Photocameras

Today I tested the third copy of the lens from the LETI slide projector. Alas, this time without any logos and with a wide ring, exactly the same as the previous one. So Pan Stepovoi took his own unique, H. Z. But compared to the previous one, this one turned out to be much more contrasting and with B. M. normal color reproduction. Although the color and peeling of the enlightenment do not look different. At long distances, it takes pictures tolerably (although it slightly softens and chromates), but in macro everything is just as deplorable as the previous one. But if you attach a nozzle in the form of an Industriar-11M to the front of it. it turns out quite a macro lens, which takes pictures sharply even on an open hole (in contrast to each of its components separately). And if you put a puck made of black cardboard with a hole between them, but in general I tried to apply this puck to the projector without a nozzle, it also diaphragms well, no vignettes (I checked the sky). And the sharpness is growing, you can shoot good landscapes, as well as all sorts of flowers. In a good way, of course, it would be necessary to put an iris diaphragm instead of cardboard, but you will find such a big fig. I understand why Pan Stepovoi put the aperture of his lens in the ass - there is a smaller pupil. But this is inconvenient mechanically. After all, the lens block goes forward, and it turns at the same time, and the diaphragm will stand in place in the outer glass - this is not good. In addition, the front aperture cuts off excess illumination and, as a result, the lens behaves very well in the background light.

Makroobjetiva recipe #2: two Industriara-90U docked muzzles. The rear-facing orifices. Despite the fact that the front is rather shabby, the contrast and sharpness are beyond praise. HA's are completely absent. The focus distance is small, but it is convenient for shooting with a twig gripped by hand (see the previous post). The Bes - ring scale turns out to be the most popular-the queen of the earth bumblebee enters end-to-end.

In general, I have tested a huge number of composite lenses over the past week, but the above ones are the most interesting.

There will be no photos again, so believe it again.

Slightly modified the "macro system" of the KODAK Z1012 IS + Helios-44-2.
Previously it looked like this and the tube was made from an aluminum beer can



Now "3D printed", it turned out a little more cultured





I ran out of dark plastic, so I had to print it in white and then paint it inside, with black duct tape on top .


On the landing diameters (under the lenses), one layer of electrical tape, since the plastic is very "slippery", and the landing is with a small gap.
There are two more trial versions in the photo.
The size of the tube was calculated based on the minimum distance between the camera lens and the front lens of the Helios-44-2 lens.
The tube is printed in two parts , so it is more technologically advanced in manufacturing.







Now you can think about lighting and a test photo (bad lighting was corrected programmatically).



I apologize, I forgot to write a link to the model ( the case is certainly rare and very individual, but still) https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4267635

This post was edited by Yuriy352-07.04.2020 20: 59

G44-2 is very much soapy and twists at the corners. I recommend replacing it with the G-81 or some projection planar, for example, from the LETI slide projector. Well, to pull the shadows with a soapbox matrix is the last thing. Simple washer-diffuser made of expanded polyethylene in combination with a built-in flash gives little light? With the Z990, I had enough of it. And the Nekrasov underflash is not always enough, often you have to use a tubular reflector instead of a washer made of foil wrapped around the entire camera, including the lens. Oversized and uncomfortable. Fiber would probably help, but I don't have one.

By the way, I still screwed Nex to MBRu according to Bianor's recipe - thank you again! I did without a locksmith, just put one medium and one large ring M42 "mom to mom" on a piece of black PVC pipe. Of course, the rigidity of the structure is not as good as it would be when screwing in the thread, but you can rotate the camera relative to the microscope, without changing the working segment. Considering that the table on my microscope is crippled and does not spin, this is a big plus. And if you need to fix it absolutely rigidly, you can walk over the rings with black electrical tape (but I haven't had such a need yet). I shoot at exposures of 1/15 seconds or more, I don't notice any smudge from shaking the shutter, at least with the 8X lens, which turned out to be the most popular. For a 40X lens, I set the shutter speed more with dark subtraction. The descent is always timed. It's a pity for the third Nex there is no remote control.

