Photocameras

Well, the theoretical problem is immediately visible, but in practice, in fact, epoxy is very toxic when solidified and sterilization is instantaneous there, water should not interfere with anything either. And here is the ambush, when amber was poured 45 million years ago, no one conducted anything through alcohols - and look, everything is perfectly preserved. And this is despite the fact that in amber insects often clearly rotted and moldy, the cavities left over from the bodies are empty, but the contours themselves are perfectly preserved. The same will happen with epoxy, even if everything inside is abiogenically decomposed and the contents somehow diffuse out of the cavity as happened in amber, the contour will remain as long as the epoxy is intact

And there is a quantity of 1 what? Maybe a 20-gram bag? And again, it is not clear what kind of balm-colorless or yellow. They're all fir trees.

Dinosaur bones also sometimes turned to stone. And from these stones, you can roughly recreate the shape. And sometimes almost whole skeletons come across. So let's drink to this unnecessary battery of alcohols (most importantly, before the procedure begins, remove xylene from its end out of harm's way)

And Pan watched. what's in the gut of your grandfather's lens? For one thing, it would be possible to blacken the ends of the lenses, since the contrast is weak.

Here -
https://www.dns-shop.ru/product/790fa1bccbb...-macro/opinion/
one of the reviews says that:
1. Under certain conditions, it is possible to notice transverse HA (bokeh fringing) on the fully open diaphragm.
and
2. The sharpest image is obtained at an aperture of about 8.
This value is likely to vary slightly from instance to instance.
---
And on one inosran forum, someone claimed
that the best sharpness is at 2.8...
- - -
P.S.
Two years ago, I already tested MP-E at different apertures on a Canon 650D.
Results:

I took a picture of Oska today at a 5x zoom level in RAW+JPG.
Noise reduction turned off, sharpness at 0.
I shot it through a netbook using a cord.
The MP-E has a total of 16 apertures available at any zoom level:
2.8,
3.2,
3.5,
4.0,
4.5,
5,0,
5.6,
6.3,
7.1,
8.0,
9.0,
10,
11,
13,
14,
16.
File Links:
RAW - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/41HB/qcbBdTZib
JPG - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FHyM/nzx4qZrFc

This post was edited by Bomka - 17.11.2019 08: 35

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

What's the point of trolling?
On the contrary, I wanted to show how different lenses work in the same conditions and in the same crooked hands...
By the way, on the "Crop 100%" - in the lower left corner, you can clearly see the microsculpture of the bumblebee's cheek.
But very, very thin GRIP...

Not so subtle. I only achieved this at an aperture of 16. Now I can't reach it, because in the new more high-light version of the small telescope, everything that is larger than 5,6 is not working due to diffraction. The MP-E, judging by the tests, too. So in a micromacro, planar is probably not the best scheme. It is not for nothing that tessaras and generally exotic circuits are more often found in microfilming equipment and other such installations. Although on the other hand, there are Microplanars and Vegas, which seem to have diffraction on closed holes is not very fierce

On the other hand, 2.8 MP-E at this scale is cunning, it is necessary to consider the effective aperture there, taking into account the magnification factor: https://webmineral.ru/articles/item.php?id=9

This post was edited by ENO - 17.11.2019 09: 45

The article is good, but there is no guile, the aperture of 2.8 is always 2.8, the "effective aperture" is needed to understand the attenuation of light intensity and the enhancement of diffraction , but the latter occurs solely by changing the image scale. That's why I wrote to some megafotoexperts many years ago. that macro rings are not a panacea at all, and with each ring the image will deteriorate and not only become darker, but also the resolution will drop, and the more focal the worse the case with macro rings, the tachinar "keeps" a maximum of one large macro ring+ its trunk in a good way, but it is still better on average.
So the trouble is that if you put 2.8 and throw rings, then 2.8 will turn into 16 only in terms of aperture and diffraction, but the GRIP will be even worse than 2.8 with a "regular" application.
The grandfather object is good because it keeps quite normal. quality with 3 large macro rings and one average (this is about two complete sets of rings) and an aperture of 5.6. With such parameters, ordinary Hindus, "takhinar" 2/92 and others simply choke. But the increase in this case dedovsky gives only approx. 3x.
And I don't know what's inside it, I didn't disassemble it, because there's no need, it's clean, and it's scary, suddenly the evil spirit of gebni will fly out during disassembly, and that's it, tut tut
But apparently there are 4 lenses and this is something like an Indian.
Blackening lenses is from the field of magic, if the enlightenment is lousy, then there will be no contrast, I have already passed this on other objects If blackening the diaphragm seems to help at least a little, and even then it is not "recognized" by everyone, then blackening the ends of the lenses in general, if it has an effect, then at the level of perception error.

