Photocameras

Community and Forum → Insects photoshooting → Photocameras

18.12.2019 17:52, ИНО

I conducted a comparative test of two variants of the lens from the LETI-60 slide projector. One in a matte gray case with a narrow, smooth focus ring. Apparently, a rare model, because it is not found in Google photos. The second one is in a bronze case with a wider fluted one, there are plenty of such photos on the web. Both with partially degraded illumination of the front lens, and the second - also the rear. Further, the first one is designated as "smooth". the second one is known as "grooved".

1. Full frames, camera tag with the same settings (contrast 0), epsize with sharpness enhancement, etc. There is no post-processing:

Smooth:

picture: DSC01697a.jpg

Grooved:

2. 100% kamjpeg crop:

Smooth:
picture: DSC01696b.jpg

Grooved:

Conclusion: both are GMO(c)

. Of course, I couldn't resist connecting them into a symmetrical macro lens, which is supposed to "self-correct".

picture: _______2019a.jpg

It was hoped that the wild purple of glakogo when superimposed on the bottle green of corrugated will eventually give a normal color reproduction.
Alas, in reality, the "bottle glass" won, while paradoxically, on the contrary, it doubled in

size Without an aperture, pictures from this system are very bright (you can even take pictures with your hands on the windowsill on a cloudy day with an exposure time with a three-digit denominator

), but completely stupid

With the aperture between the lenses cut out of black cardboard, it turns out just a mediocre macro weighing more than 1 kg.

Conclusion: a system of two planars is not suitable for macro analysis. Tessaras are much more interesting.

18.12.2019 19:43, ИНО

Since I attached this ill-fated F-92 to the camera, it was logical to try to attach a 3.7 X LOMO to it, and at the same time compare the result of shooting with my other two small lenses based on secret lenses.

F-92 + LOMO 3,7 X, helikoyz vykrchen slightly beyond infinity:

picture: DSC01681a.jpg

The same thing, but the helicoid is twisted on MDF:

picture: DSC01683a.jpg

I must say that the outer glass is black from the inside and quite matte, so that, unlike ordinary photographic lenses with shiny metal helicoids, there is almost no contrast drop when twisting. At least in some ways this strange device has a plus.

Secret not fifty kopecks + LOMO 3,7 X (my standard melkoscope recently):

picture: DSC01689a.jpg

There is no helicoid in it, as well as a diaphragm. But the contrast will still be better. And the colors are normal. And the focus distance is a third longer. And the aperture is almost the same. In general, if I will change it for something. then certainly not on the F-92. Here it looks like in the case (photographed, by the way, through the F-92):

picture: DSC01693a.jpg

Secret fifty kopecks + 3.7 X LOMO. The helicoid is twisted on MDF. The diaphragm is set to 2.

picture: DSC01686a.jpg

Sharpness and contrast are the best, but, alas, the coverage is sorely lacking. You can also see that LOMO 3,7 X is not a plan, the field is crooked at the edges. But in the center-almost a plan, so that the bourgeois classification is quite a semiplan.

This post was edited INO-12/18/2019 19: 54

26.12.2019 20:46, ИНО

Wow, how many different lenses, both single and combined, I tried this week! I will report only on the most promising options.

For example, the sycophant I had forgotten from Mir (focal length is about 50 mm, open hole - 2 with something) pushed For infinity in a compartment with an Industriar-23-y impaled on it in front, they give a moderate macro with a hole of 2 and a rather short focal length (not a measure), which allows you to shoot with hands in cloudy weather at minimum ISO:

picture: DSC02407a.jpg

100% crop kamzhpega without processing:

picture: DSC02407b.jpg

For comparison, my famous secret fifty kopecks, also on the hole 2:

picture: DSC02416a.jpg

IMHO, a new composite lens at this aperture will be better. Loses only in contrast, but here it is like the old Soviet lenses do not rearrange, and multi-layer illumination on them will not grow

26.12.2019 22:05, ИНО

What was that? Who stood on whom? And if the camera is turned over, the "lower circle" will become the "upper" one?

Of course, the characteristics of the I-23U are not sugar, but I don't have the best one with similar pupils, a back segment and a focal one. And at our flea market, too. I also tried AMAR/S - not the same. Although it rolls as a" tube lens " for LOMO 3,7 X. And, surprisingly, in direct focus at 150 mm from the matrix (i.e. in normal mode), this LOMO performed much worse than with any "tube lens". But Zeiss , on the contrary, is better. Moreover, the Zeiss can be shortened twice the working segment from the calculated one, and the quality in the center does not fall at all, while in LOMO 3,7 X I did not transfer this procedure at all - a solid mess of HA, which I did not even save. It is a pity that Pan did not write in what form he used his LOMO, against which there is supposedly no reception.

