.

As for one detail, I agree, but the drops are the same everywhere-100%.
By the way, I made a small mistake yesterday, everything was reset by default on Olympus and the image quality there is low by default, here are today's pictures, all without resizing, as it is.
And here, while improving the quality of the saved image on Olympus, the advantage of high pixel density is even better seen.

The first photo is on panas, the second on Olympus, the camera angle is the same, the details are the same.

If you reduce the magnification factor, the advantage of a smaller matrix and high pixel density is even better shown. Here you don't even need a megafot, and so everything is visible on 1000 photos.

An image with a higher pixel density will always be sharper and will have more detail under the same focal and other shooting conditions.
The advantage of a larger matrix is only in the ability to shoot at a larger ISO and higher DD, and in general 90% of the result is the properties of the object.

And th there writes ikspert of everything and everything I already do not read, I think that personally I will not be hurt by a break from a year in this regard, these ikspert maxims are only for raising the mood, but there are other methods for this

Pictures:

P1300429.jpg — (143.85к)


P1010018.jpg — (193.33к)

Especially for ixperts

Pictures:

26047108_945939985572472_2291434486525222720_n.jpg — (37.62к)

If someone criticizes Pan (and quite rightly), it's the devil right away, and if he praises it, then God, right? Here it is - pride... If I hadn't been looking for flaws in Pan, he would have been sitting with a spring 2015 nosey hat, proud of the fruits of "hard R & D".

Here, the last photos will be better, although all the same on the "bezmylnitsa" noise strongly competes with the signal. But on ponosonika soap is soapy. On the contrary, low pixel density causes ringing sharpness, even if there are fewer details drawn. Here either the AA filter is thick, or, what I'm leaning towards, a shitty excessively noisy in-camera ass tag.

As for one detail, I agree, but the drops are the same everywhere-100%.

You can cut the drops 2 times in width and put them next to each other, for greater clarity.
It is strange that dvazhykrop so "punctured"...

And what did you do wrong, this is a natural result, a full-frame matrix with a pixel density of about 15 thousand pixels per 1mm square, which is on all old and even relatively new cameras ,will "puncture" even steeper

Therefore, the Nicon1 is the coolest for micro-macro in theory, it has a pixel density of about 100 thousand per mm, even for the very first models, and those that are newer are even larger, approaching the density of my "bezmylnitsa" from Olympus, and in terms of DD and noise, these matrices are many times better.

Well, in general, such large approximations are not needed in practice, so panas is generally better due to a number of factors, and you can put both DD and a cool viewfinder above ISO. For rapid shooting of small animals in nature, this is all you need. But if something is particularly small to remove-it is better bezmylnitsa

Pictures:

P1300480.jpg — (108.38к)


P1300513.jpg — (179.33к)


P1300517.jpg — (129.34к)


P1300551.jpg — (52.53к)


P1300555.jpg — (68.63к)


P1300573.jpg — (215.78к)


P1300579.jpg — (101.47 k)

You can cut the drops 2 times in width and put them next to each other, for greater clarity.
It is strange that dvazhykrop so "punctured"...

"Megafotki" I deleted and here I attach these very cut 100% of the crop, on the left bezmylnitsa with a matrix of 5. 5X3.5 and 4 MP, on the right panas with a matrix of 17.5X13 and 12MP.
Nothing surprising in principle, everything is the same The GRIP is also the same in fact, with all equal conditions, even so it coincided that the working segments of the panas and bezmylnitsa are almost the same-19 and 17 mm, so the gain in pixel density.
It is on such large differences that this can be seen, and you compared almost at the same density + for some reason the legendary MPE is decently so muddy

Pictures:

3P1010013.jpg — (193.05к)

"Megafotki" I deleted and here I attach these very cut 100% of the crop, on the left bezmylnitsa with a matrix of 5. 5X3.5 and 4 MP, on the right panas with a matrix of 17.5X13 and 12MP.
Nothing surprising in principle, everything is the same The GRIP is also the same in fact, with all equal conditions, even so it coincided that the working segments of the panas and bezmylnitsa are almost the same-19 and 17 mm, so the gain in pixel density.
It is on such large differences that this can be seen, and you compared almost at the same density + for some reason the legendary MPE is decently so muddy

So what do you want to prove? Of course, if the lens is the same, then the result will be better where the pixel size is smaller. Probably to unlock the potential of a large matrix, you need to fasten a large lens to it

So what do you want to prove? Of course, if the lens is the same, then the result will be better where the pixel size is smaller. Probably to unlock the potential of a large matrix, you need to fasten a large lens to it

