Smartphone with a lens from Smena-8m - a device for macro photography

Well, if there is no other unit, then why not remove it? But, of course, you can forget about any artistry. But then a lot depends on the smartphone camera, I saw the page with the results of macro photography with the latest iPhone with a Nikon microscopic lens, quite nothing (although the noise reduction is too aggressive). You have not only aggressive noise reduction, but also can not cope.

Well, if there is no other unit, then why not remove it? But, of course, you can forget about any artistry. But then a lot depends on the smartphone camera, I saw the page with the results of macro photography with the latest iPhone with a Nikon microscopic lens, quite nothing (although the noise reduction is too aggressive). You have not only aggressive noise reduction, but also can not cope.

Of course, of course. Shitting the topic with stupid nonsense is your craft. How did I forget ?

This post was edited by Karamor - 10.07.2016 18: 33

I didn't bother much-I took an enlarged fragment of Italian bedbugs in nature with a Samsung Galaxy J700H mobile phone

This post was edited by I. solod - 14.06.2016 22: 42

Pictures:

________________.jpg — (4.19 mb)


______________________.jpg — (730.92к)

I didn't bother much-I took an enlarged fragment of Italian bedbugs in nature with a Samsung Galaxy J700H mobile phone

Here, though, and in the camera according to the description of 13 megapixels(!tin), it would be enough for this mobile phone and 4x...
And attachments and mobile phones - this is a dead number Probably in all mobile phones the object is so wide-angle that in order to get magnification, you need to apply the same wide-angle with a focal 20 or even 10 mm to it, and even the Industriar 2.8 / 50 on the mobile phone reduces the scale, and does not take away

Pictures:

P6156296.jpg — (511.06к)


IMAGE_473.jpg — (319.04к)


IMAGE_477.jpg — (614.89к)

Pan Stepova seems to have completely forgotten how to comment on which picture was taken by what. On the average, I note that the alignment is tin.

Here, though, and in the camera according to the description of 13 megapixels(!tin), it would be enough for this mobile phone and 4x...
And attachments and mobile phones - this is a dead number Probably in all mobile phones the object is so wide-angle that in order to get magnification, you need to apply the same wide-angle with a focal 20 or even 10 mm to it, and even the Industriar 2.8 / 50 on the mobile phone reduces the scale, and does not take away

So you need to shoot at close range, so that the scale increases, and not a mosquito from afar. And with the Zenith lens, working out the details is not visible at all, it blurs the image too much. I think Smenovsky is still better, especially given its small size and light weight. Smenovsky also draws more clearly and has a larger format by a dozen.

This post was edited by Karamor - 06/17/2016 10: 30

Well, actually, the fact that "details are not visible" has nothing to do with the object, the camera itself on my old mobile phone (NTS3700) is lousy. But the object of the Shift (triplet, and the Shift is a kind of soap dish of the USSR times) is probably several times worse than the Industriar 61, which is a tessar with 4 lenses, and it is not from Zenith, and it will not get there in any way from FED, the highest class by the way, ballta spionoff ) I shot with the object in general, something else closer than without it, with an object of about 4 cm and without about 7 cm to the mosquito was.

The first picture where the mosquito is on the whole frame, it is clear that not on the mobile phone, but on the soap dish, although only Ezox probably did not understand this )) Well, essno all the pictures are full-frame.

They survived... People discuss macro photography with smartphones...

Well, actually, the fact that "details are not visible" has nothing to do with the object, the camera itself on my old mobile phone (NTS3700) is lousy. But the object of the Shift (triplet, and the Shift is a kind of soap dish of the USSR times) is probably several times worse than the Industriar 61, which is a tessar with 4 lenses, and it is not from Zenith, and it will not get there in any way from FED, the highest class by the way, ballta spionoff ) I shot with the object in general, something else closer than without it, with an object of about 4 cm and without about 7 cm to the mosquito was.

The first picture where the mosquito is on the whole frame, it is clear that not on the mobile phone, but on the soap dish, although only Ezox probably did not understand this )) Well, essno all the pictures are full-frame.

My opinion: the simpler the lens, the more versatile it is. I tried Industriar from Zenith, but, apparently, just because of its complexity of the device in combination with the mobile camera, there was a discord in the form of a "soft"effect.

