Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Macro World Resource
  

FM Forums | Macro World | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              27      
28
       29       end
  

Post Your Set Up!
  
 
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #1 · p.28 #1 · Post Your Set Up!


micaelwidell wrote:
I made a video of my current setup (it is a copy of the setup described here: http://makrofokus.se/blogg/2015/9/24/nonac-40mm-f28.html)



Very nice video and beautiful images.



Aug 13, 2017 at 07:17 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #2 · p.28 #2 · Post Your Set Up!


micaelwidell wrote:
I made a video of my current setup (it is a copy of the setup described here: [url]http://makrofokus.se/blogg/2015/9/24/nonac-40mm-f28.html[/url])

Have a look at my setup and sample photos:
[url]

[/url]


Hello again

FYI, after reviewing some of your claims, and while freely admiring (and admitting) your images are excellent--as is the information in Mr. Hallmén's link--some of what has been said is actually incorrect.

You claim your DIY high-mag macro is the lightest lens setup possible, but actually it is not.

Adding up the weight, the Meike MK-C-UP Auto Macro Extension Tube you need weighs 250g, the Canon Pancake weighs 130g, and your 36mm extender weighs 125g. The Metabones adapter is another 203g.
According to my calculations, this means your lens setup weighs 708g ... and the MP-E itself (which you say is 'too heavy') weight 710g. Here is sum total your setup (which gives you 2.4x):



This is actually nowhere near as light a lens configuration as is possible to have.

Case in point: The Nikkor 28mm only weighs 250g, the reverse-ring weighs only about 60g, and the BR-3 weighs 40g. That's it! That's all you need
According to my calculations, my lens setup is only 350g (about half the total weight of yours).
No extra 'stuff' is required: no Metabones needed, no Meike electronic gadgetry necessary (the 28mm has a manual aperture), nothing else. Here is my setup:



Now, I admit my camera is bigger than yours, but my reverse lens setup could be put on a Nikon D7200 ... or even ON your camera ... with a different adapter, thereby adding weight, but it would still be less weight overall than what you're using.

A Nikon enthusiast could selece the D7200 (675g) + the 350g lens setup I use actually and would only be carrying 1025g total ... compared to your 1124g setup (708g complex lens configuration + 416g A7 camera). Even using my bulky D810, the weight only totals 1230g, because the lens setup is so light by comparison. If you used a different adapter, and a simply Nikkor AI-S lens, your total weight would drop to 969g.

My point is, because Nikkor AI-S lenses have manual apertures, all of the added electronic gadgetry you're using to gain aperture control (by selecting a Canon lens) is unnecessary expense/baggage IMO.

If I want to go to 3.4x, I could use a 20mm AI-S (270g) lens. If I didn't want to bring another lens, I could use the same 36mm extender as you, add another 125g to the existing 28mm, but it would still be far less weight than the lens setup you're using. (Both Nikkor AI-S lenses are 7-blade also.) The bokeh of Nikon's best AI-S lenses is at least as nice as in a budget Canon pancake offering:

















Mind you, the purpose of my post is not to suggest that your (or Mr. Hallmén's) methods are wrong or bad ... they are TERRIFIC! ... and it is a great setup

However, it is neither the lightest nor 'the best' (if there is such a thing) ... it's just another very, very good option.

Lots of Canon/Sony users have no clue about Nikon, so I just wanted to clarify.

Cheers



Aug 14, 2017 at 03:40 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #3 · p.28 #3 · Post Your Set Up!


I used legacy Nikon mount (Kiron) lenses when I was doing a lot of reversed lens macro.

I don't have my sound linked up so I am unsure if the Meike in the video is one which does AF confirm. Very nice if it does but I find AF of decreasing value as I go up the magnification scale. One of the models without that would probably weigh less.

The only reversed lens I use these days is a Schneider enlarger lens and it has no auto function anyway. Mostly, I like to avoid reversed lenses as I like to change magnification an distance frequently.

But that is a handsome rig!

Harold




Aug 14, 2017 at 04:00 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #4 · p.28 #4 · Post Your Set Up!


e6filmuser wrote:
I used legacy Nikon mount (Kiron) lenses when I was doing a lot of reversed lens macro.

I don't have my sound linked up so I am unsure if the Meike in the video is one which does AF confirm. Very nice if it does but I find AF of decreasing value as I go up the magnification scale. One of the models without that would probably weigh less.


Agreed. AF has zero use in high-mag macro.

The contraption is to allow aperture control, which is lost when you reverse an AF lens.

However, this is irrelevant when using a Nikkor AI-S prime ... which has a manual aperture ring ... that works regardless of how the lens is oriented.



e6filmuser wrote:
The only reversed lens I use these days is a Schneider enlarger lens and it has no auto function anyway. Mostly, I like to avoid reversed lenses as I like to change magnification an distance frequently.


