Photocameras

Well, don't tell me, the flower eater is very good, as in my opinion.

KM2200, beautiful! ) The previous photo, and the photo of the flower eater - as if on a soap dish made, although I must say that Olympus, for example, does not sharpen pictures, but kenons sharpen, I ftkal at one time and on Kenon and Olympus was something to compare, and Nikons-spoonbills sharpen.

Too much sharpening only makes it worse, and details are lost.

I thought someone would pay attention to the use of an additional lens that was used to zoom in. It can be used with almost all lenses (preferably the front lens of the lens is up to 60 mm)

T-shirt ordinary-Meloe proscarabaeus
Camera SONY DSLR-A350
Original Date / Time: 2009-05-19T16: 59: 40+04: 00
Exposure Time: 1/125
F-stop: f / 16.0
Lens: Sigma 75-300 and macro DCR-150
Shot at focal length =110.00 mm
Flash with diffuser

Pictures:

Meloe_proscarabaeus.jpg — (394.27к)

And it would be possible to post photos of this kozheed and tsvetoed before processing, I mean the previous ones?)

It won't work in this case: I have them stored in the processed form

Well, using a lens in this topic is standard
In principle, the same MP-E is already a factory system from the objective + "lens", and the assembly of two objects is the same. In general macro through the lens one way or another almost everything is shot here
Probably this method appeared immediately with the advent of photo lenses, at least in an old book about photographing nature, when there were still wooden cameras with photographic plates, I already read about this method as more preferable to rings.
Through the "lens" it turns out much better macro rings, especially when you need a large magnification, through the lens the aperture remains or grows, in general, the lens steers
But it should be very good, because probably 70% of the quality depends on what kind of "lens", and the rest only on the native object.
But buying a special attachment lens like Marumi or DCR is expensive, there are simpler options, from Soviet analogues, AL-4, for example, the same characteristics, costs 1-3 pupaars on barkholkah, to lens blocks from Soviet objects or microscopic ones.

Well, using a lens in this topic is standard
In principle, the same MP-E is already a factory system from the objective + "lens", and the assembly of two objects is the same. In general macro through the lens one way or another almost everything is shot here
Probably this method appeared immediately with the advent of photo lenses, at least in an old book about photographing nature, when there were still wooden cameras with photographic plates, I already read about this method as more preferable to rings.
Through the "lens" it turns out much better macro rings, especially when you need a large magnification, through the lens the aperture remains or grows, in general, the lens steers
But it should be very good, because probably 70% of the quality depends on what kind of "lens", and the rest only on the native object.
But buying a special attachment lens like Marumi or DCR is expensive, there are simpler options, from Soviet analogues, AL-4, for example, the same characteristics, costs 1-3 pupaars on barkholkah, to lens blocks from Soviet objects or microscopic ones.

I shot a lot with the AL-4 until I bought the DCR. The AL-4 is a single-glass lens, and the DCR is a glue of two lenses made of special glass. Its resolution (as I recall) is 70 lines per mm, and for most lenses this indicator is lower.

No, the AL-4 does not have one lens, at least two, but three for the lumen, I have this nozzle, I take a picture through it in the evening, I've already taken pictures before - I didn't notice anything so bad.
And a full-fledged object, especially a planar, is always better than a nozzle, in which at best there are three lenses, in addition to the resolution there are a number of parameters, not for nothing did the development of objects go from triplets to 6-7 lens planars.

It's a very barbaric Sharpe.

Most likely, due to secondary processing of the frame with a small resolution. Normal attachment lenses should not give such an effect, it seems.

AL-4 Achromat (gluing of two lenses), although the diameter of M52X0.75 is a little small ( for common lenses), but optics with good physical illumination and 4 diopters do not help badly if necessary.
And what tells me that " DCR "is the same" gluing " of achromat, only with a different (apparently multi - layered ) illumination and of course a convenient adapter for mounting on the lens.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-09.01.2018 19: 16

And if it's like this?
[attachmentid()=296853]

Here is the reverse extreme: everything is blurred. And it should be something like this:



Plus or minus Sharpe's taste (I like more, Pan Stepova-less). But the main thing is that all the details present on the original image are visible, and no extra ones are added.