My working segment is slightly larger than the regular one, achieved by adding another wide M42 ring to the design. There is no vignette with any lens, so the built-in aperture in the head does not interfere. Moreover, I doubt that this is an aperture at all, since in that place in regular ICBM lenses, it does not cut anything except re-reflection from the walls. Apparently Bianor screwed something exotic into the revolver, it's a pity that sekerotnoe.

And now Humpback autofocus




Pan Stepovgo definitely doesn't have such a lens.

The message was edited INO-05/11/2020 02: 06

It's time (and kindness) to reveal the secret of the autofocus macro asset from the upcoming post. Ttriplet-3 from the "Etude" projector is inserted (through a series of bushings and electrical tape) in a straight position into the thread for ditmokit SEL 10-50 light filters. Both lenses themselves are optically disgusting, but crossing a hedgehog with a grass snake gave birth to a beautiful swan. Also, as an attachment lens, the Industriar-104U came up in an inverted position, with it the scale is larger and the sharpness is excellent, but there is a slight vignetting at the corners even at the long end. However, after experimenting with AF, I returned to manual technique, and abandoned this shit kit, which does not have the ability to manually focus in principle. Although it has two advantages compared to the Soviet ones when shooting a landscape - an excellent contrast against the sun and an angle of 18 (with a terrible barrel, however).

Today I'm going to share a new discovery. Rather, this is an old discovery of Pan Stepovoi, which he didn't really describe and for some reason abandoned, saying that "it's not very good for a mirrorless camera." And for me, very much so. We are talking about a 3.7 X Lomo microscopic lens in an inverted position. Of course, the focal point is small and therefore it is necessary to move it close, but in fact this is a big plus in the fight against shivering. Especially when using my favorite method - putting the camera on the hand holding the stem of the plant on which the subject is sitting.

I've tried this option before, but somehow I wasn't impressed, probably because I couldn't fix it correctly. Then I came across a removable bland from one of the versions of the H-2 projector. Its outer diameter is slightly smaller than the inner diameter of the M39 carbolite ring supplied with the I-104U or I-96U lens, and its inner diameter is slightly larger than the diameter of the microscopic lens. A couple of turns of the cartridge and a syringe, ring M39-M-42, and came out a compact lens with the ability to focus/zoom pump method (Lomo frame 3.7 X gently slides inside the segment of the syringe).

The background twists noticeably, and at a minimal scale, which turned out to be the most suitable for shooting medium-sized oss, a little gently vignettes in the corners. But in the RIP zone, everything is evenly sharp (and very, very) and practically without HA. Excellent contrast despite the fact that there is not a single clear glass in it. But the lens itself is quite light for such a scale and GRIP. Judging by the drawing, the scheme is clearly some very exotic, unknown to the designers of photographic objects (at least, Soviet ones). But it's a pity: I would have liked a couple more with a larger focal length and coverage and apertures, and in general I could have forgotten about all my other macro models...





Now we need to try to fit the rear or front aperture, although it is not a fact that it will work without unacceptable vignetting.

Here-I bought this for 200 rubles





The pictures were taken after adaptation, initially the aperture was switched with an awl through a hole in the backside.

And at first I even passed by, before it was ugly and dusty, it stood with its ass up, with non-Russian inscriptions and indicating not very promising parameters. I came back and started to turn it in my hands only because with other lenses on this day at the flea market it was not so hot. And only at home, after searching the Internet, I realized that I got the most valuable thing in our business-the Ipon minilab lens. And unlike most of its relatives, this one has an iris aperture and zoom. And equally sharply fotkaet on any holes and on all focal (on the smallest only chromatit a little). In terms of sharpness, colors and contrast, only LOMO 3.7 X m is steeper than it from my lenses, but there are completely different parameters (the most unpleasant of which is a thin, unchangeable curve of the RIP area, the aperture cannot be attached in any way, alas). I have long been looking for something that draws just as beautifully for smaller scales, with a flat field and aperture, and now it seems to have come true






I posted full-size photos, because the resize algorithms tested on many other lenses can't cope here, they spoil it. There is an open hole everywhere, raw kamzhopeg.