And what exactly is Industriar? In general, in Zenith lenses, the exit peephole is large, but for a phone camera, it is probably better to use a smaller one. Zenitovskiye is better as nozzles for soap dishes are suitable.

[quote=Hierophis,17.06.2016 13:26]

Here, I photographed insects with my device. I had to crop it, of course, so as not to produce circles.











This post was edited by Karamor - 08.07.2016 20: 55

It came out approximately at the level of my fotik (Canon A540) without attachments.

It came out approximately at the level of my fotik (Canon A540) without attachments.

Well, it means normal. On your smartphone, you can also immediately align, crop, and send the image to the Internet.

Everyone has their own criteria for "normality". Here, the I. solod smartphone even removes the beam without attachments. And you can frame on many modern photos, and some even allow you to send them to the Internet. IMHO [s]gesar - kesarevo [s] fotiku-fotikovo, phone-telefonovo. Although maybe I'm outdated.

Everyone has their own criteria for "normality". Here, the I. solod smartphone even removes the beam without attachments. And you can frame on many modern photos, and some even allow you to send them to the Internet. IMHO [s]gesar - kesarevo [s] fotiku-fotikovo, phone-telefonovo. Although maybe I'm the one who's outdated.

What kind of smartphone is this ? And how much does it cost ? I didn't find it in Google.
A camera with Internet access, you say ? Specify its dimensions, weight, and price.

This post was edited by Karamor - 06.07.2016 20: 15

Karamor, I hesitate to ask what exactly you were looking for in Google? I. solod - this is the nickname of the participant who unsubscribed in this topic just above. The name of the smartphone is also indicated there. About cameras with Internet access, I only know for sure that they are available, but since I didn't need to, I wasn't interested in them at all. But the built-in image editor is practical in all modern DSLRs and in many superzums. But I also don't really need it, since it's still a perversion to redo something based on a tiny screen, having an alternative in the form of a large computer monitor screen. Unless on a long expedition far from civilization with a small amount of memory... In general, I don't understand why you need to upload photos of insects from the same device on which it was made. What's the rush?

Karamor, I hesitate to ask what exactly you were looking for in Google? I. solod - this is the nickname of the participant who unsubscribed in this topic just above. The name of the smartphone is also indicated there. About cameras with Internet access, I only know for sure that they are available, but since I didn't need to, I wasn't interested in them at all. But the built-in image editor is practical in all modern DSLRs and in many superzums. But I also don't really need it, since it's still a perversion to redo something based on a tiny screen, having an alternative in the form of a large computer monitor screen. Unless on a long expedition far from civilization with a small amount of memory... In general, I don't understand why you need to upload photos of insects from the same device on which it was made. What's the rush?

I understand you. My device has no advantages at all. Besides, you're smarter than Bacon.

What Bacon? Francis? I don't know, I haven't read it. Why aren't there any pluses? They can shoot insects-already a plus. But it is obviously impossible to shoot them qualitatively - but this is already a minus. This must be acknowledged. Vaughn, Pan Hierophis even got better with the lens attachment to the smartphone, and he never had any expensive accessories. I really don't understand why you need to bother with screwing a Soviet lens to a smartphone, and, in general, do any needlework, for the sake of such mediocre image quality. Does it even fit in your pocket with such a nozzle? Any "soap box" will remove, at least, no worse. As for going to the Internet, I remembered: recently I came across the offer of a certain beushny soap dish with Wi-fi, the price was quite affordable, no more than its analogues without it. But since such a feature is completely unnecessary for me, and the other parameters were not impressed ("one-button"), I didn't even remember the name. But, I think, even a "one-button" soap dish for photographing insects is better than a regular smartphone with a tiny lens and "focus free", and if you also put a Soviet lens on it, there will be a bomb in general. Now I looked specifically for you on that site - no longer, sold means.

What Bacon? Francis? I don't know, I haven't read it. Why aren't there any pluses? They can shoot insects-already a plus. But it is obviously impossible to shoot them qualitatively - but this is already a minus. This must be acknowledged. Vaughn, Pan Hierophis even got better with the lens attachment to the smartphone, and he never had any expensive accessories. I really don't understand why you need to bother with screwing a Soviet lens to a smartphone, and, in general, do any needlework, for the sake of such mediocre image quality. Does it even fit in your pocket with such a nozzle? Any "soap box" will remove, at least, no worse. As for going to the Internet, I remembered: recently I came across the offer of a certain beushny soap dish with Wi-fi, the price was quite affordable, no more than its analogues without it. But since such a feature is completely unnecessary for me, and the other parameters were not impressed ("one-button"), I didn't even remember the name. But, I think, even a "one-button" soap dish for photographing insects is better than a regular smartphone with a tiny lens and "focus free", and if you also put a Soviet lens on it, there will be a bomb in general. Now I looked specifically for you on that site - no longer, sold means.

