Photocameras

Marriage song of the Mongolian toad

And by the way, here are some more vital photos.
Not a single animal was injured ))

MIDDAY PRAYER
-------------------------
Medlyak (Blaps) in the Maly Khuzhir
settlement on Olkhon Island in the Irkutsk region.
21.06.2018 Sony A6000+SEL30M35.


This post was edited by Bomka - 24.06.2018 07: 07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icvAAVvMv1I

Vespula germanica wasp (Fabricius, 1793)

Wasps at the entrance to their burrow under the porch.
Irkutsk, August 27, 2019.
Video by O. Berlov

Today I couldn't resist buying a mirror Jupiter-11 (M39) to try it out.
Like this -

---
With five M39 macro rings (2 narrow, 2 medium and 1 wide)
on the NEX carcass, it looks like this -

The entire set is 20 cm long
. - - -
Focusing with 5 macro rings is possible 45-50 cm
from the front lens to the subject.
I tried to take a picture of a bumblebee.
File without cropping, only reduced -

Alas, in this size, nothing is visible. Maybe you should post a crop? Better in the head area.

Oh, and I already deleted yesterday's footage...
---
Reshot the" head area " of Jupiter-11 on an open one (aperture 4),
with the same set of macro rings:
Full frame, reduced

Crop without reduction

---
I made a similar shot on the "secret" Arsat H 50/2
(at aperture 4) + Nikon-NEX adapter + 1 narrow Sony macro ring,
but already with a distance of ~ 11-12 cm from the front lens:
Full frame, reduced

Crop without reduction

---
The greater illumination in the Arsat images is due to the fact
that the external NEX flash was more than twice as close to bumblebee,
compared to Jupiter.

I will add similar images on Zenitar-M2s (at aperture 4)
+ m42-NEX adapter + 1 wide macro ring m42,
the distance from the front lens is ~8-10 cm. Shooting with hands.
Entire frame, reduced

Crop without reduction

And, to add to the pile, a couple more pictures from two Industriars:
Industriar-61L / D 2,8 / 55 (on diaphragm 4)
+ adapter M39-NEX + 1 narrow + 1 medium macro ring m39.
The distance from the front lens to the bumblebee is ~12-13 cm.
Entire frame, reduced

Crop without reduction

---
Industriar-KGB 5,6 / 30 (from the "Christmas Tree of the KGB", with an aperture of 5,6)
+ a homemade adapter to the Sony-NEX mount + 1 narrow NEX macro ring.
The distance from the front lens is ~5-6 cm.
It was not possible to increase the distance, because you need to change the adapter to a narrower one.
Entire frame, reduced

Crop without reduction

As you might expect, the Industriar from the " Christmas Tree "tore everyone to shreds and undermined the disbelief of some in the"Tessar" scheme. It's a pity we don't have them...

IMHO at fifty rubles it was necessary to focus at the same distance, so that the same scale was. And it is so difficult to compare Helios-81 (arsat) with Zenitar. And there is a feeling that the latter has a wiggle and the focus is a little out of place. And yes, I didn't understand the hints about secrecy, my lens is not Arsat. But this Arsat is good, it's a pity it was only made on the Nikon mount, and the adapter from it to nex costs like half a lens. In addition, this lens is rarely found on sale, is unnecessarily expensive (compared to other 50mm Helios) and will quickly fly away-hordes of nikonists are hungry

Jupiter 11 is similar to Jupiter 37A, both don't pull this scale, alas.

I-61 L / D Yours is not chromatite, almost unlike mine, which I stopped using in macro for this reason, although they were quite competitive. And another thing: their aperture 4 is abnormally soapy, both neighboring ones are sharper.

Yes, this is a test "on the knee"...
For a normal comparison, you also need to adjust the lighting
and preferably put the flash next to bumblebees, and not on the carcass.

