Photocameras

Ixpert gave a verdict
And immediately the envious "from where" I already posted the link, from Konigsberg, of course
But what can be going on in the house (and in the head) of an okodemik, so that, according to him, he can lose amber with an insect in his own apartment, this is the question of ischo that

Pictures:

P2470120.jpg — (128.12к)

Yes, my mother also lost it. I say: about 15 years ago it was. Before that, I was lying in an aquarium.

Well, now a normal picture, maybe pan, if you first scold a little. But it was still better for me. I here is Forum burzhuysky pl micromakrofotografii looked, it turns out, those "steklyashki" that I used in my melkosope well, very much appreciated in Burzhuyland, despite its Sovietness, But there all the stacks glue frames of 100 or more So they face the problem of lack of grip and the appearance of a cruel vignette when orifice is not worth it. And what kind of lights they make there - in general, you can go nuts

ENO, the plastic was transparent...
---
It is very easy to make a scale plate.
1. In Photoshop, create a "new file "(File, New).
2. Fill it with black color (Fill).
3. Add a new layer (Layer, New).
4. Fill the layer with white (Fill).
5. Select a fixed-size rectangle.
For example, for Sony A6000 = 23. 5x15. 6 mm.
Which corresponds to the size of the A6000 matrix.
Cut out the selected rectangle (Edit, Cut Out).
6. On the resulting black rectangle
, write the text " 1:1 "in white font (choose the font size).
7. We print on a laser printer on white paper.
8. Take a picture of this rectangle with a macro lens,
so that the numbers are sharp (hover over the colon).
9. Check the area of the frame occupied by the rectangle in the image.
If the edges of the rectangle ~ fall on the edges of the frame,
then the shooting scale is ~ 1:1.
If the rectangle is smaller in the image, then
the zoom/zoom is smaller...
You can print rectangles of different scales
(relative to the matrix of the studied photo).
Here's how on my nameplate -

And here is a PDF with a diagram of the location of lenses in MP-E:
https://lens-club.ru/public/files/pdfs/93de...d77968ec32d.PDF
Suddenly, for a homemade model, something like
this can be applied...

Maybe Pan Stepovoi will deal with this case (he's an engineer, after all), but I didn't see the optical circuit there. But you used to provide a link to the site where it exists. There, in mechanical terms, there are three groups of lenses that move relative to each other when zooming in. It will be very difficult to repeat this in an artisanal way. Although who knows him, Pan, he already had some kind of secret lens with two helicoids, and he shot moderately-micro-macro IMHO better than the current one with the participation of the Zionist Vega-7. It's easier for me to make five different lenses for different magnifications, or one transformer lens with replaceable parts. Of course, it would be cool to have one object. which now you take a picture of a bird in the sky, and then you turn the magic ring and-and already the eyes of the legtail, and both are equally good. The efficiency would increase significantly and the matrix would not get dusty. But even Pan's might didn't seem to be enough for such a hocus-pocus.

Here, at the request of the velmyshanov panstvo, I ambushed the living with a melkoscope:





And one inanimate one:



I won't stop here for now - I don't want to waste the shutter resource by mindlessly clicking everything in a row.

This post was edited INO-10.11.2019 20: 16

"And he didn't see the elephant!")))
In fact, very cool documentation as for modern products, there is not only an optical scheme but also information for disassembly and repair, although for some reason there is no description of the optical scheme) So, first of all, we see in this diagram the classical Zeiss planar, which performs the role of a macro-nozzle, behind which is what the main object performs in the artisanal version. In general, what all home-made artists do for macro shooting when they connect two objects - and there is something similar to MPE. Only chet is MPE somehow not uh-huh on the pictures of Bomki, although on the Internet I saw straight shidevry made on MPE

I didn't earn any money on photoshop ) In principle, I understood the idea of scale, I thought makrushnikov 1:1 is when the image of the target object occupies the entire space of the 36mm frame.
And so - you don't need any paper, just look through the viewfinder at the ruler and then divide the resulting millimeters by the size of the matrix (or vice versa in the opposite case), my hybrid Vega and Tachinar gives 4 mm for the entire frame, respectively. 17.3 / 4= ~4 = 4/1
But then for a 36mm frame (covers )my hybrid will give a scale of 9/1 That is far beyond the MPE.

