Photocameras

Ta nu!! A friend has a camera without a mirror, with replaceable lenses and a large matrix, weighs approx. 250g to mine. And here under the floor kilo as it was and remained.

In general, with modern technologies, you can make a" plaque " so round, slightly larger than the diameter of the object, on which the object is screwed and everything, forward and with the song

Come on. It's a funny thing if your hands are small and you need a mirror. Moreover, they also managed to make the viewfinder no less, and even a little more, than their older brothers. Well done. And it goes well with their 40mm pancake.

And I've also recently been looking at mirrorless cameras because of their compact size.

I read the reviews, in my opinion now the best choice will be Olympus E-PL5.
The quality is praised. And the interface is not very user-friendly.

And I also like the Canon EOS M - the quality is the same as that of the Canon 650D. But there are also drawbacks to the interface.

I wish Canon would continue this mirrorless line...

We have an epidemic of "reset" DSLRs on local forums, at such prices that it's just creepy. $ 300 for the whole set with a couple of objects and a bag, and a few pictures on the counter is a common thing.
This was to be expected, because ponakuplyali aby was, and it turned out that the phone is enough for everything about everything)) yes, and here the crisis is pressing

So for demanding fans there will be mirrorless cameras, but still the objects remain heavy, here the next step would not hurt..

Somehow the development is slow, the resolution of light allows you to shoot perfectly on the matrix and in 1X1 mm, modern technologies, I think, already allow you to make matrices at least 10X10mm with a low-noise ISO of at least 500, and the lens grinding technology should have allowed you to perfectly grind a 5mm lens for a long time.
Just do not run in the series, maybe the military does not give)) Or maybe there is simply no desire, "people hawat" and what is there, they will wait until the "budget" DSLRs at the flea market will sell for$ 15, as now ordinary soap dishes are sold, and then they will start riveting supermaps)))

So with the aperture, everything is normal, the part of the aperture that does not relate to the relative hole, but refers to the loss in the lenses, is compensated, the lens area will be smaller, but the thickness is also less, the number of surfaces due to the quality of grinding and the glass itself will be reduced, the illumination is improved - in the end, as if than in larger objects)
It is naive to assume that all this has remained at the level of those years where standard objects come from.

And the "artistic background blur" is generally a purely geometric result, they will make a special "portrait" object to a small matrix and go ahead

I have here at home soap dishes and lenses from them already a lot of disassembled, so there the quality of lenses is terrible, they actually have a diameter of approx. 4 mm, they work only with the central millimeter, because the aberration is rabid at the edges. And at the same time, this millimeter gave a aperture of 2.8 )
So in the soap boxes they put and put all sorts of G, so that people buy DSLRs

I have here at home soap dishes and lenses from them already a lot of disassembled, so there the quality of lenses is terrible, they actually have a diameter of approx. 4 mm, they work only with the central millimeter, because the aberration is rabid at the edges. And at the same time, this millimeter gave a aperture of 2.8 )
So they put all sorts of things in soap dishes and put them in them, so that people would buy DSLRs

Household cheap lenses of course work only with the central part. For macro photography, there are multi-layer macro converters with compensation (such as Raynox for example). They give a sharp image over almost the entire surface. They certainly don't cost a penny.

This post was edited by barry - 25.03.2013 00: 21

It is naive to assume that all this has remained at the level of those years where standard objects come from.

It is naive to assume that it is still possible to invent a bicycle. It has already been invented, and a long time ago, and now this invention is being tuned. If they come up with optics without glasses, then we can talk about some revolutionary changes.

Bianor, ta well, what does this have to do with artistic background blur, which is achieved due to a small GRIP on light intensity and aberrations?

This is a purely geometric result, which depends primarily on the design of the object.
The size of the matrix has nothing to do with it either, it affects only indirectly.
Just for the sake of compactness, soap dishes are "sharpened" for a large GRIP, and DSLR lenses are made according to the tradition of past film times.
The size of the matrix on the GRIP, bokeh and other chephren affects approximately the position of the moon on the length of telegraph poles)))

Very expensive nozzles mess it up less than cheap ones. But they still mess up.