And for the same 200 rubles, I took his older brother 60-90, but everything is much worse there, probably due to the huge amount of dust packed into the lens block. We'll have to figure out that a dumb-ass samurai spirit can fly out. In the smaller brother, by the way, there is also a lot of dust inside, but at least not more in area than the optical surfaces that are free of it. And how cool would these lenses be if the previous owners, after removing them from the unit, kept them in their cases!?

The message was edited INO-07.11.2020 21: 17

I revealed the secret of creating mega-cool photopribluds: you need to read Pan Stepov's posts very carefully, and get what he scolds the most In any case, with the K-1 converter, which pan called "the most useless acquisition" this trick was a success Only it's better not to fasten it to the TV channels, but quite the opposite

Sholom!

I tried yesterday to adapt the Vega-7-1, which I bought on the tip of Pan Stepov, but which at first glance seemed to me complete. Indeed in a straight position it is:



By resizing, it seems like nothing is wrong, but if you look at the 100% crop, it becomes obvious. which, as some people say here, "it's not uh-huh":



However, it turned out that in the inverted position, these terrible aberrations mostly disappear!




But the price is a very strong drop in contrast, and the more you cover the Jewish aperture, the worse the contrast.

For comparison, a snapshot for a bundle of LOMO 3.7 X + K-2 converter:




There is even too much contrast here, it was necessary to set a milder kamzhopeg mode.

The message was edited INO-02/28/2021 22: 20

Inspired by the Vega-7-1 experiment, I decided to flip Vega-11U. I was pleasantly surprised by the result - HA is almost zero (while at the fifth position of this lens, purple halos are very noticeable at this scale), the contrast, unlike the previous Vega, remained normal. Now we need to build a collective farm with some kind of reverse adapter. With Vega LZOS, it wouldn't be difficult, but I have AOMZ...

This post was edited by ENO-03.03.2021 11: 14

Pictures:

DSC02784_1a.jpg — (248.14к)


DSC02784_1b.jpg — (332.15к)

The result was pleasantly surprised-HA almost zero

Yes, the crop is gorgeous!

All of you invent bicycles to avoid overloading yourself. But if you don't really need to use DSLRs with normal macro lenses, there are other working options:

Jan Mertens, Martijn Van Roie, Jonas Merckx, Wouter Dekoninck
2017. The use of low cost compact cameras with focus stacking functionality in entomological digitization projects. ZooKeys 712: 141–154. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.712.20505

https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/20505/

Why DSLRs? A macro mirror is a lousy assistant, just extra weight and volume. Moreover, even poultry houses are already being slowly transplanted to mirrorless ones. Soon mirrors will be available exclusively in the hands of photographers specializing in Homo sapiens

I finished reading the article to the drawing, after viewing which it became clear that you can not read further because only the 600D c MP-E showed good quality.
In-camera stacking in the soapbox advertised by the authors is generally a complete slug and hair removal is the same as what they sewed manually from the frames captured by this soapbox, although quite watchable, but full of stacking artifacts. I received from the old A540 with nozzles from Industriar-90U or Helios-81 gave a slightly better result (in any case, definitely not the worst), and I don't say anything about Nex at all, but it costs, used, cheaper than the soap dish from the article.

But there is still an undisclosed factor of crookedness of stack stitchers, because even in the picture from MP-E, stacking artifacts are noticeable, and even more so in the other two. I think I'd do better even with the A540.




It is a pity that the aperture on this camera began to get stuck in the covered position, maybe someday I will dare to disassemble and try to fix it, or even remake it into a "soap box" like Pan Stepovoi. I really like the picture from his matrix.

