Photocameras

Login... That Ixpert again

Esox, not gundi.. Not a reader again? I-11M 300mm, not 450! 300mm weighs 230 grams, and after refinement and throwing out any unnecessary details - 180 grams.

Odessa13, you can ask questions about how to make friends with a DSLR and macro photography with a used good GRIP here

Good evening.
I read the topic from the very beginning, I realized that I was not the only one * teapot* in terms of macro photography.

It's nice to see here beautiful photos from different users, disputes on this topic will certainly not run out, just like arguments, arguments, facts, and so on.

In any case, this is a forum for entomologists and not professional photographers, and other people from this series.

But I still think that sharing experience and knowledge - for those who are not a burden-will also be great and useful for beginners.

So in order.
Available in: Canon 1000D . Whale lens native 18-55 (as I understood the very first series) Industriar - 61L3-MS lens. Helios 44m - 4 lens. Canon Zoom Lens EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III. A set of macro rings Insesi Digital C_AF.

I bought the camera back in 2011. At that time, I didn't think at all that the photo would interest me in the future.
I bought it because I needed it to work with spiders.
Initially, I was quite satisfied with the quality of the images, with a standard 18-55 lens.
But after a few years, I began to think that this quality was not enough for me. Since newborn spiders are too small, mites are pests, mycoses and other troubles that almost any arachnologist faces, the question naturally became that-you need to photograph smaller objects.
For specific trips to nature, I always took a DSLR, with a whale, and with a rangefinder, since it takes quite long distances, and the landscapes turned out to be quite good in my opinion.
But for photographing small spiders, their juveniles, cocoons, eggs, and pests of all this, both of these lenses could not help me much.
After looking through the Internet as much as possible in time, I went to some sites, came across Soviet manual optics, and macro rings.
From the echoes of the scoop, I got various Zeniths, Vilia and other cameras with lenses.
After reading specifically about industriar that you can shoot a pretty good macro from it, if you have an adapter for a Canon DSLR, as well as macro rings, I decided to try it.
The adapter was bought from our hands in the city with a chip for 100 hryvnias.
Macro rings Chinese arrived from Kiev for 400 hryvnia.
A little poshamaniv in the settings putting on these all pribludy I broke into the field to try something to photograph in the macro style.
Just 5 minutes later, I realized that manual focus and a very small focal length is an exercise for patient people.
And also, what killed immediately and outright is the soapiness of the photo, which, as I did not try to fix, I did not succeed. I guess I'm just a rukozhop in this regard
Actually the question is, with what I have available, is it possible to shoot macro ?
You can't buy extra expensive macro lenses.
It is not possible to buy additional external flashes that now cost from 2.5-3 thousand UAH and above.
There is no time to master stacking.
Here are photos taken with the whale lens 18-55.



But for example, to take a closer picture of ticks that clung to the hilitzer in the upper part closer to the eyes, I was not able to take a whale normally.

Well, actually my unsuccessful experiments with Chinese macro rings and industriar



Maybe someone will advise you what you need to set the settings correctly, or other equipment that does not cost a lot of money. Specifically interested in how to remove the maximum frame blur, and improve the magnification of the object as a whole.
As for example Olympus user Hierophis-it is now with all the gadgets, bag and so on-500 hryvnia.
But further manipulations ala additional lenses, magic techniques of working with a file on the lens and other jokes - for me personally, a dark forest!
Thank you for your attention, and I apologize for the pile of text!

This post was edited by Odessa13-22.03.2016 22: 07

Yes, forget you about the superpuper-miracle tele-macronnosatka(tm) of Pan Gierofis, this is an optical masturbation, and available only for masters, but most importantly - with an efficiency below the baseboard. And certainly, having a" carcass " of a DSLR, there is no need to buy Olympus, and build up extra layers of glass on it. If "there is no time to master stacking", then, accordingly, you need to find a lens that gives a large GRIP (there are many such lenses among the Soviet penny ones, look for specific models on the makrushnikov forums. The same Industriars are a huge family of lenses with different characteristics. Are you sure that you used exactly the one that the hypothetical Uncle Vasya praised when attaching beautiful photos on the forum? In addition, the Industrial lights did not come together in a wedge, there are many other high-quality Soviet glass suitable for macro photography. Regarding the flash, I know of two methods using the built-in: 1) a reflector (in a sophisticated version - a light-conducting box), 2) sift-just a washer made of transparent polyethylene foam with an eccentric hole. The lens is pushed through the hole, and the wide side of the washer is located opposite the flash. "Soap" can be a lot of things, from dirty (as an option, scratched, unglued and even overgrown with fungus) lenses, to backlighting. It is only Pan Stepovoi aka Hierophis who knows how to determine the cause at first glance at the photo, although, usually, he gets his finger in the sky, as in all other areas of knowledge. With such a material base as you have, you can come up with a lot of different options, each of which will be orders of magnitude better than Pan's craft.