For a normal comparison such images should be taken in nature

That's why I've been looking at all the pictures taken by Pan Stepov lately - from nature, the realm of spirits

But here the people do in nature Industriarom this GB-shny: https://sony-club.ru/forum/threads/industar...64.70594/page-4

What is characteristic: zhopki do not dissolve. Anu, photo expert, please comment on its area of field: what geometric shape is it in?

This post was edited INO-03.11.2019 11: 18

The object is good, but for some reason they didn't do such things for ordinary Soviet people
By the way, a photo expert can easily start creating shidevry
https://www.avito.ru/ekaterinburg/fototehni...akro_1803336004

The price is considered a penny, I bought a terrible tahina for about this price

When I go on a pilgrimage to the EBN center, I will definitely stop by to buy
Panel, do not get distracted, what is there with this lens in your expert opinion with crossed sabers in the zone of (not)sharpness?

A year ago, I managed to get Industriar from the Christmas Tree for 250 re in Irkutsk.
And now 1500 re (with an adapter to m39) is a normal price.
On ibei, they are available for $ 1500...
--"
There he is, my darling

Only a stupid thing I did - a shank adapter for NEX... he wanted infinity.
It will be necessary to redo the m39 thread, so it is more convenient for macro.
- - -
P.S.
This is how it looks in disassembled form (a year ago):


This post was edited by Bomka - 03.11.2019 12: 35

And yet, Vega 7-1 is 100 times better than this 30th Indian in terms of artistry, but it is really a "secret" object, or rather a lens block from nepoymin, in terms of detail, and at the same time - no gebni

Pictures:

P2440512.jpg — (130.4к)


P2440514.jpg — (174.63к)

Roman, or maybe a bumblebee on pin e?
For comparison...
- - -
PS
Vega-7-1, like, only on Pentax Q is suitable?
Or redone?

This post was edited by Bomka - 03.11.2019 14: 21

I don't pin anyone on pins, but Vega is certainly redone, 95% of objects from the flea market need to be redone, and just Vega 7-1 on the 4/3 matrix gives minimal vignetting even at infinity(with unscrewed blends of course), and in macro it completely disappears

Pictures:

P2440515.jpg — (151.21к)

So then macro, there the coverage area is inflated, so that in the end this Vega crop 2 covers. Another thing is that it turns out to be creepy, especially in the corners. But Pan likes it, and they don't argue about tastes. But the "lens block from nepoimi chto" is still cool, but how can pan know that there were no dark forces there, in the sense of"no gebni"?

Bomka, the price may be normal (as for the "KGB lens"), but he is in E-burg, and I am in Donetsk. Even if you leave out the logistics issue, which is very difficult in itself, used optics are the last thing you should buy remotely. So let him lie to himself.

I just made such an opupuennaya thing: scale, contrast, aperture-God forbid everyone, holds a counter, HA acceptable, and even at least some kind of GRIP is (before on this scale, I had it as thick as a hair with a diaphragm of 11). But there is one small "but": that's where the object should be shoved into the lens, and this time it's not a metaphor
And there's no way to change that. Unless you replace one element of the design with a compact lens with a focal length of about 200 mm, which does not happen in nature. m. b. a tube lens from a modern infinite microscope would be suitable, but it is easier and cheaper to get a GB-shny Industriar... So we will look for other schemes. Photos, (the same ones, from inside the lens ) Maybe I'll throw it off tonight. And now we need to go get food for the praying mantis, while the sun is out.

Never mind the vignetting, it's better than that rainbow haze everywhere, except for the very center, which Pan picked out from under the blend.

ENO, do you have a dried bumblebee?
Take a picture of his head, make comparisons, plizz.
And tomorrow I'll add more pictures from other lenses.

That's how it should be

Pictures:

2P2440406.jpg — (175.13к)

If it were through amber, and not through a five-year-old film, then I would somehow have it, except that adjusted for the curved field. In general, it turned out that similarly flattened and plastered insects are much easier to take pictures of than those in the air.