So to achieve a magnification of more than 3-4X, you need to make hybrids, you can try Telear as a "tube lens" once the author uses 200mm, and I have microscopic lenses for 3.7 and 20, by the way, yes, 3.7 does not rule at all on the pixel density of Panasonic as an independent object, but as a hybrid kit it does not better than other similar focal points..

by the way, yes, 3.7 does not rule at all on the pixel density of Panasonic as an independent object

Roman, can you show me with your photos what it means to "not steer"?
After all, on the Nikon-1, it seems to be normal.

My previous post - authorization failed.
For further testing,
do I need to compare one lens to "macromech vs lens"
or is it better to test other lenses, for example, 8x/9x...?

Roman, can you show me with your photos what it means to "not steer"?
After all, on the Nikon-1, it seems to be normal.

Then, apparently, Pan does not steer. I have and you have rules. At the bourgeois forum, too, steered. By the way, as far as I remember, Pan used this lens as part of the predecessor of "crypto-takinar" and he also drove quite well there. Has it gone bad? I haven't seen the ends of the lenses anywhere yet (I took the lens apart once for cleaning, I wanted to blacken it, but everything was perfectly blackened there anyway), but many home-made photographers really praise this procedure in terms of contrast gain. Here, very few people dare to blacken the diaphrgam, because it rubs all the time, so sometimes even the factory blackening flies off. I feel sorry for the matrix.

In a good way to test, it's over, we need everything. But you don't have to report everything with pictures, you have to choose the best.

And what is the focal length of the lens from the Secret grandfather and how does it behave in infinity?

It doesn't steer because the pixel density isn't the same.
And the use of all these hybrids in nature is one inconvenience, it is inconvenient to take pictures with them, it is much easier to use the grandfather's one, since it works with macro rings is quite acceptable, it has a focal length of about 35mm, but this is not "A4" or whatever it is for evil spirits, because that aperture is 2.8, there is clearly more not 30. Probably this is the inside of something industrial like that of a Bomb with an Indian 30/5. 6, but fortunately there is an aperture of about 3+, and at infinity the grandfather object steers

I also wanted to buy a macromech, but then I realized that it would not be of any use in nature, it would only be full of dust, and there are enough macrocycles at home, except as a base for macrorails, but I haven't seen this at the flea market yet.
It is better to have more tests with different objects, especially with 20X as in that article about mineral images)
And by the way, shooting this from a tripod is not the best option, here in that article everything is done correctly there - the camera is lying on its belly. Because the tripod shakes when shooting, especially if the center of gravity is shifted due to a trunk half a meter long.

Pictures:

P2470805.jpg — (54.46к)

And by the way, shooting this from a tripod is not the best option, here in that article everything is done correctly there - the camera is lying on its belly. Because the tripod shakes when shooting, especially if the center of gravity is shifted due to a trunk half a meter long.

That's right.
You need to make a table "carriage".

That's right.
You need to make a table "carriage".

this is not right.
Avoid budget tripods in favor of professional models with the right platform. They hold equipment weighing up to 10-15 kg or even more. Yes, and you need to attach it not to the camera, but to the furs themselves. And if you shoot with a remote cable or remote control, then there will be no shaking at all.

in favor of professional models with the right platform. They hold equipment weighing up to 10-15 kg or even more.

No, Alexander, I don't agree.
Such models are available only among outdoor tripods.
And, as I managed to find out, a large outdoor tripod is not convenient for the house, because it takes up a lot of space.
A table / floor carriage can be made much more compact.

For the first time I came across macro rings with instructions in such safety, it still smells like "that" paint! Brand new. I opened it, pulled it out, and it just seemed that now you turn on the TV, and there the program Time begins

Pictures:

P2490128.jpg — (218.05к)


P2490127.jpg — (179.63к)


P2490126.jpg — (179.91к)

Today, from the "what was", I made a micro-carriage for testing microscopic lenses.
And I had this:
1. Smooth "deck" board (size 46cm X 18cm X 4cm) - 1 pc.
2. Screws 25 mm-10 pcs.
3. Mounting plates "Suspension straight P60x27" - 3 pcs.
4. Tripod screws made of leather covers from FED cameras - 2 pcs.
5. Part of the preparation guide "LOMO ST-12" from the microscope - 1 pc.
6. Macromech (prefix PZF) - 1 pc.
And here's what happened:






The macro mech and the camera's carcass are screwed to the fastener, which should eliminate the "wiggle".
The subject will be attached to the drug carrier and move along the shooting axis.