I tested today another recently purchased fifty kopecks, cleaned of mold the day before, the fruit of the gloomy Ukrainian SSR-ovsky genius "Gilios-81 Automatic". Despite the worn lenses, the lens turned out to be optically very good. At an open aperture, it gives a significantly greater field alignment than all other Soviet descendants of 50 mm Biotars. which I have (and there are 3 different ones). They write that in this regard, for some reason, the automatic is even better than the version of the same lens under the Nikon mount. As the aperture closes, the sharpness only increases, which is quite unusual for this scheme. But in terms of mechanics, there is a clear feeling that the creator of this Shidevra used hallucinogenic mushrooms. Well, control the diafrgam through the opu, let it be such a tricky feature of the camera (although what are its advantages for the photographer?), but the polished copper-colored diaphragm lobes could only have been a nightmare for a normal lens designer. They write that this is a ganial coating made of titanium nitride, well, even if it is red gold-for the picture the effect is predictable and unhl: after closing until about 8, the image is covered with a reddish veil, and this is doubly unfortunate, because you can see that behind this veil it remains quite high-quality.

Conducted comparative testing with G-44-2, Vega-11U and Noritsu 20-60. The first one merged immediately and in all parameters, except for the contrast on the closed one (even its greasy gray petals are much better than the glamorous automata ones). Vega merged at apertures up to 5.6, but then showed a much more contrasting picture with comparable sharpness - that's what a properly blackened aperture means! Noritsu, as expected, broke everyone in terms of contrast and color reproduction (almost modern Ipon multi-layer illumination does its job), but in terms of HA on the open (it has 4), it turned out to be slightly worse than Vega on the same aperture. But it has an indisputable trump card in the form of a variable focal length with simultaneous zoom without losing the light intensity. That is, perhaps, with an elongated trunk, when the focal length becomes 20, it will actually turn out to be brighter on its hole 4 than the same Helios by 2.8, but on the rings (it would be necessary to check when the sun will be).

Conclusion: contrary to the authoritative opinion of one svidomo khvotoexperd, lenses for mass 35 mm cameras were sometimes quite made for themselves, b. m. sharply and contrastingly shooting, starting from an open hole 2, in the USSR. It is necessary to saw this machine for normal mounting. I have already, in principle, thought out how and what, although it is quite dreary there, but I need an M42 backdrop, which I don't have. At the very least, you can try to create it from the carbolite front cover of the K-2 converter, but still I would like to get a metal one from some broken common-use lens like G-44M.

And now there will be no photos until the disk space is added, sorry.

PS Still hands reached the killed G-44-3, but everything is bad there: first, the front lens is in a terrible state, and gives a milky veil, secondly, the diaphragm has crumbled, and thirdly, what is saddest, I was never able to separate the lens block and the helicoid-connected by a truly innovative method "tight twist without screws" they fused too tightly. But judging by what you can see through the haze, once on an open lens, this lens gave a pretty decent picture, without strong swirls, much better than the G-44-2 and comparable to the G-81 (or maybe even better in terms of sharpness in the center). What is especially surprising: despite the inscription on the frame, no MS is visible in it at point-blank range, the lenses give off the same lightest bluish tint as in the G-44-2 of the Jupiter plant. But photos and videos of other 44-3 copies on the Internet clearly show the bold green tint characteristic of the Soviet MS. It seems that they forgot to report it to my post-Soviet copy, it's a pity that his ass is not the same system that can be rearranged to G-81.

The message was edited INO-24.04.2021 15: 39

Results of the first field tests of the inverted Vega-11U. The first photo is a full frame, the second is a small crop with auto-correction of colors.

Hello.
I want to appeal to photography professionals (particularly interested in macro photography).

I'll say right away that in photography I'm a complete sucker from the word absolutely. But I often go out in nature and like to take pictures of live insects.
I have a camera, some kind of digital Sony, bought somewhere in the year 2012, for 5-7 thousand (I don't remember exactly), such things are also called soap boxes, but in general, my impressions of it are also not so hot. Therefore, I haven't used it for a long time, and it seems that it has even stopped turning on already.

Currently I shoot (I try, but not always successfully) on my smartphone Samsung galaxy A 50, the camera is more or less satisfied, everything seems OK, color reproduction, clarity, photos weigh 3-5 Mb, everything seems to be fine, but there is one very significant drawback-since I am trying to shoot live insects, sometimes it is not always possible to sharpen the desired object, for example, I shoot a butterfly or a beetle feeding on a flower, but most often the beetle turns out to be blurry, and the background is sharp on the contrary.