But what is the scale of megaexpert's mega-landing?

Today I discovered such a mega-super-objective as the RO-109-1A 50 mm f / 1.2
It turns out that he also takes pictures more or less at this 1.2 aperture, but if you hold it down to two, then it's generally super. And if up to 4x?
Photo of Cryptotahinar on PO109 on 1.2

Pictures:

P2470234.jpg — (111.37к)

Sho, again? Pan already opened it about three years ago and immediately registered it in GMO.

The fact is that there the lens turns out to be upside down, and now I decided to disassemble it and compare it with the optical scheme, and in general here
Here there is one photo on Jupiter-8 2.0 , and two photos on PO109 one on 1.6 the second on 2.0, the task for photo experts is to find where the photo on Jupiter is

Pictures:

P2470269.jpg — (137.6к)


P2470263.jpg — (122.98к)


P2470258.jpg — (128.87к)

And this person scoffs at the fact that I can't find the lost amber 15 years ago
Well, it's simple: Jupiter doesn't have to have geometric vignetting, so the picture from it is in the middle.

And how did Pan attach a diaphragm to the RO?

This post was edited INO-10.11.2019 22: 42

Yes, I simply attached it - I glued an iris diaphragm to the ass and that's all, so you can
Jupiter is really in the middle, but the photo from PO109 to 2 somehow looks much nicer, although 1.6 is certainly worse, but still 1.6 is twice as luminous as 2, and 1.2 is almost 5 times more so in general.

And it won't vignette? Alas, I don't know how to judge what looks nicer there by such tiny lashes. Still, the U8 is far from the sharpest lens at an aperture of 2, so using it as a reference is unjustified. A hole 1,2-of course cool, but in the case of this object is cool only in the center, along the edges of the same horror. And the longer the focus distance, the more it gets. And on my matrix will be generally horror-horror. But still nice. that I was right then, saying that this lens can shoot much better than at that time (with the lens turned upside down) came out of pan. And I was given this lens without one lens at all (but complete with macro rings for 100 rubles., so you can forgive). You can not shoot, but by shifting the lenses, all sorts of interesting things are obtained for attachments on other lenses.

This post was edited by ENO - 11.11.2019 13: 09

But then for a 36mm frame, my hybrid will give a scale of 9/1, which is far beyond MPE.

Taking into account two Panasonic drops, Tachinar will give ~ 8 mm for the entire "full frame"
. That is, an increase of ~4.5 x. (36mm/8mm).

An interesting feature of the Tachinar is a creepy image with an open aperture(the first photo), but it's enough to cover it somewhere up to 3x(the second photo) and everything changes very much. Also, the tachinar is practically not ugu at diaphragms greater than 8, so the working segment of the diaphragms is 4-5.6.

Below the first two pictures on 2/92 on 2.0, Telar 200 on 3.5 (here clearly with a wiggle) and on PO109 on 2.0. On Jupiter 8, I didn't even take a picture of the Hierodule, this is blasphemy. Namely, Y8 I have the most acceptable 2.0 of the" official " sovetskih photo lenses, G44 is generally terrible at 2 fotkaet, and Y8 this is the best of the three

Pictures:

P2470340.jpg — (225.78к)


P2470341.jpg — (244.92к)


P2470339.jpg — (197.5к)


P2470330.jpg — (138.33к)


P2470323.jpg — (186.84к)

  
Below the first two...

...GMO complete. And crypto(I insist!)- takhinar on 3 is certainly good, but considering that it is well, very crypto -, somehow it is no longer interesting.

Ah, I still noticed an elephant, or rather, for some reason, half of an elephant. But this is an elephant with its trunk retracted. And when you pull it out, the "classical Zeiss planar" becomes less classical, not to mention where the next triplet goes. By the way, I made a mistake along the way, And there are not three, but already 4 groups of lenses moving relative to each other

Testing of hybrid menaobjective under natural conditions on megamuhe

Pictures:

P2470593.jpg — (204.37к)


2P2470593.jpg — (265.28к)

But in general, this is not the caliber of a fly that you need to take pictures of on such a scale. Here are much more biologically relevant images:




But in general, this is garbage compared to what I created after, combining well, it would seem completely incompatible either in terms of pupils or focal points. But still much lighter than all the previous ones with better sharpness. But I won't show you this yet, because it's time to go to bed and go to work tomorrow morning.