Here-here we have some very secret lenses, or maybe-eyepieces or even H. Z. what, they sell: https://www.olx.ua/obyavlenie/optika-obekti...html#803e91016f

Any idea what it might be? The seller doesn't know. I read that such a design, with an additional screw-on lens, is inherent in lenses of all kinds of re-shooting equipment, which are very good in micro-macro.

This post was edited INO-03.11.2019 20: 11

So what's stopping okodemik from taking a picture of his amber mosquito and showing off his skills? Aa, amber is lost, and so on and so forth, in general, everything is clear
Although, yes, for some reason, photos through amber are even better than cheoez air, but it should be the opposite, resin should give distortions, as through water, or glass

At a price of up to $ 2, and so there are almost all small objects and their parts at a live flea market, I buy without any conversations, if this is of course something that is not yet there, so what is there to guess, you need to buy and apply, if it's just not eyepieces from something like MBS
And there's also the legendary film magnifier, something we haven't seen in a long time fotoshidevrov through a similar one

I recently bought a T 43 4/40 and DM-3 2.8 78, about $ 3 for both, but I haven't applied it yet, and it's unlikely that triplets will give out something special, but DM3 was still not made for the people, but in drug

Alas, the case from the T43, although it is somewhat similar to the "secret lens block", but the T43 is completely different, two pictures at max aperture 4 and "for 8", there is no sharpness at aperture 4 in principle, it is not clear why it is needed there, and even at aperture 8 nothing good is visible. And the photo on the lens block was taken at a shutter speed more similar to the shutter speed at aperture 4, well, maybe a little more
In general the same thing as with a lens block from a non removable object from a Shift

Pictures:

P2440519.jpg — (113.89к)


P2440520.jpg — (139.25к)

And here is a photo on the DM-3 at 2.8 and on my homemade object of a similar focal length, about 2.2.
DM of course is created to shoot shchedevry, a very specific and not boring image with funny circles. Surprisingly, the formation of circles in addition to the diaphragm strongly depends on the optical scheme, and DM3 here simply steers

Pictures:

P2440523.jpg — (125.83к)


P2440528.jpg — (113.59к)

Ah and fotochki Telearom-N 3.5 200, ah and what)) With two large macro rings, the MDF turned out to be only a meter (normally 1.6).
The apertures are 3.5 5.6 and 8.
The aperture petals are very shiny, this may cause a loss of contrast on the covered ones, you need to blacken them Despite the fact that the details are blurred on 3.5, the edges of the contours are quite sharp, you can't compare them with the thickness. And at 8, everything is really clear, so it's not that the sharpness starts at 8, but still

Pictures:

P2440537.jpg — (123.92к)


P2440538.jpg — (132.89к)


P2440539.jpg — (140.33к)

Well, F2 / 92 to the heap, a very cool object, quite sharp at 2, contrast, before the invention of a homemade mega-lens with similar parameters, I took photos of the os on 2/92, but 2/92 is still not as sharp at 4 as a homemade one and does not hold glare so well. On the photos of the aperture 2, 4, and ok 7.

Pictures:

P2440541.jpg — (104.27к)


P2440543.jpg — (118.11к)


P2440545.jpg — (123.31к)

Yes, and Vega 11U! This is one of my most unsuccessful projects, I fell for the" advertisement "of a photo expert about Vega 11, which costs a" bottle of vodka " and does MPE and everything else
And I bought it not on a live flea market but on OLX and so for 25 pupaars! Yes, yes, because at the flea market, if there was something with terribly shabby lenses and in general the wrong factory. And here - absolutely new, in the package, "zebra". And what, and nicho)
On 2.8 does not work at all, there is no sharpness, bokhe creepy, more or less with 8 fotkaet but with 8 even T42 fotkaet more or less.
Khootya, of course, given the specifics of Soviet production, you can write it off to a drunk grinder who made crooked lenses
But the photo expert chet does not please us with shidevras either from Vega 11U, or from the erotic Hindu 69, who, according to Ixpert, gives birth to shidevras in skilled hands, and I just do not know how to take pictures