Sometimes, by moving the phone closer and away from the beetle, it is still possible to "catch" it in such a way that the beetle itself turns out to be sharp, and the background, on the contrary, is blurred, but very often (most often) before it is possible to do this, the object of photographing gets scared and flies away.

If only someone knew how many times I've failed and failed like this!
Sometimes there is such a beautiful view, such as the day before yesterday on a walk brown Ragii ate on a snow-white inflorescence of bird cherry and all this against the background of a blue-blue sky, well, of course the photo would have turned out super, such a contrast, such colors, but it was not there, he certainly retreated before this fucking camera on him I focused. Well, of course, what's the point of shooting a blurry beetle?

So I want to ask knowledgeable people now-does it depend on the quality of the camera or are there some special secrets that I just don't know about, well, I mean, in order to quickly sharpen the desired object of photographing before it has time to dump?

Yes, it even happened that you take a long time to photograph some small and motionless insect, for example, a bright cicada or a bedbug, but one horseradish sharpness stubbornly does not want to be directed at it. Sometimes you can catch it almost immediately, and sometimes you can't catch it at all.

Maybe share what my problem is, if you don't mind? I would really appreciate your help.

I've already asked different people many times for advice about buying a good camera, but I've heard almost the same answer from almost everyone - like what, you don't have anywhere to put money, you have a good smartphone, so take pictures on it, supposedly smart phones now surpass even cameras in quality.

But I still don't believe it. Why then do they still produce cameras and professional photographers use them, I have never seen any event, for example, a wedding photographer would shoot on the phone, even if the most sophisticated)))

So I decided to ask for advice - in order to get rid of the problem described above, should I bother buying a special camera or should this problem be solely due to my crookedness as a photographer, and even an expensive camera will most likely have the same problem? In the sense that buying an expensive camera will not guarantee that I will be able to quickly focus specifically on the object of photographing itself, before it has time to retreat? (Well, I hope that you understand what I'm writing about - the insect itself turns out to be blurry, and not sharp, as I would like, while the background on the contrary, for some reason, turns out to be sharp, and not blurry, although I always point the lens at the insect itself strictly in the center of the camera).

I understand that I may be asking a very stupid question, at least I myself feel like it sounds stupid, but as I wrote above, I don't know anything about photographing, so I really don't know the answer to it, so please don't consider it trolling, and I really like to shoot live insects, this is kind of like collecting for me, only photos in natural conditions. But because of this fucking sharpness, I've missed beautiful moments so many times.

Here on the site I see photos of very good quality, especially INO, Hierophis-a, well, it happens just awesome, down to the smallest detail, every segment and every bristle on the wasp's head.
That's why I decided to write here, hoping for the help of those people who are engaged in shooting insects and are very successful.
Please tell me how you do it? I want to learn at least approximately how to do something like this. On the phone you can do the same or do you still need a special camera for this?

If so, please tell us what you should pay attention to when choosing a camera. Or can you specifically recommend some model?
I will be very grateful for any answers.

PS sorry for some confusion in the message, just today I work the night shift, it's already 3.50 and my head is already thinking hard)))
P. S. S. landscapes I have by the way turn out very well. Even just when shooting on your phone, without any settings.
But with macro photography, it's just a problem. And so I would also like to learn how to do something similar to what is posted here.

The post was edited by koty - 18.05.2021 03: 57

These are the landscapes I get.