Well, the same can be said about the lens itself. And in the context of soap boxes (as discussed above), this "dirty trick" does not exceed the own dirty trick of the soap boxes themselves... Therefore, the rationality of their application is not so hopeless.

barry, when I bought a digital soap dish(Olympus) in the 2000s, I bought of course the most budget one, and the "macro mode" there was from 40 cm. Well, I immediately remembered what was attached to what the first available lens and began to take pictures from a distance of 10 cm. But the lens was bad, the edges of the photos were spreading, then I bought lenses from the objective at a flea market to see, made something like a nozzle and took pictures like that

But now it is difficult to imagine why these nozzles, it is difficult to find a soap dish that does not shoot 10 cm, in many soap dishes there is a "macro zoom" - this is when you can use a zoom of up to 6X from a distance of about 50-70 cm, in Olympus 510 there is such a thing.

So if you really buy a soap dish for entomosyemki, then you can take care of the presence of these things in advance, and then you know how many of these nozzles I lost when the old Olympus fotkal? Yes, I would only work on the nozzles seven days a week, and not chase butterflies through the steppes, if I bought them on bourgeois sites for oira)))))

But now it is difficult to imagine why these nozzles...

For butterflies, they may not be needed, but try using a bare soap dish to remove a beetle the size of a couple of millimeters, especially running around in a natural environment. This is where they come in handy. By the way, I don't even know DSLRs who shoot something like this in such an environment, they need at least so that nothing runs around.

This post was edited by barry - 26.03.2013 00: 40

barry, well, I'll take a picture with my Olympus, because there zooming turns out to work even with 10cm 5X, so with 10cm at 5X 2 mm zoom, this is a good part of the frame. The aperture is also sufficient, the initial 3.3 at 5X.

But with a DSLR, this is generally easy, the object is only needed, and even ISO 700 is quite normal there, and the detail is such that you can scale without problems. On a soap dish, it's usually even half a frame - it's already bad with detail, despite how many megapixels there would not be, but on the norms. you can also cut the photo from 5% of the frame in an objective view..

barry, well, I'll take a picture with my Olympus, because there zooming turns out to work even with 10cm 5X, so with 10cm at 5X 2 mm zoom, this is a good part of the frame. The aperture is also sufficient, the initial 3.3 at 5X.

But with a DSLR, this is generally easy, the object is only needed, and even ISO 700 is quite normal there, and the detail is such that you can scale without problems. On a soap dish, it's usually even half a frame - it's already bad with detail, despite how many megapixels there would not be, but on the norms. you can also cut the photo from 5% of the frame in an objective view..

I'd like to see it... Judging by the macro club, the mirror workers mainly take pictures of the peacock's eye and the sorrel edge...

This post was edited by barry - 26.03.2013 01: 16

The size of the matrix has nothing to do with it either, it affects only indirectly.
Just for the sake of compactness, soap dishes are "sharpened" for a large GRIP, and DSLR lenses are made according to the tradition of past film times.
The size of the matrix on the GRIP, bokeh and other chephren affects approximately the position of the moon on the length of telegraph poles)))

You are critically mistaken. More precisely, you are formally right, but you refuse to see the accompanying factors, which leads to an error in your conclusions. I'll try to explain it to you in a way that makes it clear.

Depth of field and back-focus blur depend on the angle at which the light rays fall on the sensor. The narrower the light beam, the larger the GRIP, and the smaller the blur. The wider the beam, the smaller the GRIP, and the more broken the background is. The beam width is affected by:
First, the distance to the object. The farther away the object is, the narrower the beam of light, and the larger the GRIP.
Secondly, the lens aperture. The smaller the diameter of the front lens, the narrower the beam of light, the larger the GRIP. To increase the grip, cover the diaphragm, essentially reducing the working diameter of the front lens.
Third, the focal length of the lens. At an equal distance, wide-angle lenses have a larger grip, while TV cameras have a smaller one. The smaller the sensor, the more wide-angle lenses we have to use at the same distance, the greater the GRIP. You can only get a noticeable blurring of the background with a soap dish at a very short distance with a very high-power lens.

