Micro and macrophotography

I've always wondered why microscopes and macrophotographs are used to study small objects. Something's not right here.

I've always wondered why microscopes and macrophotographs are used to study small objects. Something's not right here.

The microscope is used for microphotography to graphically capture what is seen. Macro photography does not use a microscope.

for micrographs...
Macrophotography...

So what is the difference between macro photography and micro photography?
From my point of view, MACROPHOTOGRAPHY is a very unfortunate term, which, in contrast to MICROPHOTOGRAPHY, should have meant photos of planets and stars. However, for some reason it is applied to photos of small objects. IMHO now there is no difference between the concepts of microphotography and macrophotography. Or am I wrong?

Macro photography is shooting a close-up image of an object in such a way that the size of the object's image on the camera's film (sensor) refers to the size of the object's real size as 1:1.
As I understand it.

This post was edited by Bad Den-01.08.2006 21: 25

Today I found a solution to reduce the minimum focusing distance and, accordingly, to increase the zoom of the objects being shot. My lens (canon's 100mm macro lens) doesn't allow you to shoot moles in good quality, so I had to shoot them through a microscope. But the microscope has one extremely unpleasant property: there is no aperture in the lens, so you can not play with the grip and increase the sharpness due to a small hole. Photos through a microscope are not very high quality.

The solution was Marumi macro filters - they made it possible to reduce the minimum focusing distance of my lens from 38 to 12 cm, respectively, the micropterigidine now occupies not 1/15, but about half of the frame. And the quality is configurable at the same time due to the ability to play with the aperture.

[attachmentid()=125349]

[attachmentid()=125350]

Still, macro filters noticeably spoil the properties of the lens - with a Canon weave without filters, the picture turns out better, without optical distortion. I use Kenko macro rings for shooting small things. Periodically, I even shoot genitals with a Sigma 150 mm lens + 3 rings, it turns out better than through binoculars)

I didn't notice any optical distortion in my image .

Well, I don't know, maybe I'm too fastidious, but the image is slightly blurred imho, the weave is still sharper, by the way, do you have an L or a previous model?

Yes, the above image is very blurry (fringe). And why suddenly have a macro-weave minimum 38 cm?? I shoot on the same lens of the same moles bezkolets with 7-10 cm and everything focuses perfectly. Of course, the scale is smaller on the full matrix, but you can also skadrirovat from the top five to the light one without much loss, if you do not print posters with a micro size of A0 and higher ))
An example of a frame without any cropping and processing from my weave on the crop. The size of the butterfly is about 1 cm
.

Dear colleagues!
There are difficulties with microphotography, because the photo nozzle (MFN-12) is domestic, and the camera is imported, besides, the lens is not removed from it.
The camera has a branded nozzle, but I did not find it on sale in our country.
Maybe someone faced a similar problem and knows the way out.
I photograph various insects in the process of development from egg to adult.

Maybe I did, if you still wrote the brand of the device.

Maybe I did, if you still wrote the brand of the device.

This question was asked more than 5 years ago. Probably, the answer is no longer relevant.

Yes, it's funny, and I don't think people say anything definite. And I saw like this topic a couple of years ago...

Well, I don't know, maybe I'm too fastidious, but the image is slightly blurred imho, the weave is still sharper, by the way, do you have an L or a previous model?

Previous. The drawing is not blurred - for an absolutely high-quality image on such a grip, you need to set the planes of the wings and matrix at the level. naturally, I did not do this - shooting from a simple tripod, without distortions.

2 Konung
you probably have a different lens. weaving from Canon closer than 31 cm does not focus - the performance characteristics are such. Only with rings or a macro filter. There is a switch on the glass itself - either 31 or 42 cm. http://www.foto.ru/canon_ef100mm_f_2.8_macro_usm.html

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 04.11.2011 19: 18

For the purity of the experiment. I didn't put planes in the level, but I tried to make them as parallel as possible. The first picture is a weave without macro attachments, and the second one is with an x4 macro attachment. Both images were taken 1 cm before the end of the focus area. Unprocessed. The butterfly has a wingspan of 8 mm.

[attachmentid()=125436]

[attachmentid()=125437]

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 04.11.2011 20: 11

About the macro micro on the scoop classics something like this:
The 1:5 — 20:1 scale is a macro.
Scales greater than 20: 1 are micro.
As for attachment lenses vs rings — according to the Soviet classic, rings give better quality at the same magnification (but they significantly affect the amount of light that falls on the film and have the inconvenience that the lens needs to be removed in order to put the rings), and in the modern world-at the macro club, people say that there are lenses, which are better than the rings will be (but not all...)

This post was edited by Asar - 04.11.2011 21: 52

Buy a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens and you'll be lucky!

There is also such an economical option: Sky-Watcher.
Mikra I have, sorry, no, took the smallest pigeon. Wing length 7 mm.

This post was edited by bora - 05.11.2011 06: 55

Pictures:

Image_0.jpg — (1.17мб)

And here's a picture of a pigeon egg on the same thing.

Pictures:

Image_1.jpg — (418.37к)

About the macro micro on the scoop classics something like this:
The 1:5 — 20:1 scale is a macro.
Scales greater than 20: 1 are micro.
As for attachment lenses vs rings — according to the Soviet classic, rings give better quality at the same magnification (but they significantly affect the amount of light that falls on the film and have the inconvenience that the lens needs to be removed in order to put the rings), and in the modern world-at the macro club, people say that there are lenses, which are better than the rings will be (but not all...)