This post was edited INO-12.11.2019 02: 58

After watching the crop, you want to sing the national anthem of Israel.

It's all from the Tachinar diaphragm...

Only two Soviet fifty - kopecks, Volna-9 and Industriar-61 L/S, have a similar bokeh pattern "in the form of a Jewish star".
---
Here is a picture of Roman taken yesterday,
where you can see these stars even better
(from the topic "Positive temperature anomaly")


This post was edited by Bomka - 12.11.2019 03: 30

No, this is not Industriar and not Volna-9, but Vega-7-1, which is mounted on Panov's homemade product. Apparently, her native diaphragm in such a bundle did not work. But still among the Soviet lens designers were hidden Zionists

Now on my Vega 7-1 is bokhe
Yesterday I replaced the diaphragm lobes, well, it was difficult, a very stupid design, they came from an Indian 69.

Pictures:

P2480089.jpg — (55.6к)


P2480088.jpg — (54.27к)

And now the PO109 has a built-in aperture in the optical center
Pictures on it are certainly unusual, this is what is called an "object for creativity", in naturalistic shooting, of course, this does not rule and you need to know how and where to apply it..

Pictures:

P2480403.jpg — (87.32к)


P2480405.jpg — (101.39к)


P2480417.jpg — (88.34к)


P2480437.jpg — (89.1к)


P2480428.jpg — (88.45к)

Well, a few pictures on the hybrid object, the results I certainly don't really like, but nevertheless, but the species diversity of animals is clearly higher than in the pictures of okodemika

Pictures:

P2480269.jpg — (97.52к)


P2480298.jpg — (51.07к)


P2480386.jpg — (85.28к)


P2480109.jpg — (103.94к)


P2480187.jpg — (113.7к)


P2480139.jpg — (66.49к)

Hmm, and I liked it (except for a mosquito and a fly). Only white balance went somewhere in the EU for permanent residence. And it would be necessary to sharpen it, but in some places there is such a parquet floor on even gradients that in this case it will become akhutng. Pan must learn Therapy after all

Now on my Vega 7-1 is bokhe    
Yesterday I replaced the diaphragm lobes, well, it was difficult, a very stupid design, they came from an Indian 69.

And why is it so double in the last photo? In general, six petals are the Plebeian diaphragm. With Vega, it is clear, but why did Pan install such a system in RO?

Who has what kind of pain

Takhinar+PO109, that's what I like better

Pictures:

P2480510.jpg — (112.53к)


P2480525.jpg — (100.04к)


P2480536.jpg — (60.57к)


P2480558.jpg — (85.91к)


P2480581.jpg — (93.71к)


P2480593.jpg — (144.4к)

Dissolving assholes (tm). What is interesting is that in amber (or whatever it is this time) zhopki do not dissolve, unlike air. I told you that the flooded ones take better pictures than the live ones

Almost amber




Pan Stepovoi definitely does not have such a fly Photographed through a slide, because through the crushed cover it turns out to be a Picaso picture. Pay attention to the absence of bubbles.

Speaking of flies: I have only just noticed that Panov's fruit flies are not at all of the same system as mine, and they will probably be much larger in caliber. So grandfathers secret lens together with Panov's homemade megahybrid is merged into a micro macro

This post was edited INO-14.11.2019 21: 00

I tested the melkoscope in combat conditions. The flight is normal. In the sun with an open diafrgama, excerpts will be obtained with a three-digit denominator - you can normally take pictures with your hands. The GRIP is only small. With the cover and flash, it enters better.














Well, and in close to combat ones:




This post was edited by ENO-11/15/2019 23: 57

Something does not impress at all, zhopki are blurry, and the drug drozdofila-so generally horror And of course okodemic conclusion about the size of fruit flies pleased

If Pan does not like my conclusion about the size of fruit flies, he can apply to the Stockholm Arbitration to take a picture of his fruit fly against the background of the ruler. The drug is still terrible, because, as I said, the student crushed it with a microscope. But before becoming a sim horror, it was made well - there are no favorite panov bubbles at all. And Pan's assholes are also blurry at this scale. Unless on the lens of the secret grandfather is not so strong, but the secret of it is great. However, I will emphasize once again the fact that the "zayantarennyh" spraying is much less significant than in the living.