PS A stupid question, of course, but still ask: cover the diaphragm to increase the grip to an acceptable level does not work?

I searched the Web for macro photos from your Industriar, some of them are very impressive: https://easybranchesnetwork.wordpress.com/2...0-by-alecsandr/ but the GRIP is really small.

Odessa13, you need to pay attention to macro rings. The further the distance of the rear lens from the matrix, the smaller the GRIP, so IMHO it is better to think in the direction of correcting the native whale object with another one, and leave the macro rings, especially since in this case it is very simple. Toset, put a kit on the camera, and then apply various objects to it with different sides, and see what happens. If you like the result, then buy an adapter and connect the lenses together, that's all With macrolenses it's more difficult in your case, since too powerful lenses give a lot of distortion, and for weak and corrected lenses, the original object needs a narrow angle..

There is generally a joke here - the Kitovsky object is relatively wide-angle, so you need the same wide-angle pair to get a good magnification. So ideally, try to apply something with approximately the same focal length to the whale. That is, what I use will not work for you, because I hang a long-focus assembly on a long-focus object, primarily to shift the minimum focusing distance, i.e., to get the opportunity to take pictures of animals in a format close to 1:1 from 30-60 cm. and don't scare her.

Here are examples of today's photos of spiders and more

Pictures:

P3220648.jpg — (433.41к)


P3220623.jpg — (472.29к)


P3220744.jpg — (397.6к)


P3220778.jpg — (356.46к)


P3220733.jpg — (411.14к)


P3220608.jpg — (495.47к)

Odessa13, you need to pay attention to macro rings. The farther the distance of the rear lens from the matrix the smaller the grip,

But the bigger the increase. By the way, with the zoom exactly the same. In the Odessa13 images, we don't have the highest magnification and a small GRIP at the same time, so it's not so easy to solve it. It's either stacking or a different lens.

"Invalidation"
In general, I personally put this Internet expert in ignore, and I advise others, he has no personal experience, can't do anything with his hands, can't buy anything either, not a single example, not a single picture, one dreadful mess, Mukhankin and PPG are resting )))

The topic of discussion is a little unclear, but it seems that everyone does everything using different approaches to shooting insects.
If we talk about the depth of field, then it is determined by the permissible diameter of the scattering circle(in the lens+matrix bundle).
The smaller the relative opening of the lens, the larger the GRIP, but the overall quality is degraded, the optimal value is in the range of 5.6-8.

The biggest GRIPE is that of a scanning electron microscope


(as well as the pinhole Camera).


Hierophis, it is interesting to look at the optical scheme of your system(sketch by hand), otherwise it is not clear what happened, a complex nozzle lens or an afocal nozzle?

PS
Successful and" not very "pictures can be taken on almost any device(the price and" bells and whistles " do not matter much), the main thing would be what to shoot.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-23.03.2016 00: 49

Here, I just took a picture of Scytodes (a rare guest in my bathroom).





All of them are full frames without additional processing (although it doesn't hurt). Canon PowerShot A550 kit + five-fold Soviet film magnifier (aka macro lens) + ring flash reflector made of aluminum foil and adhesive tape. Because of the very light background, there is a backlight on the dark one would be better. But the GRIP on such a spider needs at least 4 times more. And stacking in the case of a live slow-moving spider and a flash is impossible.

The message was edited INO-03.03.2021 11: 14

  
Hierophis, it is interesting to look at the optical scheme of your system(sketch by hand), otherwise it is not clear what happened, a complex nozzle lens or an afocal nozzle?