Pictures:

P2440546.jpg — (101.68к)


P2440547.jpg — (102.08к)


P2440548.jpg — (126.07к)

Greetings to all fans of cheap Soviet lenses!
We continue the series of tests for the title of the most megamacroid lens!
Our last test involved 5 lenses:
Jupiter-11, Arsat H, Zenitar-M2s, Industriar-61L/D and Industriar from the KGB.
A clear victory, according to all the fans, was won by Industriar from the KGB.
He, in the words of a fan of ENO, just "tore everyone to shreds"!
---
Today, the comparison involves three
well-known Soviet makrushnikov "masterpieces"
from photo enlargers, all on the m39 thread:
I-96U 3,5 / 50, Vega-11u 2,8 / 50 (short) and Industriar-100u 4/110.

---

The following additional equipment was used to identify the strongest lens:
1. Tripod
2. A Sony NEX-C3 carcass with a 16 Mpx matrix.
It would be possible to take the A6000 with 24Mpx, but suddenly one of the participants
does not have enough strength to resolve such a large matrix?
3. LED table lamp for illumination.
4. The subject is a bumblebee's head from the Baikal region.
5. A set of metal macro rings M39 (2 narrow, 2 medium, 1 wide) and an adapter L39-NEX.


---
The first to enter the fight is a lens with the funny name I-96u.
With m39 macro rings with a total length of ~8.5 cm
, the distance to the bumblebee was ~ 8 cm.


I-96u showed the following result (aperture 5.6):
Crop without reduction (2000x2000px). Click to enlarge!

---
Next, Vega-11u is connected to testing.
With m39 macro rings with a total length of ~8.5 cm
, the distance to the bumblebee was ~ 6 cm.

Vega-11u shows the following result (aperture 5.6):
Crop without reduction (2000x2000px). Click to enlarge!

---
And finally, in the ring of Industriar-100u!
Oops... The first zrada... No, it wasn't my underpants that burst-
the macro ring isn't enough for normal focusing.
We add another pair of ebony rings on the m39 and
a complete set of three Sony NEX macro rings.

The total length of the macro rings is now ~16.5 cm.
How much more? Or add it? Okay, let's leave it like this,
although the zoom scale turned out to be noticeably smaller.

The distance to the bumblebee was ~ 21.5 cm.
A small ruler is not enough...

Industriar-100u shows the following result (aperture 5.6):
Crop without reduction (2000x2000px). Click to enlarge!

---
And now a word to the fans - which lens,
in your opinion, won today?
--"
Yes, but that's not all..."
In our next competition, next weekend,
such different lenses as
Industriar-69, Lomo 3,7 x and a lens from the Epson scanner will meet.

Industriar-100U drops out due to not reaching the required scale. In addition, purple borders do not add points to it.Although, I think if so many rings were screwed to all the other participants (and if they could miraculously start something inside themselves), there would generally be a mess of aberrations. So obeetiv is good, but it is not for such brutal magnifications, but for moderate macro from afar in nature. A few years ago, I clamped down on this lens for about 600 rubles. now I regret it.
I-96 seems to have come out more contrastingly than Vega. And what excerpts were there? I mean, which one of them is lighter?

I also went out yesterday with I-96U (and U-1), but my three copies give a contrast that just doesn't work and their independent use is questionable. So I put it upside down, first on the U-37A, then on the secret lens. I-50-2 was also used in this capacity.