Specially made such a "preparation", it is not finished yet, the surface is not polished, but even in this case, my picture perfectly shows the details of the size of the thrush 2.5 mm, measured under the MBS measuring scale, the size of the hay eater, I hope, okodemik is known

Pictures:

P2480988.jpg — (228.88к)


P2480997.jpg — (167.29к)

Dear colleagues,
the time has come to compare lenses from the melkoscope.
--"
Tram-para-ram!"
Here they are - "three heroes", "three Stalinist falcons",
or rather-three subspecies of one Soviet achromatic lens,
designed for different tube lengths:
1. 3.7 x / 0.11 on 160mm "OM-12".
2. 4.7 x / 0.11 P (olarization) on 190mm "OM-12P".
3. F=33.1 /0.12 N(olarization) at infinity.

---

The dimensions, ergonomics, and focal length of these lenses are the same.
The focusing distance (from the front lens of the objective to the bumblebee's eye)
with five m39 macro rings wound up was ~ 27mm.

---

We will compare the macro capabilities of lenses on three different cameras:
1. Sony NEX-C3.
(APS-C / crop matrix 1.5 / 16 Mpx, max. frame size =4912x3264px,
pixel density corresponds to a full-frame matrix at 36Mpx).
The equivalent is calculated using the formula 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36.


2. Sony ILCE A6000.
(APS-C /crop 1.5/ 24 Mpx matrix, max. frame size =6000x4000px,
pixel density corresponds to a full-frame matrix at 54Mpx).
The equivalent is calculated using the formula 24 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 54.

3. Nikon-1 V1.
(Small CX matrix / crop 2.7/ 10 Mpx, max. frame size =3872x2592px,
pixel density corresponds to a full-frame matrix at 73Mpx).
The equivalent is calculated using the formula 10 x 2.7 x 2.7 = 73.


If you think that the "full frame equivalent" is garbage,
then I advise you to take a closer look at the crop lines of the object-micrometer ruler -
it is clearly noticeable that the image scale with the Nikon-1 is almost
a third larger than the images with the Sony NEX-C3...

---
Additional equipment:
- A tripod.
- Two table lamps for illumination.
- Adapter L39-NEX.
- Adapter m39-Nikon-1, self-made (glued together from a bayonet cover from Nikon-1
and a threaded bayonet from the Soviet film camera Chaika-3).
-M39-RMS adapter (for microscopic lenses), also homemade.
- Five Soviet metal macro rings M39 (= tube with a total length of ~85mm).
- The subject is a Siberian bumblebee. Body length ~21mm, head length ~6.9 mm.
- Scale ruler with a length of 1 mm (the object is a micrometer made by LOMO), the division price is 0.01 mm.

---

Getting started.
- - -
1. 3.7 x lens on Sony NEX-C3.
Full frame, reduced.

Crop 100% (perevyenka...)

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

2. A 3.7 x lens on the Sony A6000.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

3. A 3.7 x lens on the Nikon-1 V1.
Whole frame, reduced.
Ouch... one lamp shines "not there"!

Crop 100%.

Here, with two lamps:
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

4. 4.7 x lens on Sony NEX-C3.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

5. A 4.7 x lens on the Sony A6000.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

6. A 4.7 x lens on the Nikon-1 V1.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---
7. Lens F=33.1 on Sony NEX-C3.
Full frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

8. Lens F=33.1 on Sony A6000.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.


Here is another object for depth of field estimation

---

9. Lens F=33.1 on the Nikon-1 V1.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.

---

10. For comparison, let's look at the operation of the Canon MP-E lens on the Sony A6000.
At an aperture of 2.8, the magnification is ~3x.
Whole frame, reduced.

Crop 100%.

Object-micrometer, crop 100%.