Yeah, it's called hope and wait))) I tried to download several examples now, but in the end horseradish ((

I have already decided not to participate here at all, but remembering the previous discussions with you, I will say-so that the rules are correct. to take pictures of insects, and not only them, buy a bush mirrorless camera, and for shooting nature - very very, very desirable, but in a good way it is necessary-with a viewfinder and a folding screen, and with a regular objective to it. Even with this set, which can now be purchased for $ 100, you will take pictures of what you want, well, many times better than on samrt)
Then-attach a lens to the standard object, even the most ordinary one, for example, a 2X magnifying glass - and I think you will understand in which direction to work)
There are factory-made macro lenses, and there are very cool lenses from parts of Soviet department objects, especially film and projection lenses.
The next stage is the transition to "your camera" /M42 and"your camera" /M39 + macro rings, respectively. diameter + sovdepovsky objects, in my experience I recommend so that "now and immediately and not expensive"- Industriar 61 l/d. But I must say right away, personally, we have not had any objects at the flea market for a year, not even I61L/d or even I26.. There are on the Internet at generally not very adequate prices..
However, with the help of this, let's just say that there will not be any" masterpieces " - this primarily depends on the photographer) But with this, you can never take a picture like with the help of a specialized object.
In general, in order to take photos easily, conveniently, and without scaring insects, you need specialized objects, you need to either buy them or make them.
How to do it - in general, this topic has everything. The main method is to take a lot of different sovdepovsky and not only objects, and cross them together in a variety of combinations)

I've already decided not to participate at all

Thank you for such a detailed answer.
I was really looking forward to it.

A camera with a viewfinder means.
The viewfinder is, as I understand it, the very device that I lack and that will help me quickly focus sharpness on the main goal?
T e in the smartphone it is absent and therefore it is so long and often incorrectly "thinks"? And this very viewfinder will help to eliminate this my most important problem?

Magnifiers (lenses) are needed to be able to increase the distance to the subject in order not to frighten the photographed object and at the same time not to lose the quality of shooting?

Next, you wrote about some specialized lenses.
Here in them, of course, I already do not understand anything at all ((
But how to understand this? Do they have a specific name or purpose, such as macro lenses, etc?
What key parameters can you use to find them?

If you do not mind, then please write a little more about this, based on the fact that I'm just a complete sucker in all these cases))

I would very much like to ask you to advise me specifically what kind of camera model for this purpose, if you do not mind. Just for me to come to the store and say I need this and this, if possible.

It is likely that you will now have a completely natural question - why don't I consult about all this in the seventh store.
Yes, all because I do not trust all these sellers at all, who just want to sell, and whether the buyer will be satisfied with the result, all of them will be deeply influenced by this, based on personal experience. How many times have I already been sold various bullshit, hanging noodles on my ears, starting from Sony's soap dish, which I wrote about above and which shoots worse than a phone, and ending with a gaming laptop that, according to them, will pull any 3d program, but in fact, which later burned down the video card when rendering an average 3d scene. That's the way the world of consumerism works. Of course, I myself am to blame for not understanding all this, but all this is simply due to an acute lack of time, and I turn to you based on the fact that in fact I see what results you get from the photo.

Therefore, please advise something more specific (based on your work posted here, I fully trust you in this matter), well, maybe you can advise some specific camera model and a special object for it, which you wrote about above.
I'd appreciate it."

The post was edited by cats - 05/19/2021 01: 16

P.S. If for some reason you don't want to write here, as you wrote at the very beginning of your post, then please write to your email address or email address.

I forgot, my email address is evgeny.kgs@yandex.ru

Well, in particular, it is not clear exactly this, based on your post-

"In general, in order to take photos easily, conveniently, and without scaring insects, you need specialized objects, you need to either buy them or make them."

If I buy a camera with a viewfinder that will focus sharpness on an object, if of course I understood everything correctly, that it is the main problem of all my failures (I really hope that you will recommend some model), plus lenses to increase the distance between me and the insect in order not to frighten the insect when approaching, then what specialized I'll also need lenses to make it even cooler? If the viewfinder is magnified. Then why do you need a special lens?