At the same distance, with the same lenses, you will get an equal GRIP on any matrix, but on a large one you will have a portrait, and on a small one - a piece of skin of the person being portrayed.

Well, the same can be said about the lens itself. And in the context of soap boxes (as discussed above), this "dirty trick" does not exceed the own dirty trick of the soap boxes themselves... Therefore, the rationality of their application is not so hopeless.

A very good lens can still take out some quality even with a nozzle at the expense of the original image quality, but if you pin an extra piece of glass with its own re - reflections and distortions on the door peephole, there is no skin or face at all.

For butterflies, they may not be needed, but try using a bare soap dish to remove a beetle the size of a couple of millimeters, especially running around in a natural environment.

It all depends on the required quality. If you are satisfied with a 640x480 picture with a wild sharp, then the technique is not too important. But if you need a large scale and good quality, then you can not do without a good camera, an expensive lens and a powerful flash.

I'd like to see it... Judging by the macro club, the mirror workers mainly take pictures of the peacock's eye and the sorrel edge...

Budget bundle DSLR + lens from FU.



"A bug two millimeters long" with such a bundle can no longer be photographed qualitatively.

Just for BZ, there are already a lot of glasses with a light output of 0.95, and they are far from exorbitant - the question is, what is this light output and why is it needed at all

Proof I want! Lenses with such a light intensity can not cost "not exorbitantly".

  
... in a couple of millimeters, especially running in a natural environment
...Budget bundle DSLR + lens from FU.
... "Bug two millimeters long"

You are quoting me correctly, but don't split my phrase into two pictures... What you show - one is clearly not 2 mm, the second is clearly overexecuted, and does not move on its own legs. I didn't say that DSLRs don't take macro shots as such... I said what I said... at the same time, having walked through the fields and forests "foot in step" with slrs for more than one kilometer. More than once I offered them - but they flatly refuse to shoot IT...

 
...If you are satisfied with a 640x480 picture with a wild sharp...

In the absence of a "mirror" alternative, this suits not only me, but even print publications.

I just looked at one site comparing the compact Panasonic LX7 with mirrorless Sony NEX-F3 and Panasonic Lumix GF5 in detail. LX7 is in the lead!

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cam...lumix-dmc-lx7/3

I guess the F/1.4 aperture helped.

Yano's question was different : is it possible to use a small matrix to shoot portraits with a beautifully blurred background? No, you can't, because of very specific physical laws.


Yes, the beetle is dead. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is the quality on the exhaust.

Even on a regular soap dish, you can take a picture of a portrait if you use the zoom and maximum aperture. I doubt that it will be impossible to take photos with a specialized object. And in the end, let there be big matrices for professionals, who is against it )) I am against putting bad lenses in the soap boxes, because in fact it will make the soap box a little more expensive.

But you're wrong about the beetle! Just the fact that the beetle is dead is very important, because the advantage of the soap box in shooting live, dynamic objects is that the GRIP is large and it is more likely to get a good picture.
But again, I think that a macro-objective that "costs a lot" will give the same GRIP and everything else in general will be many times better.
Another thing is that it is better to have a soap dish in your pocket than an object for 3000 killed raccoons in a glossy magazine

Here I found a picture of a small creeping kivsyak, a very small kivsyak was, but this is not a zoom picture, not full screen, but about a quarter.

I just looked at one site comparing the compact Panasonic LX7 with mirrorless Sony NEX-F3 and Panasonic Lumix GF5 in detail. LX7 is in the lead!

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cam...lumix-dmc-lx7/3

I guess the F/1.4 aperture helped.