In the meantime, I'll post photos of the attachments themselves - on the left, the redesigned I11-M, on the right, my first nozzle, I put an adapter on it to screw on the I11-M to increase the scale of the shooting. I11-M paired with Olympus SP510 allows you to take photos in a fairly good msashtable (a picture of a horse, slightly open aperture) from a distance of about 60 cm (animals are not afraid, cool) and a good GRIP, it is just by default with a small 1/9 hole.
The second nozzle has an even smaller hole, but it also has a narrower angle, so it allows you to shoot from a smaller distance of approx. 40 cm, and larger, but in a couple of minutes. the focus distance becomes 15 cm, but the zoom increases even more (photo of an elephant). Well, a photo of the nozzles
And I'll draw a little diagram later.

The essence of the topic now, wading through the cleverness of ENO, is to help Odesse13 choose a combination of inexpensive objects to take pictures on a large scale and with a normal GRIP..

Pictures:

P3220764.jpg — (409.69к)


P3220535.jpg — (523.81к)


P3220711.jpg — (527.59к)

Yes, I got one afocal nozzle, min. the shooting distance is approx. 1 meter, one corrected macro lens and one converted object I11-M, I use all three nozzles, very convenient)

By the way, about the first photo of the ktyr, here are yesterday's photos of the same, where the ktyr is completely-this is for reworking from I11-M from a long distance, where a large scale is I11-M + an old macro nozzle, with 15 cm. And at medium aperture and min. possible exposure, so ka kna the sun, though the light direction is not very good)

Pictures:

P3220539.jpg — (503.71к)


P3220544.jpg — (447.04к)

As I already said, the old "nosey" - still did not go anywhere, the new one-sucks completely. Pan completely lost its resolution in the pursuit of the big GRID. Moreover, Pan already had a huge GRIP with a low resolution and a shooting distance of as much as 1.5 m in one of the previous versions without any Industriars, but it seems that amnesia has intervened again. In this case, we see a clear reluctance of pan to accept the obvious fact, namely, that the purchased lens with the current method of use turned out to be completely useless, as soon as the mass of the nozzle was added, and the mass of the wallet was reduced (even if just a little). It seems that when buying and "finalizing with a file", Pan expected slightly different results, and now he is trying in vain to convince himself and others that everything is exactly as intended.

And although with the old nozzle you can see at least a hint of facets in the eye of ktyr, it is too presumptuous to call it a "strongly increasing scale". Elephant-generally sucks, even in the sharp zone, besides the GRIP does not cover even half of it. Here's how I came up with a similar plot:



Focus stacking (4 frames), small sharp, crop.

Also, Pan would do well to pay close attention to such a phenomenon as a wiggle and use a mini-tripod aka losharik. Even with my hands, with a low shutter speed and bright lighting, an almost static image comes out, but Pan either always shakes them under the weight of the kayak, or simply because of the long focus, the picture walks more strongly. Perhaps with a tripod, everything will not be so disgusting as it is now. But, however, even now all this stuff clearly does not fit in your pockets, but with a tripod... And also ISO, the pursuit of minimizing it when shooting with hands inevitably turns into a stir. I've been shooting at ISO 200 lately, except in very bright sun or with a flash. It's better to make noise (especially if you have a good noise canceller on your computer) than to use it. Of course, I have a much smaller lens aperture, although looking at the number of additional layers of glass in pan, I'm not so convinced of this anymore.

As for large insects, they are, as I have already said. perfectly come out without any additional devices:



Yes, this is a crop, but it shows no less detail than on the same scale pictures of pan through his super-nozzle.

And with my nozzle, it turns out not a field horse, but facets in the field horse's eye (full frame without any processing):



Well, and in conclusion:



Stacking (8 frames), without crop and sharp. The size of the beetle is 1 mm or less, when shooting I didn't see it at all - I took a picture of a pure flower. This is a goose onion, the diameter of the corolla is about 1 cm. When moving the camera with your hands, there was a strong parallax, so then I had to work a lot with the "naprilnik", but in the end everything came together.

I hope that now Pan has realized that he is going the wrong way? Although no, to be honest, I don't hope so.

This post was edited by ENO - 03/23/2016 18: 25

Yes, I got one afocal nozzle, min. the shooting distance is approx. 1 meter, one corrected macro lens and one converted object I11-M, I use all three nozzles, very convenient)

It seems to me that you have got a variant with a second lens as a macro lens(a good option for macro photography)


The afocal nozzle is slightly different, roughly speaking, the "Galileo tube" on the lens.