Two things in regards to this ... (1) you can reverse select Nikkor AI-S *zooms* ... which give you 1x to 3.4x magnification

Beyond 3x magnification, John Hallmén makes an excellent point on his page with which I agree: (2) when using the MP-E 65mm ... whatever is gained by the 5x magnification is lost through diffraction. Hallmén states (convincingly, I might add) that if you take a super-clean image at 3:1 ... and crop it down to a 5:1 equivalent ... you will actually get a better result (because of less diffraction) than if you used the MP-E at full 5x due to the drastic reduction of quality at this magnification, amplified by the corresponding diffraction.

I would imagine this would be especially true if you're using a world class sensor, like the D810 at Base ISO. You're better off sticking to around 3:1, and just cropping-in.

Or, if you really want the best possible 5:1+ quality, then you're better off getting a bona fide studio setup, with microscope optics.

For the field, 3:1 is all that is really necessary ... or practicable.



Aug 14, 2017 at 04:21 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #5 · p.28 #5 · Post Your Set Up!


JohnK007 wrote:
Beyond 3x magnification, John Hallmén makes an excellent point on his page with which I agree: when using the MP-E 65mm ... whatever is gained by the 5x magnification is lost through diffraction. Hallmén states (convincingly, I might add) that if you take a super-clean image at 3:1 ... and crop it down to a 5:1 equivalent ... you will actually get a better result (because of less diffraction) than if you used the MP-E at full 5x due to the drastic reduction of quality at this magnification, amplified by the corresponding diffraction at that magnification.

I would imagine this would
...Show more

An intereting one this, in terms of optics theory. The old idea that the light gets bent around the edges of the diaphragm causing diffraction has been replaced by one that the concentration of light rays/electrons in the middle of the aperture jostle each other. The small aperture selects the part of the image with the highest concentration of such goings-on. Those will always be there and cropping will also select them The principle is no different from that of DOF being greater with a crop sensor.

Harold



Aug 14, 2017 at 04:38 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #6 · p.28 #6 · Post Your Set Up!


e6filmuser wrote:
An intereting one this, in terms of optics theory. The old idea that the light gets bent around the edges of the diaphragm causing diffraction has been replaced by one that the concentration of light rays/electrons in the middle of the aperture jostle each other. The small aperture selects the part of the image with the highest concentration of such goings-on. Those will always be there and cropping will also select them The principle is no different from that of DOF being greater with a crop sensor.

Harold


Well, the Canon MP-E is a zoom: a reverse, doctored zoom, specific to macro photography.

All zooms have a 'sweet spot' ... and all zooms have a focal length weak point.

Likely, the MP-E's weakest point, optically, is at the 5x setting.
If you add that deficit to the other reality of diffraction, you come out with non-optimal 5x images (compared to a microscopic objective) ... or, as the author suggests, even compared to a really good image taken at 3x, that is simply cropped.

This makes the Mitakon Zhongyi 20mm f/2 4.5x Super Macro all the more attractive. It is (essentially) a microscope objective doctored to perform as a lens.

Even better it's a prime, which means (optically) its at its sweet spot by default.

CORRECTION: This lens is a zoom also (4x - 4.5x). Here is more info: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32786

There are also some videos on Youtube, but it looks rather crude and unrefined. Image quality is so-so.

Laowa is supposed to be coming out with a 5x also, but doubtful it's going to be like an Apo macro objective, either.



Aug 14, 2017 at 08:26 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #7 · p.28 #7 · Post Your Set Up!


John,

My error. I let myself be distracted from the particular to the general.

I agree with you in this case.

It is said that the MPE is not a zoom, although the definition has varied over the decades.

When zooms first hit the film camera market it was the general wisdom that the shorter the zoom range the better. Anything more than a 3x was not desirable. (Now they have far wider ranges).

Where I might have use an MPE-65 I use a Schneider Kreuznach 40mm f2.8 Apo Componon HM enlarging lens (version with variable aperture, f2.8 –f16)., reversed for above 1:1. It is on a long extension (220 mm I think).

From the seller:

"I am extremely experienced with the 65mm MP-E having shot it literally since its release in the 90's. I have probably shot in excess of 500,000 frames, film and digital with the MP-E 65mm. Actually I own 2 copies of the 65mm.... In spite of all that experience I did EXTENSIVE testing with these 2 in addition to several other lenses. I found that in forward mounting position the 40mm is superior from 1:1 to about 1.75:1 at which time reversing the 40mm brings about superior image quality versus the 65mm at the same magnifications. The IQ differences are significant, quite significant, particularly in the corners and particularly in the area of micro contrast. Many don't take contrast issues seriously simply believing it can be taken care of in post processing. True to some degree, but the better IQ you start with, the easier PP is and the less PP is necessary. Most importantly corner image quality with the 40mm AT ALL MAGNIFICATION is superior. It just is. My testing proved that quite conclusively. Furthermore working distance is better because you don't have that big fat obnoxious front of the 65mm to deal with. I can more effectively light my subject with the 40mm. AND if I am shooting natural light it is easier to use reflectors and diffusers with the 40mm. The downside of the 40mm is the fact that on the rare occasion I do handheld in the field macro shooting. The 65mm with its auto aperture is ideal for that and the 40mm is essentially unusable in that genre. Furthermore I know I have good copies of all my lenses. My 2 65mm MP-E lenses were cherry picked from 12 copies. And my 40mm apo-componon was cherry picked from 6 copies in addition to comparisons with various 44mm, 45mm and 50mm apo componon, and rodagons. ONLY the Nikon 105mm printing el-nikkor is superior at 1:1.”