A tripod with a vertical lens position would certainly be more convenient when shooting objects that are alive or inanimate, but not attached in any way. Because in a horizontal position, you will have to think about how to hang them from a vertical background, which, for example, in the case of a live larva, I can't even imagine how to do it. However, any tripod, no matter how many static kg it holds, is dynamically flimsy-it tends to shake and twitch. So either a flash or a camera with a front electronic shutter shutter. In the latter case, the structure will start twitching after the exposure. Alas, I have both curtains made of iron. But the Bomka on the A6000 definitely has this feature (maybe there's even a fully electronic shutter there?), and on 16-Megapixel Nexs, it seems to be there.

20X or more lenses will only be used for metallographic lenses, etc. designed to work in reflected light without a cover glass. I found a couple of them on sale, but in another city, now I'm trying to persuade the seller to bring them to Donetsk. Although. to be honest, I'm not sure that in most entomological tasks there is a real need for such magnifications, more like pipiscometry.

Sadness has a problem: Nex has a crack on the hull. Rather, it was already there from the moment of purchase, but it successfully mimicked a scratch on the varnish. And today, after a slight collision with a solid object, it has grown significantly, with strong pressure, the edges walk and creak a little. I'm trying to figure out what to do with it. What do you think, if ekpoksidkoy top to seal, will not corrode?

I decided to compare the I-23u and I-100u lenses from wide-film enlargers on a new micro-carriage.
The working distance of the lenses is very large: ~95.5 mm
. - - -
Both lenses were installed at an aperture of 8.
The macro-mecha is stretched by ~25 cm (from the A6000 matrix to the rear lens of the lens).
The distance from the front lens to the bumblebee is ~17 cm.




---

I-23u
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

I-100u
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

Conclusions:
There are better lenses for macro photography...

I'm trying to figure out what to do with it.

Drop a microdose of superglue into the slot and press it down.
Or a hot soldering iron to "smooth" - the plastic crack will tighten.
This is how I restored the bottom corner on one of the NEX's.

How exactly "so": glue or soldering iron. Melting plastic seems to me very dangerous: a little harder to press or hold a little longer-and a hole. Does superglue not dissolve that plastic? I've had some incidents with him. It is in the crack that something can hardly be placed. it's narrow. My idea is to deliberately add a fixing layer on top.

"So" is a soldering iron.
The corner of the purchased used Nex was slightly chipped off.
I put a piece of black plastic in there with a soldering iron and carefully smoothed it out.
On the slot, you can "solder" the plastic on top.

Some problems are piled up: mushrooms have grown in the secret lens. We'll have to take it apart, and pray that the enlightenment doesn't fall off, and then he took pictures no worse than before.

Attempt to rehabilitate the I-23u lens.
Shooting bumblebees from a distance of ~2 meters on a Canon EOS 650D
1.

Reference image on a Canon 100/2. 8 L lens macro.ISO
400, f / 8, 1 / 200s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

2. + adapter M42-EOS + helikoid Pixco M42-M42 (25-55) + ring M39-M42 + I-23u.
The helicoid is spun up to a maximum of 55mm.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/200s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

3. + adapter M42-EOS + teleconverter K-1 MS (2x) + helikoid Pixco M42-M42 (25-55) + ring M39-M42 + I-23u.
The K-1 teleconverter is screwed in front of the helicoid. The helicoid is spun up to a maximum of 55mm.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/160s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---
Note: When screwing the Converter between the Helix and the lens
, we get vignetting and the inability to focus.

In the last picture, the focus ran from bumblebees to the face of a bearded man. In general, I-23U + converter = crap a priori. It was not for nothing that it was replaced with I-100U.

Yeah.
And in the presence of an autofocus macro from Canon
, it makes no sense to keep the I-23u and I-100u any more...

In the last post, IMHO, the focus is everywhere outside the poor bumblebees who have fallen out of the cycle of substances forever.

For Canon, maybe not. But if on Sony?

Come on, Pahner, Canon's focus seems to be working fine, at least in the back row. I didn't appreciate the joke of humor about the poor and torn out. Unlike the panov insects that gather dust upside down, the Bomka has a normal collection.