On Jupiter, the magnifier lenses showed a solid mess, did not even save the pictures. I-50-2 showed a huge scale, but to get b.m. sharp images, I had to close the Jupiter diafragam to 22, and the Industriar diafragam to 5.6, as a result, the standard under-flash could not properly illuminate the object, despite all my tricks with diffusers:



100% crop:



Yuptiter helikoid on MDF, 100% crop:



It confirmed what I saw back in 2015 with the help of Kodak Z990 (and Pan Stepova did not believe it) - facets in the eye of male polistov , mostly quadrilateral.

If you open it a little, it's no longer a cake:



100% crop:



But on the secret object, both I-96-1 and I-50-2 showed pretty good underdeveloped results with the Industriar aperture fully open and the main lens aperture closed to 5.6. I'm even confused about whose pictures are being taken, and I only give one of them:



100% crop:



Alas, the vignette is not weak. In this case, the adapter was "made of shit and sticks", which had to be held by hand, so the vignette is asymmetric. But there is only a slight shift of the optical axis to the side, no distortions, so it will do for the test.

With the main lens aperture fully open, the cortrast is preserved and there is some sharpness, but the GRIP is so small and it is so difficult to get into it without using a tripod that I replaced the test object with a secret template for mapping secret nests , printed on a laser printer on ordinary white paper (the length of the side of the hexagon is 3 mm):



The I-96, unlike the I-50, has a very smooth and evenly sharp field on any diafragm, but here the curvature of the main captalizdichesky lens comes into play. Therefore, it is better to watch 100% crop from the center:



The contrast is good (in comparison with the subsequent ones), HA is small, but everything is in a fog (apparently, SA).

For comparison - I-50-2 (only 100% crop):



The contrast is worse, HA is bigger, but CA is smaller.

I-96 (without index):



No aberrations at all, but the contrast is lower than the baseboard, possibly due to poor preservation of the illumination.

And due to the small pupils with I-96, in all cases the image is much darker than it would be with a secret nozzle, with which I take most pictures of small insects in the field. With it, I couldn't even take a picture of this sheet with a flash - even at its lowest power, everything was flooded with white. But the GRIP is also bigger.

Conclusion #1: miracles do not happen, and the larger the scale, the more soapy the picture becomes in the case of lenses that are not designed for such an atrocity, as they do not turn and do not make up with each other.

Conclusion#2: The larger the GRIP, the darker it is, and the larger the aperture, the narrower the GRIP. How Pan Stepov managed to get out of this vicious circle is a mystery shrouded in darkness.

Conclusion #3: we need to search for I-96 (without an index) with better security than the ones I have.

This post was edited INO-04.11.2019 10: 43

  
I-96 seems to have come out more contrastingly than Vega. And what excerpts were there? I mean, which one of them is lighter?

The shutter speeds are the same-1 / 160s. The I-96u has a lighter frame,
but I might have misdirected the lamp when I changed the lenses...
---
What is your secret lens + 8.5 cm macro ring that will give you a picture?
And, if there is a bumblebee, it is better to show it on the bumblebee's head.

This post was edited by Bomka - 04.11.2019 14: 17

I don't know, I don't have so many rings. Here is one standard full set of M42 (three rings of different thickness), 5,6 aperture, full-size kamzhpeg:



With a secret nozzle and one or two thin rings, it turns out better (in the middle, along the edges it's worse, but who needs them). In general, I do not like to shoot with a large number of rings, but with the aperture clamped down-the dust on the matrix is often better seen than the subject. And how much light you need! And what kind of Jedi lamp do you have that's enough for 1/160? When I was with similar designs of a 60-watt luminary, the exposures were completely deplorable.

Table lamp, with flexible "trunk", Chinese, pink
Company "JazzWay", model PTL-1215c, 4 w, 250 Lm, 3000 k.
But, in addition to the lamp,
I also turned on an external Nexovskaya flash.
The pictures show that it is raised.
And from the window the morning sun shone down.

In my opinion, the first place in testing I-96u and Vega-11u
should be put Vega-11u ...
The GRIP and overall sharpness of the Vega are slightly better,
the glare is not so" strongly radiated " (see above the mandible).
But, after all, I-96u also performed well.
---
I-100u, IMHO, because of its long working period
in the field will not be convenient at all.