Are you out of envy that you're shitting my invention, I don't understand ? Can you imagine the size and weight of your smartphone and lens from a Change? This soap dish will never fit in your pocket. And the camera with Wi-Fi is even more so, even if this pocket is previously emptied to a penny.
The quality of images, as you wrote yourself, is at the level of the Canon A540. Well, what else do you need ?
See how huge your vaunted dinosaurs are !







This post was edited by Karamor - 07.07.2016 10: 37

I didn't bother much-I took an enlarged fragment of Italian bedbugs in nature with a Samsung Galaxy J700H mobile phone

For the price that your smartphone is worth, I will buy three high-tech screens.

I saw the page with the results of macro photography with the latest iPhone with a Nikon microscopic lens

What kind of nonsense is this ? Or maybe it's better to buy a car for this money ?

This is something Esox completely became an expert that leveled the submitted photos with kenon, but there is an invention, a fact, you need to do a patent urgently, it is better to immediately go to the USA

This is something Esox completely became an expert that leveled the submitted photos with kenon, but there is an invention, a fact, you need to do a patent urgently, it's better to go straight to the USA

I assume you have a better invention?" You know how empty heads and hands that grow out of soft places like to criticize innovators.

And the birds begin to fall into puddles,
Because there is nothing to cover for a long time.
My invention is no worse
Than your expensive g....!
(Karamor)



This post was edited by Karamor - 07.07.2016 16: 56

Caramore, you were celebrating something with a big feast today, weren't you?

In other words, let's at least determine that any soap dish is larger (at least in thickness) and heavier (two to two and a half times) than a modern smartphone with normal, standard dimensions. I do not know, maybe there are some special smartphones for Gulivers, but if you want to compare your camera with something out of the ordinary, then this is an indirect sign of schizophrenia. IMHO.
My device fits easily in the breast pocket of a silk shirt and does not stretch it, imagine. And your camera (and even in a case !) only in the side pocket of your sweatshirt to carry !
And what's most interesting: apart from my photos, this topic doesn't feature any macro shots ! To understand this simple fact, just look at each picture in the width of the smartphone screen (both horizontal and vertical photos). And then you'll see that I'm the only one with macro photography. And if you zoom in on the image format, you won't get any more details ! In short, learn how to shoot macro photography, even with a bucket, even with a stool. In the meantime, I don't see her at close range, the critics are shitty.

This post was edited by Karamor - 08.07.2016 11: 02

Down with the pseudo-macro !
Here's the real thing.





This post was edited by Karamor - 08.07.2016 20: 59

Down with the pseudo-macro !
Here's the real thing.

Here's the real thing. You have soapy shit.

Here's the real thing. You have soapy shit.

How was it removed ? Cost of equipment ? Maybe I'll buy myself a new apartment with your fly.
And by the way, your fly is absolutely not natural, it is not alive. That's really shit, not a photo hunt ! What are you bragging about? You've got a robot fly out. Did you assemble it from rebar and foil at a metallurgical plant ? The fly is lifeless, the background is artificial, plain. Don't show me that shit anymore. I'm sick of your gross violation of the ethics of a zoophotographer !

This post was edited by Karamor - 08.07.2016 19: 57

Well, Pan Hierophis's pictures in this topic are not cropped, the first one (the one with a camera and not a smartphone) is quite a normal macro. And my pictures in this topic were not at all, probably because I shoot not with a smartphone with a lens from Smena, but with a camera, and therefore I post examples of photos in the topic "Cameras".

Entalex, stacking?

Hardly a macro mosquito. When my smartphone is in a vertical position, the screen width is approximately 5 cm. I adjusted all my photos to fit this width, but it is not recommended to stretch them more. But back to the mosquito. If you first look at its picture with a width of 5 cm, and then turn the smartphone on its side, then when you expand the picture, you will not find any new details on the insect. Therefore, if I happened to print a Panov photo in a magazine, I would give it the same 5 cm width.