And in the general piggy bank, a small test.
The most "strong" macro lens from the POLAROID kit, 10x (10D)

Nikon D80, 10Mp, 23.6×15.8 mm matrix, Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC lens, Flash.

And so, the focal length on the lens is 78mm +lens +10x(at F=200mm, the image is strongly "torn"):
Full frame(naturally reduced)


Cropped image (based on the plot)


Part of the actual frame (100% magnification), without changing the sharpness.


Other lenses are naturally weaker (+1+2+4), but they also cause less distortion.

Now just the lens itself, the focal length is maximum 200mm, and the distance is minimal (somewhere 45cm).

Full frame(naturally reduced)


Cropped image (based on the plot)


Part of the actual frame (100% magnification), without changing the sharpness.

It seems to me that you have got a variant with a second lens as a macro lens(a good option for macro photography)

Part of the actual frame (100% magnification), without changing the sharpness.

I'm not impressed." Maybe the focus was missed or there was a wiggle? I would have done the same thing better with a magnifying glass and a soap dish. If I find a dead aurata in the stashes in the near future, I'll show it to you.

Still, it looks like they missed the trick, and there was a stir. Here is the result of blind deconvolution in the SmartDeblur program:



PSF:



The shape indicates that the lens was moving from the upper-left corner to the lower-right corner (or vice versa)and there was a slight out-of-focus. The program is very good for saving ruined frames, sometimes (but not always!) as a result of her work, the sculpture of insect covers literally grows out of oblivion. That's just the Home version I have installed saves only 80% of the zhpeg (in a cell), for 100% zhpeg, typhoid, and also work with RAW, the Pro version is required. But it's better to just try to shoot more accurately.

It is also embarrassing that this macro lens even in the central zone gives a strong chromatic aberration (red border to the right of the head of the bronze), almost with the same success you can use non-specialized convex lenses from the Sovdepovskaya flea market like my magnifying glass. By the way, here is a photo of my magnifying glass, so that you can understand what I'm talking about:





This post was edited by ENO - 03/23/2016 22: 09

It seems to me that you have got a variant with a second lens as a macro lens(a good option for macro photography)

The second objective is with I11-M, although this is not an objective after finishing with a file, but nevertheless there are also 4 lenses left in two groups, the afocal nozzle is made using a negative meniscus and a positive long-focus lens, this is really an afocal nozzle, otherwise a teleconvertor, well, the nozzle from a corrected lens is exactly like macro lens (it is shown in the photo).
Well, I liked the nozzles themselves, I paid $ 3 for the I11, I think I'll buy another Olympus 510 for $ 5 just in case on zapchati, and I need to change the front lens, otherwise I bought my Olympus new in 2006 and during all this time I didn't do anything with it, dropped on the object three times only, and reassembled the object later on request ))) And now they are full of BOO sold like a needle, people mostly do not use the camera, so they will make 1000 frames and it lies there..

Well, if the pan can pick at the object, it would be necessary for him to figure out how to supply it with macro rings (while retaining the drive of all electromechanical components), then maybe something better will come out. On krainyak, you can build rings on top of the transfocatara and already hang a fix on them. There are for example such, very light, sharp and cheap. If Pan is going to take another Olympus of the same kind, then it's not a pity to specialize this one for macro in this way. And the path that pan has chosen is a lot of glass, but little use, killing the resolution, and that's all.

You don't need to expect anything" wonderful " from a set of macro lenses for 400 rubles, chromatism from a single - component macro lens in +10D and with a diameter of 62 mm must be, like other distortions, especially on a zoom lens, as can be seen in the pictures.

As for the sharpness, I didn't specifically process it, but I usually use the simplest program "XnView"if necessary.
Motion blur "wiggle", within a few pixels and in a compressed " JPG " file-it is almost impossible to see, due to the compression algorithm, but if it were RAW.

In principle, the task is satisfactorily (for me) copes with the usual budget Sigma 18-200mm and without additional macro lenses.
Images that are not cropped are only scaled down.






P.S.
Photos with Industriar 11-M turned out to be successful, Industriar turned into a well-corrected macro lens, somewhere +3D, but the lens behind it may slightly degrade the quality, by the way, how many diopters is it?