This post was edited INO-09.01.2018 18: 34

Images with and without the AL-4 macro lens mount, the F2 / 92 object with a focal length of 92 mm, here it is analogous to Tamron.
The aperture is everywhere 4.
The first image is an object without macro rings and lenses, MDF 1 meter, shutter speed 1/1000, ISO 400.
The second picture is the widest macro ring M42, MDF 30 cm, shutter speed 1/100, ISO 400
The third picture is AL-4, MDF 40 cm, shutter speed 1/250, ISO 400.

The fourth image is a 25mm unnamed object, just for example

With a slightly larger MDF and a larger scale of shooting, the AL-4 has a slightly smaller grip, but the aperture has more than doubled, and you can close the aperture more.
As for kakchestvo, it IMHO does not differ almost from makrokoltsa, and hardly after Marumi and other attachments for 100 bucks will be much better )

Pictures:

P1310713.jpg — (51.7к)


P1310702.jpg — (59.24к)


P1310718.jpg — (60к)


P1310716.jpg — (82.45к)

And I have a leatherhead like that too

Pictures:

P1010123.jpg — (117.3к)

Just dead and blue.

Come on, in the "skinheads" category, I'd give first place to ENO.
But in terms of hay eaters, I think Hierophis wins. That's the only way I've got them so far:

For the sake of justice, I admit that Panov's beetle came out sharper, but it's dead and blue, so it doesn't count. And in the "hay eaters category" I participated in general, due to the lack of these in the apartment. And you, by the way, have a different look from Pan Stepovoi, I suspect that it is smaller.

Come on, in the "skinheads" category, I'd give first place to ENO.
But in terms of hay eaters, I think Hierophis wins. That's the only way I've got them so far:

I also have such a view, but the technology is still old, so it's difficult to find such a person now )

And one more species-most likely Lepinotus reticulatus
, so there are no special differences yet, but why do you have them so well? Not so bad after all.

Well, the size I can say for sure is 1.0 mm.
And I took pictures in my old way, on a DSLR through two lenses. But the increase is not enough, it is 100% crop.

This post was edited by KM2200-09.01.2018 22: 40

Mosquito.
Camera SONY DSC-F828
Original Date/Time: 2006-09-07 22: 34: 17
Exposure Time: 1/30
F-stop: f/8.0
Focal Length: 51.00
Used AL-4 lens (+4D)
Night shooting

Pictures:

DSC07817.jpg — (307.58к)

Well, everything is fine, I kind of have more details, but the pictures are dirty )

By the way, here, in principle, without holding back expressions, we can say that we have had a hard-form mirrorless camera from Fuji
http://evtifeev.com/26914-obzor-fotokameryi-fuji-x-e1.html

I've already read some similar things before, it's just that so far few people have such cameras in their hands and there are few objective reviews with photos without processing.
In general, IMHO somehow strange, especially where two cameras were compared with one object. The camera can't soap so hard.
But as for noise - I have already met similar studies, in addition to constant noise reduction, there are also not the same ISO standards as everyone else, or rather they are different for many manufacturers, although comparing the ISO standards on Olympus and Panas, I seem to have come to the conclusion that their ISO standards are the same, although these two companies are relatively close and use a lot shared technologies.

Maybe this review is biased, you never know what happens, but if this is true and everything is true, then this is more than strange.

Come on, in the "skinheads" category, I'd give first place to ENO.

By the way, still yes, I looked at a picture of a kozheed from our megaexpertaochen rare case when self-praise coincided with the opinion of outside observers Really, a picture that looks like some fancy mirrorless camera with a cool macro-perspective)
And my picture IMHO is one of the worst, but still not shabby as in the picture from gumenuk, but just dirty because of the noise of the Olympus 480 matrix and + incorrect BB.

Mosquito.
Camera SONY DSC-F828

An AL-4 (+4D)lens was used
Night shooting

Still, it is better to compare DCR and AL-4 on the same camera..

Well, everything is fine, I kind of have more details, but the pictures are dirty )

By the way, here, in principle, without holding back expressions, we can say that we have had a hard-form mirrorless camera from Fuji
http://evtifeev.com/26914-obzor-fotokameryi-fuji-x-e1.html

I've already read some similar things before, it's just that so far few people have such cameras in their hands and there are few objective reviews with photos without processing.
In general, IMHO somehow strange, especially where two cameras were compared with one object. The camera can't soap so hard.
But as for noise - I have already met similar studies, in addition to constant noise reduction, there are also not the same ISO standards as everyone else, or rather they are different for many manufacturers, although comparing the ISO standards on Olympus and Panas, I seem to have come to the conclusion that their ISO standards are the same, although these two companies are relatively close and use a lot shared technologies.