Well, not that where the pixel is smaller, but where the pixel density is higher, there will be more detail, it seems to be really logical, but it turns out that there are people here who have a completely different, expert opinion formed somewhere in another world

So that everything is fine on a large matrix - you need to stretch the image of the same eye of the wasp to its size, then yes-and 10 MP on 36mm will go, but here all the problems are

Also, these photos will come down as proof that the size of the matrix does not affect the GRIP in any way, Although to prove this is really too much

Honestly, I don't understand(maybe this is the effect of the New year's eve meeting on me ) what is this discussion about-high pixel" density " or low pixel density?
Each lens (or optical system) has an optical resolution limit in lines per millimeter, which can be classically determined by the corresponding line on the optical bench. Previously, there was an assessment of the quality of the "lens+film" system (photographic resolution), but now the "lens+matrix" system is relevant.
Further, almost (at this time ) "any" matrix (regardless of its size) in cameras exceeds the optical resolution of the average lens, so you can "find fault" with any "super-modern glass". At the same time, it is not unnecessary to forget the software that "presses" all this(in 90% of cases) into a hardware JPEG.

It seems to me. that this discussion has somewhat exhausted itself (so far), over the past two or three years, everyone has found an acceptable "hardware" solution for themselves (according to their desire, goals and capabilities).

There is also a very interesting aspect of shooting in the field (in nature) and stationary conditions - this is the illumination of the object, which is no less important than the optical system and the device. I would like to hear the opinions of forum participants about this.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-04.01.2018 21: 24

 
Further, almost (at this time ) "any" matrix (regardless of its size) in cameras exceeds the optical resolution of the average lens, so you can "find fault" with any "super-modern glass".

In fact, it's not that simple. Let's say our object has a resolution of about 50 lines per 1 mm. This is an average object by both past and current standards.
Let's try to calculate how many pixels it needs so that the matrix shows what it has displayed in full.
Our object can display 50 contrasting lines - that is, a series of black and white strokes. Each such stroke is approx. in diameter. 20 microns.
So how many pixels should there be in 1mm square? I think it should be considered like this: in order to display one such line clearly separated from another, one row of points equal in size to this line is clearly not enough. In addition, we have at least three or more points involved in calculating the color. Therefore, the line width in pixels should in theory be at least 5 pixels per 20 microns. We have 50 lines of 20 microns, respectively 50X5 = 250, 250X250 = 62500 pixels per 1 mm.

In a full-frame matrix, we have 36X24=864 square mm, respectively. so that our 36mm matrix can solve this average object by 50 lines.mm in all shooting ranges, it should have 54 megapixels. Tell me, are there many cameras with such a matrix now? ))))
They, these photos, are, but their price..
But the micro4/3 matrices even with 10 MP have a close resolution, and the Nikon1 matrices have a resolution sufficient for 100 lines per millimeter.
By the way, the matrices of almost all soap boxes that are packed with 8-10-12 megapixels with their size of 5-7mm have an incredibly excessive resolution, absolutely unnecessary, which has already been proven more than once by images of the same world, the objects of most soap boxes have a resolution of up to 50 lines, and this is at best in the form of the same Sony and others, my Olympus SP510 according to my measurements has a resolution of about 15-20 lines per 1 mm.

So think about what kind of object a 36mm matrix can solve if it has 16-20 Mp - the typical size of such matrices now? And this is despite the fact that in theory we have a useful image on the entire frame, and if you need to drop it ?

All this is of great importance in the sense that from large matrices, those who shoot micro-macro and do not have funds for MPE-you need to stay away Because you can still assemble a macro lens yourself from any lenses on a micro4/3 matrix, but on a 24mm matrix - I already doubt it, but about 36mm and I don't say..

About Soviet objects - I recently made such a selection

About the article-the author tends to the fact that chasing sharpness is not necessary, but he probably does not shoot macro Again-a very big problem for the photographic method is when the object needs to be enlarged so that it occupies the entire surface of the matrix or film,and even when you need to shoot 1:1-already problems. That's when the slightest distortion comes out.
If this is a portrait, landscape, still life or flowers, then even a monocle will work, but try using a monocle to remove not only a hay eater, but also a polist
In macro photography, it is ideal that the main object is as smooth as possible, without distortion and contamination in the form of haze and noise. And if the object is not all in the GRIP, the blur should keep the original contours of the object, not be torn and dirty.

Pictures:

2P1300635_868.jpg — (487.3к)

Here are examples of this effect: the top image and the left image are taken on Vega 11U with a bunch of macro rings, and the bottom and right images are taken on a composite object.
It seems that the pictures are the same, but still as for me-pictures on a composite object look nicer, there is no blurring of details in the area of blurring, glare.