Kramor, better buy a trip to the Crimea in honor of such an invention
But in general-a typical trolling, and-found the time.. who does this in the summer )))

Kramor, better buy a trip to the Crimea in honor of such an invention
But in general-a typical trolling, and-found the time.. who does this in the summer )))

I seriously wrote to you about the violation of the ethics of a zoophotographer. I don't like fabricated-type masterpieces. Well, couldn't you shoot a fly in nature, live? Why go all the way to dead robotics ? Only valenki your fly will appreciate that terminator on TV gawk. I'm not that degraded yet, sorry. I still remember both Karl Schillings and Tanasiychuk. You give a photo hunt and thirty-six joys !

This post was edited by Karamor - 08.07.2016 19: 58

Normal photographers do not stretch anything, only compress (resize), and Pan Hierophis likes to abuse this (apparently, there is something to hide). The problem arises if then all sorts of simpletons try to "unclench" back, turning the smartphone on its side. Although maybe this is really such sophisticated trolling. Now the troll went sly and insidious, you will expose figs.

Normal photographers do not stretch anything, only compress (resize), and Pan Hierophis likes to abuse this (apparently, there is something to hide). The problem arises if then all sorts of simpletons try to "unclench" back, turning the smartphone on its side. Although maybe this is really such sophisticated trolling. Today the troll went sly and insidious, figs expose.

Well, I'll put it simply: the mosquito looks normal. Manufacturers of soap boxes have given you a great shot, saying that their product has a macro function. A publicity stunt. I can see the mosquito live in the same way, and zooming in doesn't change anything. By the way, this fly is three times smaller than your mosquito. Did you think it was the size of a room ? This is not trolling, but a statement of fact.





This post was edited by Karamor - 09.07.2016 07: 24

Play pseudo-macro, kids.
A tear is already flowing from your silly attempts.
You'd better get a little wiser
and face the truth.
It's better to have quality like soapiness
than freaking moronic.

Skin on the arm.





For comparison, a picture of a mosquito.



How easy it is to deceive a sucker with the coveted word MACRO ! Well done, vtyukhivalschiki digital junk !

This post was edited by Karamor - 09.07.2016 15: 57

Not well, there is clearly tin, especially suspicious looks at the inventor of Kramor's special pencil for cleaning lenses in one of the photos, ordinary people do not buy this, for example, I wipe my lenses with a handkerchief

Well, yes, for pictures of Eramor, the size of 5 cm is really the optimal size, for pictures of Ezox it is no more than 15 centimeters, but for mine let it be 20

In where is the macro! And no chpokings, nevel clicked and went on )And most importantly, the "equipment" is, I think, 5 times cheaper even than the Chinese non-name smartphone "highscreen"))

Pictures:

P7090071.jpg — (517.67к)


P7090206.jpg — (490.64к)

Not well, there is clearly tin, especially suspicious looks at the inventor of Kramor's special pencil for cleaning lenses in one of the photos, ordinary people do not buy this, for example, I wipe my lenses with a handkerchief

Well, yes, for pictures of Eramor, the size of 5 cm is really the optimal size, for pictures of Ezox it is no more than 15 centimeters, but for mine let it be 20

In where is the macro! And no chpokings, nevel clicked and went on )And most importantly, the "equipment" is, I think, 5 times cheaper even than the Chinese non-name smartphone "highscreen"))

The smartphone photo also looks suspicious. But claims to Google, which kindly provided me with images for the design of the first post. Is there a pencil in there ? I just noticed it. You know, desperate trolling on your part looks pathetic. Especially if you consider that the Highscreen Zera F costs 4 thousand rubles. The shift is free, as you know, somewhere on the mezzanine littered. Let me ask you, will you continue to hide what was filmed ? Military secret, apparently.
Funny. A person shoots insects most likely with a huge and expensive professional Nikon with an expensive macro lens and a polarizing filter. The equipment is so heavy that you can't even dream of shooting with one hand. But he persistently climbs into my topic and writes nonsense. It turns out that his bandura has a price of 800 rubles (4000: 5). The inventor of the device, Karamor, nervously smokes on the sidelines (sarcasm).

This post was edited by Karamor - 09.07.2016 13: 26