Maybe this review is biased, you never know what happens, but if this is true and everything is true, then this is more than strange.

Here are a couple of images in Fuji, just a camera shot, no post-processing.
Camera: Fujifilm X T-10
Lens: Zeiss Touit 2.8/50 Macro

Pictures:

DSCF9957.JPG — (6.91мб)


DSCF9991.JPG — (8.04мб)

mosquito twitching - Chironomus plumosus
Camera: SONY DSLR-A350
Original Date/Time: 2008-07-08 00: 54: 26
Exposure Time: 1/125
F-stop: f / 20.0
Lens: Sigma 75-300 and macro DCR-150
Focal Length: 230.00
Night shooting, flash

Pictures:

Chironomus_plumosus.jpg — (414.25к)

Here are a couple of images in Fuji, just a camera shot, no post-processing.
Camera: Fujifilm X T-10
Lens: Zeiss Touit 2.8/50 Macro

Indeed, honest photos, of course, there is less noise than on the usual 4/3, but there is noise, and everything is fine with the image.
I think that review was clearly dumb, and it's especially funny how that author changed the key after Fuji turned to him and gave him X-T2 for review, just kokoity's dissonance, creates the opinion that they either intimidated or encouraged )))
Although in fact the X-T2 is unlikely to differ much from the 1X series, the release period is only two years.

And how many shots does the battery last on the X-T10?

It's hard to say. Who shoots how, I do a thousand shots on one battery, and someone does not have enough for three hundred.

How is it 1000?? Yes, I myself was convinced that you can easily shoot 500 frames on a manual object on Panasonic, and at +20 and above, probably 600 frames, while panas writes that with an electronic object up to 370 frames. But to go to Fuji 1000?

How is it 1000?? Yes, I myself was convinced that you can easily shoot 500 frames on a manual object on Panasonic, and at +20 and above, probably 600 frames, while panas writes that with an electronic object up to 370 frames. But to go to Fuji 1000?

Multiple factors:
1) Permanent autofocus is disabled, it is locked to the programmable button, only the shutter is on the release button.
2) I use an electronic viewfinder, the screen eats a lot of battery.
3) I shoot in series (1000 is all the frames in the series).
4) I don't use the built-in flash.
5) I shoot only in zhepeg, with rav, and even more rav+zhepeg, of course it will turn out less
6) And of course I constantly turn it off, I don't go half a day with the camera turned on

This post was edited by Gray-Ejik - 10.01.2018 14: 35

Well, I also do something like this, only there is no autofocus at all, and I don't shoot the series, and I don't turn off the camera, it has sleep mode, although panas turns on very quickly, it seems even faster than Fuji, but from sleep mode in general, you can take a picture in fact in the dark, after turning on you need to wait longer, they write what is 0.2 seconds, I tried to catch on the stopwatch - it doesn't work exactly, but from switching on to being able to take the first picture, there is a lag compared to sleep mode.
Although my Olympuses turn on somewhere in 6 seconds and come out of sleep mode in 4 seconds

A couple more shots of Fuji.

I added a little brightness, they were a little dark, the rest is by default.

This time on a Chinese lens, Mitakon 20mm f/2 4.5 X
So far this result is the best that I managed to squeeze out of it. Very demanding on the quality of light. These images are taken with a built-in flash covered with plain white paper. With diode lights, the result is much worse. While I haven't found any use for this lens, the GRIP on the open one (f/2.0) is too small, and on the covered one, even at f/2.8, the sharpness drops slightly.

Pictures:

DSCF4621_2.jpg — (11.17 mb)


DSCF4628_2.jpg — (10.08мб)

Curculionidae weevil (undefined)
Camera Make: SONY
Camera Model: DSLR-A100
Original Date / Time: 2007-06-03 16: 19: 57
F-stop: f / 25.0
Focal Length: 200.00
Lens - Sigma 75-300 and macro attachment DCR-150
Extreme aperture used to increase the grip

Pictures:

Curculionidae.jpg — (511.53к)

A couple more shots of Fuji.

I added a little brightness, they were a little dark, the rest is by default.

This time on a Chinese lens, Mitakon 20mm f/2 4.5 X
So far this result is the best that I managed to squeeze out of it. Very demanding on the quality of light. These images are taken with a built-in flash covered with plain white paper. With diode lights, the result is much worse. While I haven't found any use for this lens, the GRIP on the open one (f/2.0) is too small, and on the covered one, even at f/2.8, the sharpness drops slightly.