Pictures:

P1300664.jpg — (180.3к)


P1300668.jpg — (92.68к)

Still, Pan would not be more pleasant to his own brainchild! And the fact that the focus is on different places of the object, and therefore the comparison is incorrect in a good way, is this...

Naturally, I don't agree with Panov's calculations of the pixel density required to unlock the lens's potential. First, why three colors? White and black are enough. Where did Pan see the colored worlds? In the spherocon case, a pair of pixels is enough to distinguish between a pair of lines (black and white). But in reality - a little more, depending on the AA filter. Second, the pan forgets that a small pixel makes more noise, which is a crucial factor affecting sharpness. Third, the micro-smudge, which is more likely the higher the pixel density. Of course, if you shoot from a tripod all the time, but at very short exposures, and with an electronic shutter, then it will not work. But we are talking about real situations of field macro photography. I recommend pan to pay attention to the reviews of owners of both small-pixel and fat-pixel cameras on all sorts of forums that claim that even Helios-44 "rings" (i.e. gives pixel-by-pixel sharpness) on old matrices, and on new figs you will find a fairly sharp lens. Of course, if you correctly adjust the image from a 30-megapixel matrix to 10 megapixels, but scratch, and sometimes even make noise, it will look like a fat pixel or even a little better, but what a waste of computing resources and time!

All normal people who are interested in photography have long been aware that, for example, landscape images with FF show much more detail than from the same Nikon 1, and APS-C is somewhere between (but closer to FF), to understand this, it is enough to spend several hours carefully looking at pictures on different sites. And only Baba Yaga pan Stepova is against it.

The only one? what I agree with him on: it is technically much easier to stretch the image of a small object into a small matrix than into a large one. Similarly, take a picture of something far away. Therefore, small - matrix cameras have some competitiveness (but not an absolute advantage!) in macro and TV shooting, as I have already mentioned.

P.S. Here-here clever words set out some of what I wrote about above. Believe it or not, I found this material after I typed the main part of the post. I had never heard of any Kotelnikovs with Nyquists before, but I came to similar conclusions about the resolution on my own.

Regarding the light , I shot during the day, in the morning, and in the evening, and in the dark with a flash, and in cloudy weather. The worst images are taken on a sunny day - hard shadows and broken lights, and the background is not uniform, has mostly brown and gray colors. It turns out to be purely informational pictures, that such and such an insect was then in such and such an area, but such a picture is not suitable for printing and hanging on the wall. But if it is partly cloudy, then the Sun sets behind the clouds can and should be used for shooting purposes.

In cloudy weather, it is good to shoot, because the lighting is uniform and there are no such distortions in the lights/shadows as in clear weather. Another thing is that insects can hide in such weather. But if it is warm, then they usually continue to be active. At the end of May 2017, I once got into a gully in cloudy weather for 4 hours, where I also took pictures of butterflies from a tripod. I use the built-in flash if I shoot with my hands, and the shutter speed is not enough to get non-greased photos. At the same time, I attach a piece of isolon (diffuser) to the lens to soften the flash effect. The photo is not bad, but still natural light is better. At night, I also shoot in this way, but the background is often not fully illuminated (this is natural if the space serving as a background is far away), so it often turns out to be black. Now I'm thinking about whether to make some kind of illumination, or leave the butterflies until the morning, and shoot them in the morning.

Morning and evening photos are best: The sun falls at an angle, the light is saturated, and the insects are calm. I usually use a tripod when doing this. But we still need to find the insects in the morning. In the evening, they settle down to spend the night on plants, calm down - it's easier to notice. But it's still more interesting in the morning.

But from an artistic point of view, I like the pictures in the bright sun more, some volume in them is special and, how should I put it better, airiness or something. I just love that the sun does not shine from behind, but from the side or even a little in front. And so that there is a play of light and shadow, reflected light and passing light (in the case of objects that are not completely opaque). And I don't see a catastrophic loss of information in the shadows, despite the fact that the DD at my soap dish is simply ridiculous. And with a normal matrix, there is no need to be afraid of shadows in macro photography in bright sun, if the expopair is adjusted correctly. But not all of my nozzles are equally friendly with the sun, some do not make friends at all, giving birth to rainbow hedgehogs under its direct rays on any shiny surface. I don't know why there is such a difference in behavior, but perhaps Mr. Khvotograkhv also has a theory in store for this case.










And in the dark with a flash through a diffuser or a circular reflector, everything is technically possible, but somehow completely without a soul.