Cheto comparison of some "for consumers" Of course "detail" will be better if those two photos for 3000 iso, and the compact 700!
The detail of an object is not defined in this way! It just shows that, all other things being equal, you can use a smaller ISO on this camera, and that's it. And what kind of detail there is in the object itself is still a question, as well as what kind of picture will those fotikov have on iso 700

This post was edited by Hierophis - 26.03.2013 18: 32

By the way, if you don't believe me, you can try to get such a photo yourself using budget funds without stitching panoramas or layer-by-layer photos with subsequent mixing of layers. When you succeed with the dead, you will be able to hunt the living by solving only the problem with mobile high-quality light.

I don't need to try it out, I've already passed the tests a few years ago.

Just different quality criteria.
"Satisfied" is a terminology from another world. I know what suits printed buildings, and I've reviewed the illustrative material for articles more than once. Just because someone is "satisfied" with a photo doesn't mean it's high-quality.

I mean quite acceptable quality, in the absence of any alternative and any quality on the part of DSLRs. Although of course this is not the same quality that is obtained on DSLRs with large insects.

Come on, I always shoot macro photos with my soap dish at an aperture of 2.8(ISO 50), that is, as open as possible!!! And autofocus is certainly not perfect, but to miss with such a GRIP as a soap dish gives - well, it's very difficult And if you make the aperture larger, then only the lighting would be enough, then you can shoot at random at all

If in soap dishes ISO 700 at least it was like ISO 200

By the way, it honestly says that the edge is already a mess. In any case, these are all handicrafts-alterations of lenses designed for other systems and purposes that do not give normal photo quality.

Yes, essno.
There were also quite successful attempts to make glasses with a aperture of 1.0 and higher - fantastic optics turned out by itself, but in reality, except for demonstrating the manufacturer's capabilities, it is not particularly suitable for anything.
Canon poltos-he held a single one in his hands and took pictures with it-well, very difficult optics to work with.

Judging by the result, it turns out that I passed it, and you are just starting to go.

I'll swallow this... maybe let people from the outside look at the photos and say a few words... Even without taking into account the fact that you have EOS 5D, and I have a "soap box"...

Your photos don't show two-millimeter insects at all, but quality...

Do you really know what these insects are? I would look like a complete idiot if I tried to prove to entomologists in a forum of entomologists that two-centimeter insects (or whatever you imagine there) are actually two-millimeter... I admit that with the first photo I went a little too far, the size of Derephysia cristata is 2.3-3.8 mm. And the larva of Dictyla echii is clearly less than 2 mm, Rhopalodontus strandi-1.8-2.2 mm.

The bug is ~1.7 mm - and this is still a very budget solution, without the use of special optics and lighting.

I will not comment on your bug, but my opinion may acquire a certain amount of subjectivity, diluted with emotions... let people tell you...

I'll swallow this... maybe let people from the outside look at the photos and say a few words... Even without taking into account the fact that you have EOS 5D, and I have a "soap box"...

Barry, don't pay any attention. It's just that the character has such a way of communicating. In terms of the camera/quality ratio, your images are great.

I will not comment on your bug, but my opinion may acquire a certain amount of subjectivity, diluted with emotions... let people tell you...

Well, then I'll comment. I, as an outsider contemplator, can. That this bug, that the above photos of your opponent-none. And what can be estimated there with such lighting of objects? That's right-nothing! And who passed and who starts is a big question. Of course-IMHO.
In general, on the forum, I am most impressed by the photos of wise snake. Very tasty photos. Everything is there - sharpness, lighting, foreshortening, and even an artistic component. Photos are natural, not staged. And its equipment, as far as I know, is budget-friendly. Hats off!
Something like that.

Barry, don't pay any attention...