Of course, I really ask you to excuse me for my boredom, well, I just really nifiga not rummage in this all(((

The post was edited by cats - 05/19/2021 01: 28

maybe you can recommend a specific camera model and a special object for it

On Avito, now the most normal mirrorless cameras are cheap - Sony NEX 3 and Sony NEX 5,
these models without a viewfinder, but with "focus-picking".
Cheap cameras with a viewfinder - Nikon D3100 and Canon 1100D SLRs, and
if you need a folding screen - Canon 600D (but this camera is twice as expensive).
---
Sony, Canon and Nikon autofocus macro lenses don't sell cheap.
Therefore, it is easier to buy adapters for m39/M42, macro rings (a set of three pieces) and old Soviet lenses:
Industriar-69, Industriar-61l/d, Industriar-50-2, Helios-44-2.
- - -
If finances allow, you can immediately take Canon EOS R + Canon 100L Macro.

This post was edited by Bomka - 05/19/2021 02: 26

On Avito, now the most normal mirrorless cameras are cheap - Sony NEX 3 and Sony NEX 5,
these models without a viewfinder, but with "focus-picking".
Cheap cameras with a viewfinder - Nikon D3100 and Canon 1100D SLRs, and
if you need a folding screen - Canon 600D (but this camera is twice as expensive).
---
Sony, Canon and Nikon autofocus macro lenses don't sell cheap.
Therefore, it is easier to buy adapters for m39/M42, macro rings (a set of three pieces) and old Soviet lenses:
Industriar-69, Industriar-61l/d, Industriar-50-2, Helios-44-2.
- - -
If finances allow, you can immediately take Canon EOS R + Canon 100L Macro.

Thank you also for your reply.
So what's better - DSLRs or mirrorless cameras?)
And what is the difference between them? In a previous post, I was advised to look for mirrorless.

I need it specifically for macro photography. Landscapes are not bad in general and come out on a smartphone. I would have posted it, but the phone doesn't load anything.

There is a separate page about smartphones -
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=622632
---
The difference between DSLRs is the presence of a mirror. :-)
I have both a DSLR and mirrorless cameras. Everyone is good for macro photography.
With mirrorless lenses, you can use a larger number of different old lenses.

The viewfinder is a peephole that duplicates the screen, and at the same time it sees everything much better than through the screen for many reasons, in general, this is all its purpose. It's just easier to take pictures through it, and I can't imagine how to take pictures of birds flying in the sky without it, especially with something like Tair-3. On cameras without a viewfinder, eyecups on the screen are sold, I made one myself when I took photos on the" bezmylnitsa".

You need a magnifying glass to get the opportunity to take photos closer to the object, but on a larger scale and without macro rings. Macro rings are used for the same purpose.

But just in order to increase the distance to the object of shooting, and not lose the quality and scale, and macro-lenses are needed.
No way without them. But again, this does not mean that they can only be bought. Macroobjective is essentially a factory hybrid of two at least objects+ also an afocal nozzle sometimes.
Just getting good quality, large scale and a long distance to the insect is VERY difficult, but you can even use sovdepovsky raw materials.

Coming to a photo store with such questions is not an option at all) Well, there is a very small probability that a self-made macrophotographer will sit in such a store, also ready to tell everything honestly)

But, so that let's say I or someone else advised the camera model from many that are now, it is necessary to take a picture with all these many cameras, and for a long time!
I do not have such opportunities))
In general, I am now taking a picture with a mirrorless Panasonic G3.
I can say that as for me, this is not ideal for nature, but now Mayu then Mayu))
Among the minuses - a small grip that had to be increased, otherwise there is no way, the lack of focus-picking with manual objects(like many other functions of working with focus-full dibilism, and alas, this is not solved in custom scabs), and incredible fragility-as if the assembly is just zh0pa!
I broke this G five times, and this is despite the fact that I bought it of course BU, but there were only 22K pictures, a complete set, and the view is like a new one! The train of the wheel was frayed, the shutter was wedged twice, a panel with an elastic band fell off from the viewfinder, and the lens retainer crumbled.
And it's still not even 350K nafotkal.
Here G1 is just super in terms of build quality, the feeling when driving is the same as from Marks D5x and the like, it's super in your hand, the shutter is almost sealed, suffice it to say that it happened so that almost a full bolt shaft of dry earth was poured into it! And how it fell and on what, it's generally tin. But it still works 100% now!
But the matrix there is just terrible+ there is no video.