IMHO the first photo is the best that anyone here has ever posted from a micro macro. I see the use of such a device in illustrating publications containing descriptions of details of insect morphology. If you don't have enough GRIP, you can use stacking. Shooting live insects in the field is certainly not the best option. And it is better to make a ring flash. As such, you can also use a built-in one, with light redirection using a diffuser and/or reflector. Just don't put paper on the flash, but a styrofoam washer on the end of the lens. Illumination with diodes is bullshit, if you can still achieve sufficient brightness with them, then there is no normal color reproduction.

While I haven't found any use for this lens, the GRIP on the open one (f/2.0) is too small, and on the covered one, even at f/2.8, the sharpness drops slightly.

But how so? This is quite a bit, well, even with 5.6, the sharpness may somehow drop, but even then-purely theoretically.
Can I use an example for 2.8?)

By the way, here we have a photo on Fuji X2-Pro in rather difficult conditions on ISO 200

http://izan.kiev.ua/ukrbin/show_image.php?imageid=58031

I don't know what the post-processing conditions are, but there still seems to be some small noise, but only in the most difficult areas)

A couple more shots of Fuji.

I added a little brightness, they were a little dark, the rest is by default.

This time on a Chinese lens, Mitakon 20mm f/2 4.5 X
So far this result is the best that I managed to squeeze out of it. Very demanding on the quality of light. These images are taken with a built-in flash covered with plain white paper. With diode lights, the result is much worse. While I haven't found any use for this lens, the GRIP on the open one (f/2.0) is too small, and on the covered one, even at f/2.8, the sharpness drops slightly.

Yes, the picture is impressive. How long is the beetle, can you tell me?

Yes, the picture is impressive. How long is the beetle, can you tell me?

The first is Sipalinus gigas, quite large, the second is Anosimus fasciatus, slightly less than five millimeters.

This post was edited by Gray-Ejik - 11.01.2018 15: 58

Pictures:

DSCF4646.jpg — (9.34мб)

But how so? This is quite a bit, well, even with 5.6, the sharpness may somehow drop, but even then-purely theoretically.
Can I give you an example for 2.8? )

Yes, I was overreacting about f2.8, even more or less. But f5. 6 is no longer a cake, and then there is no point in considering it at all)
f2.0 ISO200

f2.8 ISO200

f5.6 ISO800

f8.0 ISO1600

f16 ISO3200


This post was edited by Gray-Ejik - 11.01.2018 15: 48

Gray-Ejik, I can't watch full-size photos now, I'll take a look a little later, but so far IMHO, but 5.6 seems to be the best of all ) At 8 or less, the dust is already visible on the matrix, and diffraction can occur. In general, yes, there is such a thing - the "open aperture effect" - it consists in the fact that the most beautiful pictures, precisely from the point of view of a certain artistry, are obtained on a fully open one, the colors are richer, the transitions are smooth, there is no angularity of the contours, the background seems to consist of fog. But if it is useful for zoology, then it is probably better with clamped diaphragms
And why do you raise the ISO with each stop of the diaphragm? Increasing the ISO is also not bad for spoiling the image, even if it doesn't add much noise.

Gray-Ejik, I can't watch full-size photos now, I'll take a look a little later, but so far IMHO, but 5.6 seems to be the best of all ) At 8 or less, the dust is already visible on the matrix, and diffraction can occur. In general, yes, there is such a thing - the "open aperture effect" - it consists in the fact that the most beautiful pictures, precisely from the point of view of a certain artistry, are obtained on a fully open one, the colors are richer, the transitions are smooth, there is no angularity of the contours, the background seems to consist of fog. But if it is useful for zoology, then it is probably better with clamped diaphragms
And why do you raise the ISO with each stop of the diaphragm? Increasing the ISO is also not bad for spoiling the image, even if it doesn't add much noise.

Forgive me for being an amateur, but how can I save the desired exposure when shooting with a flash when reducing the optical aperture? I shoot at 1/250, when the shutter speed is reduced, the flash does not shine longer, and the result is the same that by 1/250 that by 1/60.
When open, you can clearly see details that are already not visible at F2.8, in the last pictures, on the pronotum light scales have a slightly pearlescent sheen, in real life they still shine, in the second picture this is no longer visible, the scales are just light. On the elytra, the scales have a special grainy texture; in the second picture, this texture is no longer visible.
And there are many such nuances.