This post was edited by Yuriy352-24.03.2016 00: 10

That's what's good about DSLRs, so this is that there is no noise even on ISO above 200, and on soap dishes already at 100 there is noise. And so-DSLRs now BU are generally very cheap, but the weight and size.. I had the opportunity to take pictures and wear-there is only one macro lens that weighs more than all my nozzles + the soap dish itself
Well, the main advantage of the soap dish is its versatility, you can remove the nozzle in a second, it sits on a sliding axis, and that's all, there is a zoom or the usual 50mm equivalent. And so, you need to carry a bunch of objects

And, well, if those lenses are only 400 rubles for a complete set, then the thing is quite suitable. Still, my magnifying glass, in addition to the same HA, also gives a strong distortion around the edges and to whom, which is not particularly noticeable in your pictures.

It is quite possible to recognize a sufficiently strong signal on the zhpeg. Smartdeblyur analysis of different parts of the image showed almost identical trajectories, that is, that there is a diagonal line there, we can say with confidence about 99%. Sharpness, even without any corrections, should have been higher if there was no focus miss.

What exactly does XnView do? Just shuffling around? In what way? There are a lot of them. Smartdeblure does exactly deconvolution, that is, it tries to focus unfocused objects using a clever mathematical apparatus. Theoretically, if it was RAW, it would be possible to restore the information completely, as if there was no focus miss and no wiggle at all. In practice, this is, of course, unattainable, and with zhpegom - even more so. But even what you can pull out is sometimes impressive. However, it is much better just not to smear or move.

With the first and third photos from your extreme post, a cheap soap dish like mine will easily cope, only, of course, without such a glamorous bokeh and there will be fewer pixels. Here is a picture of lemongrass more interesting, but more artistic than scientific. And normal macro images of cetonia with a DSLR in my understanding are at least as follows: http://macroid.ru/mdata/54/cv_33.jpg, but what about the optimum?: http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/imag...a_aurata_sk.jpg.

But I can't afford such a pleasure at all, so I will continue to stare at someone else's things, and I myself, as Pan Stepova put it, shoot "with a magnifying glass". I am generally satisfied with the result:



Unfortunately, it was not possible to find a bronze medal for the comparative test quickly. Somewhere in my apartment they should definitely be, but where exactly is a big question.

The message was edited INO-03/27/2021 00: 44

  
P.S.
Photos with Industriar 11-M turned out to be successful, Industriar turned into a well-corrected macro lens, somewhere +3D, but the lens behind it may slightly degrade the quality, by the way, how many diopters is it?

The I11-M has a 500mm FR now, so its strength is approx. 2 diopters, and my nozzle has about 3.3 diopters. Of course, when you use them together, the quality worsens, but the scale increases, their combined strength of about 10 diopters turns out to be

XnView is a simple "viewer" with various functions and a small set of filters, completely free(for private use) http://www.xnview.com/en/xnview/ .
I have an extended version .

This post was edited by Yuriy352-24.03.2016 01: 09

The matrix of digital mirrors does not make noise because, firstly, it is much better (including due to the large physical size) than in soap dishes, and secondly, it is activated only at the time of the picture. There's also a cool autofocus - it doesn't smudge practically. But in macro photography, autofocus is pretty much overkill. Some of the same "Vega" (which weighs only 100 g) is screwed through the adapter and rings to the "Nikons" and removed awesome. Well, or "Industriars" all sorts. So the main thing is the "carcass", and the Sovdepovskaya defense flea market will provide suitable macro products for all occasions.

I could have suggested a noise reduction method to Pan that would have brought his images to the level of DSLRs in terms of smoothness with minimal loss of detail (instead of the software slag that Pan is currently using), and for one thing-and a couple of very kosher sharps, but since he decided to ignore my posts, this would have been superfluous. I don't really care about noise even at ISO 200, but I still shoot for scientific, not artistic purposes, so I rarely put pressure on it.

XnView is a simple "viewer" with various functions and a small set of filters, completely free(for private use) http://www.xnview.com/en/xnview/ .
I have an extended version .

So what exactly does it do to sharpen the image? Don't you know a program for compensating for cyclic aberrations? And then I found something only for lateral HA and distortion, and separately in different products. But it seems that other lens distortions can be significantly corrected programmatically. Since even blind deconvolution exists and works quite well for itself, then in order to make a lens file on some target. and then on the basis of it to compensate for all the aberrations, there should definitely be something.