Canon-100 shot with autofocus in the center of the frame.
I-23u tried to be guided by the" rear " bumblebee, which is on the right "under the beard".
And with the converter, I clearly didn't get it.
I made only one frame for each option.
---
On the A6000, you will need to compare the I-23u with the SEL 50-210 per 100mm.
Makrik from Sony I have only 30mm.

Well, why I-23, when there is I-100?

Comparison of 4 lenses on Sony A6000.
Jupiter-11, Sony SEL 55-210, I-23u, I-100u.

The distance to bumblebees is ~2m.
---

1. I-23u + M39-M42 + Helicoid M42-M42 + M42-EOS + EOS-NEX
ISO 250, f / 8, 1 / 60s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

2. I-100u + M39-M42 + Helicoid M42-M42 + M42-EOS + EOS-NEX
ISO 250, f / 8, 1 / 60s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

3. Jupiter-11 + macro ring 15mm + M39-NEX
ISO 320, f / 8, 1 / 60s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

4. Sony SEL 55-210 on 100mm.
ISO 400, f/5.6, 1/160s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

No, there is no need to compare with different ISO standards. Ideally, it would be necessary to set the shutter speed with an aperture of one everywhere. So far, it is fashionable only to state the unconditional loss of the I-23U in favor of the I-100U, which was expected.

Vo as nada
And no chpoking, MPE and other foreign delights

Pictures:

P2490462.jpg — (212.67к)


P2490492.jpg — (144.83к)


P2490496.jpg — (132.53к)


P2490487.jpg — (253.58к)


P2490495.jpg — (134.19к)

Live animals

Pictures:

P2490538.jpg — (105.58к)


P2490533.jpg — (98.2к)


P2490557.jpg — (130.13к)


P2490691.jpg — (171.11к)


P2490680.jpg — (162.89к)


P2490642.jpg — (127.21к)

Zhopki dissolve It seems that Panov's power in the area of supernatural expansion of the GRIP has reached the limit. Otherwise beautiful. But what kind of lens is this?

Modification
The last one is a crop.
And the object is still the same hybrid, only as a nozzle-the object from the microscope 3.7

Pictures:

P2490897.jpg — (156.2 k)


P2490916.jpg — (285.14к)


P2490892.jpg — (92.74к)


P2490877.jpg — (92.08к)


P2490840.jpg — (81.31к)


P2490834.jpg — (150.54к)


P2490824.jpg — (133.71к)


P2490808.jpg — (162.84к)

Uuuh
In where is the power-Lomo 3.7! It is strange that the megafotoexpert still has not found this object, probably waiting for "take everything and share"

Pictures:

P2490931.jpg — (294.98к)

Vo, finally the right sock! You can also try the 8X lens from the same kit, then it will be generally a brutal scale. Something must be done about the noise, though, because I thought it was a sinful thing that Pan had unearthed the beezmylnitsa again.

Today I tried an inverted LOMO PF-6A as a nozzle. It looks cool, the lenses inside are up to a fig, and all are enlightened, and even there is a zoom lens. But alas, the crustaceans that he loves are like China: SA and HA are off the scale. And the coverage circle is the same, if not less, which, based on the diameter of the front lens, I did not expect. I will not post test photos, so as not to spoil the topic with them. But from this lens you can make a projection microscope

Yes, I found it a long time ago and put it in the hybrid system, and I've already shown you the photos. It's strange that meganaturalizd didn't recognize the drawing. But I have a fifty-dollar bill on the back, plus a bigger matrix, so it always shoots with a vignette. So I'm looking for something with more coverage. First you need to try all the same 3,7 X put stupidly on the rings with a length of 150 mm as bequeathed by its creators.

That's why you need to have several sets of macro rings, but in general, yes, this is an object for small matrices like Nikon 1, for it the most important thing, there will not be any hybrids and long rings, well, or you need to have a 60mp 24mm matrix in order to somehow approach the pixel density on H1.

150 mm of rings is not at all in order to cover the matrix (this is a bonus). and in order to reach the calculated parameters of the lens. In general, it is surprising that it works so well with a "tube lens", since it was not designed for this. Now, if they bring me metallographic infinite lenses from another city (the seller breaks down for the time being), and they manage to find a suitable "tube lens" (not 50 mm, but more), then it is reported to turn out to be generally uuuhh. But it'll do for now. In the meantime, you need to harvest mushrooms from the lens and somehow fix the crack in the camera, the rest is later.