If only the local photo-oligarchs, instead of Soviets ' objects, which, in principle, can still be bought anywhere, could fix tests with Karl-Zeiss objects, the same Tessars, Biometars, Sonnars - all this is what analogs were made in the USSR from. No wonder even Karl-Zeiss Tessaras cost no less than $ 100, maybe they take better pictures than all these even very secret Soviet objects)

The oligarchs will not waste time on this,
it is only such beggars as we can
---
Roman, your homemade lens is really good.
Deer with macro rings removed or not?
How far does it focus from the subject?

So you don't have to get this scale. and that's why there are as few rings as possible. I-100U is actually a macro image (even a little more), which is cool. Just do not take pictures of bumblebee eyes, but whole bumblebees on flowers, as well as more shy large animals. And for a smaller one on this long segment, you can try some positive pieces of glass or even stick the whole lens in. Since it covers 6X6cm, you can add fifty kopecks, or even 30mm. It will become brighter, sharper, and possibly counterattackable, but the GRIP is narrower. Alas, the terrible secret of fighting the narrow grip while maintaining the light intensity is under lock and key with Pan Stepovoi.

I made another gizmo that I had been planning for a long time - a symmetrical system of two identical lenses docked with "muzzles". In theory, it should compensate for HA as much as possible, besides, the beam path will be close to the calculated one, and not the same as at 8 cm.However, in my case, the lenses were not exactly the same, namely I-50-2 (rear) and I-96U-1 (front). According to the idea, it would be better to take two I-50s, because unlike photo magnifiers, they should be designed for infinity, but I don't have the second one. In addition, this copy of the I-96U proved to be worthy of the Academy of Sciences of infinity. So it should work awesome. It works this way, but only at aperture 11 (on I-50-2). In theory, the diafrgam should be placed between the lenses, then there will be no vignettes. However, even so it will do, you can drop up to 4 drops:3. And by 5.6 the picture is worse than the pair "Secret lens-secret nasdak" (besides, for some reason, almost twice as dark), there is nothing to think about the open ad even. No, there is some sharpness on the open one, and even a couple of facets can be bent into it

I fulfill the wishes of viewers. I don't know what size that Far Eastern bumblebee is, but mine is a queen argilaceus, and they're about the size of terretsris queens. Each resize is followed by a 100% raw crop of kamzhpeg.

The System And-50-2+I-96-U-1, aperture 5.6

Minimum scale (the I-50 helix is screwed in to infinity):







Maximum scale (helikoid I-50 is unscrewed on MDF):







Secret system, aperture 5.6 (but the shutter speed is almost twice as light as the previous one!)

Minimum zoom level:







Maximum zoom level:







The System And-50-2+I-96-Y-1, aperture 11, minimum zoom:




Secret system, aperture 11, minimum zoom:




In the latter case, there is a severe loss of contrast and detail, especially in the center. There are three reasons for this:

1) I read that planars (and there are two planars, yes ) have a diffraction limit earlier than tessars;
4) the secret object has a painfully shiny diaphragm;
3) the secret nozzle is very worn in the center on both sides (well, it was declassified, who reads the forum for a long time, will remember).

Lighting was everywhere from Ilyich's 60W light bulb, from above and partly from behind. (here and there a diffused light from the window got in.) In the forehead specifically did not shine in order to simulate the real conditions of photo hunting (it is necessary to bring both systems quite close, and therefore - not from the sun). Excerpts are indecent, so I put the camera on the table and on the timer. I've been on a tripod, and the first time the shutter hits, it twitches so much that the wiggle kills everything. I wish I had an electronic first curtain (or better yet, both). In general, Nex-3 so powerfully beats the shutter that sometimes people get scared. Zenith quieter mirror slams.