...And you, by any chance, do not know the program for compensation of ralichny aberrations? And then I found something only for lateral HA and distortion, and separately in different products. But it seems that other lens distortions can be significantly corrected programmatically. Since even blind deconvolution exists and works quite well for itself, then in order to make a lens file on some target. and then on the basis of it to compensate for all the aberrations, there should definitely be something.

Absolutely all aberrations will not be corrected by any program, but for the main ones (chromatism and distortion) there are plugins for one editor - GIMP ( https://www.gimp.org/ ), now I use the stable version of GIMP 2.8, perfectly copes with all tasks, and most importantly, the editor is FREE(as well as plugins for it).

Camera calibration is usually used in 3D modeling programs based on photos, I think the future belongs to this technology (it's probably interesting to "spin", measure a rare insect on the screen, share it with friends and at the same time not endangering your physical collection).

I am not at all an expert in entomology and taxonomy, but it seems to me that the camera is more suitable for working in the field and with live insects, and with" dried " creatures (at this time) a regular flatbed scanner can quite cope.




This post was edited by Yuriy352-24.03.2016 17: 41

Scanograms are mainly applied to beetles (it is difficult to put the same wasps in the scanner without damaging them), and they are not mounted on a pin. And even then, in recent years, they are rapidly losing popularity, being replaced by high-resolution photos. In the case of aurata, the resolution of the scanner is still sufficient, but not all beetles are so large and so easily identified. In general, as long as all scanners designed for clerical purposes lose to mirrors by many orders of magnitude, compare your result with by this or by this. The only advantage of scans is the complete absence of geometric distortions, but they are corrected, not only programmatically, but also optically in special lenses. Perhaps there are some special scanners with increased resolution (the only question is, for what purposes were they created, not for entomological ones?), but I have not encountered such ones. Mine generally refused to scan anything thicker than a piece of paper (although it scans these sheets very efficiently). It's not for nothing that the best images of hooks, especially small ones, in the ZIN atlas are photos, not scans.

Oh, I have a GIMP, but what is the plugin called? Hugin (also free), or rather, one of the separate utilities included in the package, can profile the lens on the target, but, unfortunately, this applies only to distortion.

From your assumptions, arguments, experiments, and so on-the head swells

Can you tell me in which mode it is better to take photos ?
What is the best aperture to set ?
What is the best ISO to put ?
What is the best light, sunny, semi-shade, or how best to solve the problem with light in a room with poor lighting ?

Just in order, please, I will continue to use macro rings, and my own industriar, since I have no other alternative for today.
Maybe at least the settings are sensible and will make less soap.
p. s. I read that Stacking can be done in photoshop, I'll try at my leisure.

P.S. I read that Stacking can be done in Photoshop, I'll try it at my leisure.

Yeah. And very simple. There are instructions here — http://fotoforge.livejournal.com/133864.html
However, over the past time, the screenshots were covered with a copper basin. But, in principle, everything is spelled out in detail.

From your assumptions, arguments, experiments, and so on-the head swells

Can you tell me in which mode it is better to take photos ?
What is the best aperture to set ?
What is the best ISO to put ?
What is the best light, sunny, semi-shade, or how best to solve the problem with light in a room with poor lighting ?

Just in order, please, I will continue to use macro rings, and my own industriar, since I have no other alternative for today.
Maybe at least the settings are sensible and will make less soap.
p. s. I read that Stacking can be done in photoshop, I'll try at my leisure.

all your questions will be answered only by ENO-he is a specialist

and everything else is achieved empirically and there is no single recipe

From your assumptions, arguments, experiments, and so on-the head swells

Can you tell me in which mode it is better to take photos ?
What is the best aperture to set ?
What is the best ISO to put ?
What is the best light, sunny, semi-shade, or how best to solve the problem with light in a room with poor lighting ?

Almost all questions are variable, as everything depends on the goals set, the desired result, priorities, the shooting objects themselves, the equipment used, etc. Everything comes with experience.
Shoot and watch... What do you dislike about your photos? What is the main problem? If you are aware of the problem... so you already know where to go...
With such a combination of equipment, probably no one works here...