A mirrorless camera is smaller than a DSLR, lighter, more reliable, and generally better for macro if you use home-made objects. And there is more choice of factory-made DSLRs.
Although the micro4 / 3 on which Panasonic has an adapter to the usual 4/3 for Olympus DSLRs, and it is full of objects for them both with working autofocus and manual, including macro. But the prices there are also low.

In general, you need to Google, read read and read by keywords-mirrorless, DSLR, macro-objective, macro-ring, macro-lens, Soviet objects for macro photography, and this topic would also not hurt, until everything is deleted here)

  
In general, you need to Google, read read and read by keywords-mirrorless, DSLR, macro-objective, macro-ring, macro-lens, Soviet objects for macro photography, and this topic would also not hurt, until everything is deleted here)

Thank you again for your reply. Well, I was kind of interested in what you specifically use, because I want to achieve about the same quality as you post here.

Well, in general, it is clear that not everything is so simple. In the sense that I will not limit myself to one purchase of a camera here, you need to study all this thoroughly in order to get the desired result.

Just all these macro rings, lenses, etc. for me is nothing more than an empty sound))
Well, then we'll have to figure it out.
And you have a Panasonic G3.
Ok. Thanks again for the tip.

You can also specify in more detail -
the search gave me a Panasonic Lumix DNG-G3, do you have this model?

Yes, but again, I would study prices and reviews for example about Samsung with similar characteristics, or if there are finances, then it would be better to Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3, the difference in the name is only in the letter H, but in fact the difference is huge in ergonomics and functionality, there is a different matrix. noisy, but alas, a decent difference in price. Well, or G5, they write that this is a completely different camera, better build quality and photos. Zh6 Zh7 already went only with small improvements.

W3 fso
I didn't even last two seasons and didn't hit 200,000. Zh1 went through two full seasons and scored 200k and in general nothing really broke.
Zh3 was clearly not made for "active use", but rather in order to carry it in a purse and get it out once a week. I hope Evgeny didn't buy it.
To replace it, traditionally W, and traditionally +3. Now you can take photos on ISO1600, if with a resize.

Pictures:

P2570847.jpg — (152.09к)


P2570764.jpg — (99.67к)

W3 fso
I didn't even last two seasons

Looks smitten about the corner...

And the first one looked the same. After that, I made a pre-warning that Pan has a habit of not carrying a camera in his bag. like all normal people, but to pull along the steppe land on a string, and it seems that it is still not far from the truth, I wonder if there are cameras with vandal-proof housings?

By the way, J1 looks pretty good, considering everything that happened to it.
This camera is really designed to break through walls. Well, sometimes take pictures)
If the matrix was there at least as in Z3, they could still take pictures and take pictures.

Pictures:

P25702910.jpg — (135.71к)


P2570908.jpg — (164.27к)

Maybe Pan should buy a sledgehammer instead of a camera? She's a pretty lousy photographer, but she breaks through walls better than J1.

On Avito, now the most normal mirrorless cameras are cheap - Sony NEX 3 and Sony NEX 5,
these models without a viewfinder, but with "focus-picking".
Cheap cameras with a viewfinder - Nikon D3100 and Canon 1100D SLRs, and
if you need a folding screen - Canon 600D (but this camera is twice as expensive).
---
Sony, Canon and Nikon autofocus macro lenses don't sell cheap.
Therefore, it is easier to buy adapters for M39/M42, macro rings (a set of three pieces) and old Soviet lenses.:
Industriar-69, Industriar-61l/d, Industriar-50-2, Helios-44-2.
---
If finances allow, then you can immediately take a Canon EOS R + Canon 100L Macro.

Is one Soviet lens enough?

This post was edited by Waterkrab - 02/21/2022 08: 45

Depends on what it's for.

I have a 100mm Macro lens. This is not enough to take pictures of small things. If you make a hitch through an additional ring. Is one Soviet lens enough?
Or can you take pictures using a coupling of 2 Soviet lenses?