Pictures:
picture: DSC02442a.jpg

DSC02442a.jpg — (227.12к)

picture: DSC02426a.jpg

DSC02426a.jpg — (225.45к)

picture: DSC02437a.jpg

DSC02437a.jpg — (205.29к)

picture: DSC02449a.jpg

DSC02449a.jpg — (175.79к)

Likes: 1

29.02.2020 1:19, ИНО

Clear. No, there is no need for a tripod, it is already included in the microscope, and it is cooler than any photographic one in terms of progress - with a macro and micro

screw, you just need to remove the head and install an adapter in its place so that the bottom is like a head, and the top is threaded with M42 or M39. Then make a tube of macro rings to maintain the standard distance, and put a camera on it. I have standard photographic transients from Nex to M42 and M39. But where to get an adapter for a microscope, H. Z. In the USSR they made microphotonasks, which included such an adapter, but you won't find them in the daytime with fire.

Through the eyepiece, I also take pictures with a soap dish - not at all. And Merya has an ocular camera at work - also not the same. And in direct focus on Nex, microscopic lenses work perfectly, but without a frame and a condenser, this, at significant magnifications, is pampering. Although if you twist a lot and manage to overcome the shake from the shutter release, then you can see something in the passing light.:

Pictures:
picture: DSC03881a.jpg

DSC03881a.jpg — (425.62к)

Likes: 1

29.02.2020 13:47, ИНО

Thanks for the recipe! I didn't know there was an M42. Non-working lenses from Zenith, however, I do not have (and if I had - I would let them go together with the tails on the helicoids), but you can try to cut the macro ring.

With a standard working distance (150 mm), the Soviet microscopic lenses I know cover the APS-C matrix with a large margin. In your system, by the way, this distance is not maintained. Hence, there may be problems with vignetting, as well as with a strong curvature of the field and generally with a significant decrease in image quality. There is also a suggestion that the aperture from the head of the microscope may give a vignette. It was not intended to be used for photographing, and the entrance pupil of the eyepieces will still be smaller than the matrix. But your pictures don't show anything like that, they're good. What lenses do you use?

The message was edited INO-02/29/2020 14: 07

Likes: 1

01.03.2020 1:12, ИНО

APO is about color, not field. By the way, the old Soviet and Zeiss apochromats cannot be used for direct focus photos at all, they only work together with compensation eyepieces. Otherwise, on the contrary, there will be more chromatics (and much more!) than with simple achromats. About the field-this is a plan, the problem is that common Soviet plans are much inferior to similar non-plans in all other parameters. And modern APOS and plans are all for an "infinite" tube, they need a tube lens to work. So, if you don't mind, please indicate exactly which APOS you used.

I don't know what you didn't like about the LOMO 8X, but in my opinion it is one of the best widely used Soviet lenses, both for visual and photo purposes. Anything better than their own 9X Plan. Sharp, contrasting color. The field is crooked-yes, but if you fill the stack, it doesn't matter. And 3,7 X - generally cool, Pan Stepovoy will confirm

, but, I saw, they make a knight's move - they put lens blocks from photobetivs in the revolver. They have a small multiplicity, a completely flat field, no inversion, and an iris aperture. I saw, used Industriar-61L/D, but I don't remember, with a tube lens, or without. The microscope there was a slightly different weight category.

Well, with a reduced working interval of yes by 1/200, the lack of lubrication from the shutter operation is not surprising, but sometimes you have to close the condenser diaphragm. What do you shine with?

20.03.2020 22:35, ИНО

Finally, I found the Azov Vega-11U, and in the "fly did not sit" state. The lens is very contrasting (despite the simple illumination) and sharp from an open hole (hello to Pan Stepov, who recommended that it be "soldered"

). When closed, only the GRIP grows and the transverse XA leaves (although there are almost none on the open one), but the resolution stands still. And, I must say, not a fountain of it-pixel-by-pixel 14 Mp does not cut, unlike some. For example, the penny I-96U is clearly better in resolution on the hole 5,6, although it has much more pronounced XA and absolutely lousy contrast. Another point is related to a very deep-set front lens. Of course, this helps well against glare, but with a large macro ring wound up (this achieves the "entomological scale"), the shooting distance is already too small. Although for shooting with the camera on the hand holding a twig with an insect-it's the most important thing.

Another amazing thing is that my scratched "lens block from Mir" (under this name it was bought), which I have been using in a variety of designs since 2016, turned out to be a lens block from Helios-81 Automatic

, it turned out after buying another copy entirely. And I have already twisted so many different "Worlds" in my hands, looking in vain for a similar one...

Photos will not be taken under quarantine, take my word

for it

Pages: 1 ...36 37 38 39 40 41 42