If you are interested in the effect of the diaphragm , then run an experiment on the effect of the diaphragm and decide what is best for you.
Here's an example of my experiment here:
http://barry.fotopage.ru/test/index.htm
But these are my "pieces of hardware", no one can predict what will happen on yours. When you hold down the aperture, the depth of field increases, the shutter speed increases, and the detail decreases . In different situations, the priorities for these parameters may be different... There is no optimal single aperture in nature...
So is the ISO... For flight shots, for example, you will ignore the noise and pull out the minimum shutter speed.
Optimal light - light overcast. When the sun is in a light haze, it is quite bright, but the shadows are almost invisible or barely noticeable. It is in such conditions that optimal color reproduction is achieved. But you can't order the weather, and you can't shoot running beetles in such conditions. What is more important to you? One outstanding shot in two months or several dozen photos with a flash of running beetles in one day in nature? For example, I prefer the second option, but there are fans of the first one...

all your questions will be answered only by ENO-he is a specialist

No, we have a specialist - Pan Stepovoy, he will definitely tell you how to increase the "nosadka" with a shooting distance of 2 meters, and purely due to the length of the "nosadka" itself. Something like this:



Moreover, instead of a Nikon DSLR, there must be an Olimppus SP510UZ, used, for 500 UAH, with it R & D is more severe and as a result, self - esteem is higher.

And I can only answer if Odessa gives me her camera to spin. Otherwise, no way, really blame me. The only thing on the list of questions that is more or less universal is coverage. Direct sunlight is definitely not the best option, they cause all sorts of glare. So, if the lens aperture and low noise of the matrix allow you to shoot better in a light shadow. And with a properly diffused flash , it's even better. Although it is still a matter of taste, for some people it is natural light that is important, so that the insect looks in the photo as close as possible to the picture visible to the naked eye in nature. But if the goal is maximum detail to each hair and each pit, then definitely the flash (ring or close to it) steers.

On Photoshop stacking, if the stack is even slightly different from the ideal one, there are a lot of abusive reviews. If you want to use a paid prog, take Zerene Stacker, if free-CombineZP, these two are tested in battles by makrushniki. The latter, in addition to stacking, can do a lot of other things (very accurate sharping, noise reduction, etc.), but there is no way to draw sections of layers manually, so you will need Photoshop or GIMP for the final one.

 
When the aperture is held down, the depth of field increases, the shutter speed increases, and the detail decreases.
Not quite like that: detail (I understand it as resolution, but Pan Stepova is some unknown garbage related to colors, I don't know about that) when the diphragm is clamped, it first increases, then falls.

I was referring to the work of the diaphragm in the context of macro, but this is exactly what we are talking about here. And the macro is shot mainly in the area of the clamped aperture (for depth of field).

It is also impossible to squeeze too much - there is such a thing as the diffraction limit, just for macro a very relevant problem, I myself encountered when I tried to attach an additional diaphragm to my nozzle. As I said before, each lens is as sharp as possible at a certain number of apertures, and without Mira on the eye, this number is problematic to determine. But usually this is neither the maximum nor the minimum.

Canon 550D + Canon EF 100 mm Macro (not L)

From your assumptions, arguments, experiments, and so on-the head swells

Can you tell me in which mode it is better to take photos ?
What is the best aperture to set ?
What is the best ISO to put ?
What is the best light, sunny, semi-shade, or how best to solve the problem with light in a room with poor lighting ?

Just in order, please, I will continue to use macro rings, and my own industriar, since I have no other alternative for today.
Maybe at least the settings are sensible and will make less soap.
p. s. I read that Stacking can be done in photoshop, I'll try at my leisure.

With this approach, you definitely need a soap dish instead of a DSLR, or auto-mode on the DSLR)

And so-on the DSLR ISO 600 probably less noise will give than ISO 100 on the soap dish, so put the shooting mode A (aperture priority)max. aperture, raise the ISO to an acceptable shutter speed(this is at least from 1/250, but better 1/400) and tolerable noise, if there is not enough ISO, open the aperture,and do it.

And yet, your I61 LZ object is a standard object, you need I61 LD for macro-a long-length object, this is actually an analog of a macro-objective, without any rings and with a larger GRIP, but you will not be able to take pictures of landscapes with it.

It is better to forget about stacking - in nature, animals do not sit still, and even if they do, you can hardly catch the right direction of shooting in all frames, it is better to get away from macro rings by buying/creating the right object, and forget this problem with GRIP