There are lenses made up of multiple glasses to eliminate aberration. They are more expensive than single-glass ones, but the quality is incomparably better. I've been using Raynox's DCR-150 and DCR-250 macro lenses for a long time (Raynox.ru). They have a resolution of more than 300 dots per mm, which is significantly higher than the resolution of lenses, so they can not degrade the image quality (in terms of resolution). You can put them on lenses that have a landing hole from 49 to 58 mm. However, with a small focal length of the lens, it is possible to darken the edges of the image. With focal lengths of more than 100 mm, this problem does not exist. When using zoom lenses (with variable focus), it is very convenient, since you can get different magnification scales. I use a Sigma 75-300mm with a DCR-150. Shooting is carried out from about 35 cm.
Example: Original date/time: 2011:07:15 00:34:57
Exposure time: 1/125
F-stop: 25.0
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 250.0000
Focal length (35mm): 250
Flash: Fired

This post was edited by gumenuk - 05.11.2011 08: 35

Pictures:

DSC01995.jpg — (366.8к)

 

Photos through a microscope are not very high quality.

I do not agree, it is better than through a microscope to remove microobjects with nothing

This post was edited by bora - 05.11.2011 08: 39

Pictures:

tityrus_female.jpg — (1.59 mb)

Buy a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens and you'll be lucky!

It's a good lens, but I won't be happy with it. Tried.

Buy a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens and you'll be lucky!

It has a negligible depth of field, as far as I know, stacks of several frames from this lens are usually made, which is not very convenient in everyday work.

In addition to the insignificant grip, there is also manual focusing (extremely inconvenient in some cases), but the most unpleasant thing is the "trunk", which is so sensitive to ground tremors that at long exposures (with a small hole-quite natural, otherwise even close to acceptable grip can not be achieved) the image is smeared even when a car passes by the house it's passing by. And if someone walks around the room - you can forget about shooting. I initially thought to buy this lens, but after extremely negative tests, I decided to stop at Canon's hundred square meters.

Hmm. And what, at the same magnifications at the same apertures with the help of attachment lenses, the GRIP will be larger than at MP-E?

No more than that. But there will be less vibrations - the MP-E design itself implies a very rigid attachment to the camera and the camera to a tripod. The lens is undoubtedly good, but its aperture is the same as that of Kenonovskaya Sotka, and the design is much more lossy .

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 05.11.2011 13: 52

It has a negligible depth of field, as far as I know, stacks of several frames from this lens are usually made, which is not very convenient in everyday work.

I beg you, everyone takes pictures and doesn't worry! The web is full of amazing photos from this lens. What is the problem to remove a couple of dozen layers from a horizontal or vertical tripod and glue them together in a prog (there are several of them, paid and free)?
Vibration? The first time I hear about such a problem...

I beg you, everyone takes pictures and doesn't worry! The web is full of amazing photos from this lens. What is the problem to remove a couple of dozen layers from a horizontal or vertical tripod and glue them together in a prog (there are several of them, paid and free)?
Vibration? This is the first time I've heard of such a problem...

It is also full of no less amazing photos from the Canonovskaya hundred . And then - they don't shoot everything. I, for example, don't shoot ^^.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 05.11.2011 14: 35

About amazing photos-I don't argue, but these are artistic pictures, and we are talking about scientific ones-you often have to shoot several dozen, or even hundreds of copies at a time, and the prospect of gluing them together from several hundred layers is somehow not happy, so the MP-E is a very good, but very highly specialized lens.

And with a hundred they are in completely different weight categories, because they have too different purposes.

http://www.rwpbb.ru/test/canonmacro65.html
http://macroclub.ru/club/viewtopic.php?t=39

I did not see any special enthusiasm, as well as wide distribution, regarding the MP-E. Too difficult to use - especially in the field. In the mountains, for example, I do not need 10 kg of additional photo junk, which I will have to carry on my own hump.

Saw. That's why I'm surprised

I manage with improvised means in the form of ancient Soviet lenses, the quality is still satisfactory:

I manage with improvised means in the form of ancient Soviet lenses, the quality is still satisfactory:

Not Krasnogorsk lenses by any chance? Just wondering

Krasnogorsk lens Krasnogorsk discord
Of all the things I tried, the most suitable ones for large magnification were the Industriar-69 from Chaika and Vega-11U from the photo enlarger. At medium magnification, Wave-9, I-61LZ, and I-50 are good-2.

I manage with improvised means in the form of ancient Soviet lenses, the quality is still satisfactory:

Yes, I've been shooting with Soviet anti-aircraft optics for several years, I know that!

Yes, I've been shooting with Soviet anti-aircraft optics for several years, I know that!

Yeah. To the point of pain :--)

No more than that. But there will be less vibrations - the MP-E design itself implies a very rigid attachment to the camera and the camera to a tripod. The lens is undoubtedly good, but its aperture is the same as that of Kenonovskaya Sotka, and the design is much more lossy .

Live for a century-learn for a century!)

Yes, I've been shooting with Soviet anti-aircraft optics for several years, I know that!

Yeah. To the point of pain:--)

Oh, and I know how: I just worked at this factory for a while. Yes, and I graduated from school from him-the same. That's why I asked.