This is a clear joke of "Mr. MP-E"...
---

Choose today's winner for sharpness and GRIP
and we will test it on November 23-24 (microscope lens = OM)
at different magnifications of macro photography on the Sony A6000,
by screwing it on the macroech of the PZF
and on a lens with a focal length from 100 to 300 mm.
Planned comparison options:
1. "OM + macromech 100mm" vs "OM + Lens 100mm"
2. "OM + macromech 150mm" vs "OM + Lens 150mm"
3. "OM + macromech 200mm" vs "OM + Lens 200mm"
4. "OM + macromech 250mm" vs "OM + Lens 250mm"
5. "OM + macromech 300mm" vs "OM + Lens 300mm"

This post was edited by Bomka - 16.11.2019 17: 16

In general, making a drug is still not so easy. And here the question arises - did okodemik do something like this, or does he use everything ready-made?
In general, I would like to see the creation of the Master

Pictures:

P2490032.jpg — (165.41к)


P2490024.jpg — (166.38к)

Today's drosophilophotos are impressive, of course, but will the whole thing be announced? It is not clear by what heavy R & D pan came to such an original and" difficult " procedure for preparing micro-preparations, which includes polishing, but it does not seem to have anything in common with conventional methods. As well as that incomprehensible mounting medium, in which the fly is filled with a fair amount of bubbles, has nothing to do with fir balsam. Well, what will remain of that fly in a few decades (the age of my child) is a big question.

No, I don't flood the flies, I don't need it. On the other hand, several hundred glass panes were pollinated with honey pollen this season.

Bomka, cool test! MP-E definitely goes through the forest. In general, there are no such hellish HA on any of the current versions of my HOMEMADE products. Is that on a bunch of U-37A + F-92 1: 2 on the open, but there it seems that both members chromate separately more than they are supposed to, and in one direction. Still, I need to bother with an adapter from Lomov's myroscopic objects to macro rings. The potential in them is huge, despite the size and lack of enlightenment at all. But only for the optimal mode of the macro-ring, it is necessary not to pick up from the fool. a strictly defined length. For the tube 160 is 150 mm (from the matrix to the stop of the lens), for 190 mm I do not know, I have not come across such yet. All the same, they are not from biological microscopes, apparently. Infinite should be used with a "tube lens" which can act as a simple high-quality achromatic gluing and a good TV set with a focal length of about 200 mm (but it is fashionable to try less).

It is strange that Nex SZ did not show a single sharp picture, unlike the other two cameras. Is there a wiggle everywhere or something else? Does the first curtain turn off? If not, then it is useless to put it on a tripod, you just need to put it on a flat heavy table and go down to the timer. Or somehow let the flash down.

Today I took some more pictures with a small telescope in nature in natural sunlight. This time I came across mostly a big guy, so not only everyone fit in the frame. In a good way, most of these animals had to be simply removed with a secret fifty kopecks with macro rings.








As you can see, the rumors about the impossibility of shooting with a small telescope in the field, dismissed by some, are greatly exaggerated. Although I fully admit that these people themselves still could not, because the distance there is less than 1 cm.

And yes, this is how the eyes of the right Russian fly look, no stars of David 100% crop:




This post was edited by ENO - 11/16/2019 21: 44

I even think that about MPE there is a place to be trolling, I do not believe in such a mess, especially even on 3X
Or maybe it's a "bad instance" (C)

The severity of the" manufacture " of the drug is that there is no special manufacture, just a drosophila is invited to the finished epoxy, and there it is probably just like in an amber forest, resin drips on top of it. And here it all depends on chance, successfully or not the fruit fly will harden, so that there are fewer bubbles and turbidity and there is enough space for polishing. Of course, I do not fill it between slides, the whole point is to reproduce the conditions of the amber forest
And the object is Dedovsky on 3 large macro rings, everything is as usual.
And of course this

Fir balms are different. The fact that the colorless one is a real Canadian one, which was once glued to lenses, I never saw in my eyes. As well as no other post-Soviet biologists, because he cost fabulous money. And they poured everything in Siberian, even though they called it Canadian. It is a rich yellow, so the color rendition of the lens glued together with such a balm would be very fun And still you can get it. A good thing as an adhesive or paintwork.

Epoxy (not from stroymag finite, but special) is indeed now occasionally used as a mounting medium for microscopy, but! I don't know if Pan got acquainted with the alcohol battery during his brief stay at the university, but it does not exist at all for what he probably just thought of. Pan's fly turned out to be the same as a sealed maaalenky sealed plastic bag with wei its internal water and microflora.

This post was edited by ENO-11/16/2019 22: 34

https://prom.ua/p489030966-kanadskij-balzam-pihtovyj.html
No fufu itself price