This is certainly not about macro in general, or about photos in general, in a broad sense, the soap dish is certainly not a competitor to the DSLR...
I was just hooked by Bianor's phrase about the uselessness and pointlessness of using converters. I just want to show that in (!) a certain niche, a soap box with a converter is quite competitive, at least in terms of image quality. Of course, you can also ignore the price by an order of magnitude lower... you can ignore the convenience of shooting in the field...

This post was edited by barry - 03/27/2013 13: 18

As the proverb says... that pies should be baked by a pie-maker, and boots should be made by a shoemaker... The topic is clearly not for this forum. It is strange to read the statements of entomologists about the technology and methods of professional photography of insects and the quality of photographic equipment. It's like reading what photographers say about entomological issues... So much is written on these issues on photo sites that only a lazy person did not read them...moreover, it is written by professionals, not amateurs, i.e. people whose works are published in various publications, winners and participants of various exhibitions, competitions, etc. The world of the Internet is vast. Seek and find... And the problem of a soap dish or a DSLR does not exist. The result depends on the task at hand and who is shooting...

The topic is clearly not for this forum. It is strange to read the statements of entomologists about the technology and methods of professional photography of insects and the quality of photographic equipment. It's like reading what photographers say about entomological issues...

One doesn't interfere with the other. Entomologists may be interested in photography - collecting photos of insects.
________________________

I downloaded an archive of photos from Multitest of top compacts, so they actually shoot even better compared to DSLRs. But the truth is that the DSLRs are there with whale lenses, so maybe with a better lens, they will show themselves well. But good lenses cost good money, so in the absence of the latter, it's easier to buy a good compact (by the way, the LX7 I already mentioned allows you to blur the background) and not suffer. And so in general, I like DSLRs with macro lenses.

This post was edited by Wave Storm - 27.03.2013 18: 14

Bianor, the entomology photo machine, is primarily a tool. Now almost any "soap dish" is suitable for macro shooting, you just need to make sure that there is a shooting mode from 2-7 cm, and that's it! This is enough to take photos of insects to identify, illustrate lists of species, to show off what you've seen, and just "for show", well, or Svetochki ))
And superdetalization, super quality - this is already a fetish, from the field of high matters.

The problem of "soap box or DSLR" still exists, but not in terms of creativity, but in terms of weight, versatility, and freedom in handling things. A very big difference - or carry 200-400g with you and be able to take a macro picture, landscape, or zoom, or carry about 3kg with you, mess around with changing objects, and tremble so as not to get dirty, not to drop, not to lose something.

The soap dish is a wider freedom from technology when you are in the wild-I took it out of my pocket and took a picture.

One doesn't interfere with the other. Entomologists may be interested in photography - collecting photos of insects.

But still, formally, the author of the message is right - artistic photography of insects has a sooo distant relationship to entomology. With a" biological " shoot, art is even harmful sometimes.

headshotboy, well, you have a jargon, crawl everywhere medyanka)))

Fetish is a thing as an element of worship, and by the style of writing messages, you can imagine how much someone is close to The fact is that when a person expresses the antithesis in a sharp form, like:
"a soap dish is shit, and a DSLR is power" - this is already 100% a sign of fetishism!

About the need in relation to DSLRs-generally funny, given the prices of BU DSLRs.. buy and show off your consumer power, because no one knows what BOO))
But I would only buy something like a 50D Kenon with an object for 50E, and then, I would also think about how much it is necessary for Another need is enough with my head ))))

Bianor, hahahaha, beggary is super)))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXptptuGyr8

Well, Bianor, well, tell me, well, to whom, to whom it is :
"it turns out that I passed it, and you are just starting to go"
" and the quality..."
"It's better to get a high-quality photo with acceptable detail than a mountain of Internet thumbnails"

Well, why, why is it necessary?? We need endless expanses, a wide steppe, shady forest canopies, a winding river!
What other quality, what kind of detail, where else do you need to start going? To the store, for a DSLR?? ))))) It's all a complete mess.
Summer, sun, sea.. the steppe!!! That's where you need to go-to the steppe! Well, either in the forest or meadow