(At 1:1 the Printing-Nikkors would be superior).

Harold



Aug 15, 2017 at 06:06 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #8 · p.28 #8 · Post Your Set Up!


Here is a shot of a tiny mushroom ca 2mm across, shot with my reversed Scneider HM 40 at f16 (f32 effective),:

Harold







Aug 15, 2017 at 07:08 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #9 · p.28 #9 · Post Your Set Up!


e6filmuser wrote:
John,

My error. I let myself be distracted from the particular to the general.

I agree with you in this case.

It is said that the MPE is not a zoom, although the definition has varied over the decades.

When zooms first hit the film camera market it was the general wisdom that the shorter the zoom range the better. Anything more than a 3x was not desirable. (Now they have far wider ranges).


The MP-E is absolutely a zoom. It goes from one magnification, to the next, and it does so by extending the front element. That's what zooms do.

It is essentially a ~15mm - 50mm zoom, reversed.

I know this because a 50mm lens, reversed, is ~ 1:1.
A 28mm lens, reversed, is ~2x.
A 20mm reversed, is 3.4x.
There are no 15mms, I am aware of, that reverse ... but my 18mm does just over 4:1.

There are also Nikkor zooms which, when reversed, go between 1x and 3.6x .

With the MP-E, Canon simply took reverse-mounting a zoom to the next level, doctoring the appearance/function of the MPE to be 100% for macro purposes, also adding a tripod ring. Wish Nikon would do the same.



e6filmuser wrote:
When zooms first hit the film camera market it was the general wisdom that the shorter the zoom range the better. Anything more than a 3x was not desirable. (Now they have far wider ranges).


I agree with this. In fact, in testing 5 Nikkor zooms, reversed, the best image quality came from the shortest zooms: the 25-50 AI-S and the 28-50 AI-S. Each reverses to around a 1-3x macro zoom.



e6filmuser wrote:
Where I might have use an MPE-65 I use a Schneider Kreuznach 40mm f2.8 Apo Componon HM enlarging lens (version with variable aperture, f2.8 –f16)., reversed for above 1:1. It is on a long extension (220 mm I think).

From the seller:

"I am extremely experienced with the 65mm MP-E having shot it literally since its release in the 90's. I have probably shot in excess of 500,000 frames, film and digital with the MP-E 65mm. Actually I own 2 copies of the 65mm.... In spite of all that experience I did EXTENSIVE testing with these 2 in addition to several other
...Show more

Not sure who this person is, but I agree with him in some senses, disagree with him in others. Also don't know his experience with a wide variety of leneses either.

To begin with, the MP-E wasn't even available in the 90"s" ... it came out in exactly 1999.

I do agree with him that micro-contrast is either there, or it isn't. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, and you can't produce subtle color/contrast nuances that were not captured by superior lenses/sensors in the first place.

For me, however, I place ZERO importance in "corner sharpness" in a macro lens. Unless a person is shooting absolutely flat subjects, and filling the frame with them (coins, for example), corner sharpness doesn't mean a thing in an arthropod portrait (where there is a huge emphasis on bokeh and blurring of background anyway). Landscape photographers are another group to rightfully-worry about "corner sharpness," whereas portrait photographers do not. Same principle. Indeed, as mentioned, a gradual softening as the image extends out to the corners can actually enhance bokeh in a portrait image.

I absolutely agree with him (in general) that a 40mm lens (or 50/28/20mm, as I use) allows more light to come in. I personally used the MP-E 65mm, for over 6 years, and I can attest to the dismal light allowance of the front element compared to using a reversed wide-angle lens.

I totally disagree that a person can't use reversed lenses in the field. Maybe that was true with his Schneider, but it is absolute nonsense with respect to AI-S lenses, reversed. If anything, small primes like this are far lighter, less cumbersome, and are more user-friendly (for multiple applications) as opposed the 'macro-only', 3x-heavier, won't-fit-in-a-side-pouch behemoth MPE. This eBay seller must have been speaking from a 'Canon' perspective, or talking about a 40mm lens that did not have manual aperture control. I agree that, without aperture control, a 40mm lens is useless reversed, but Nikkor AI-Ses have full aperture control, so auto aperture control is not needed.

Can't comment about his opinion as to the rest. It sounds like most of his comments are about studio stacks.

In the field, with 1:1 being a limiter, I can say (having shot both), that the the MP-E at 1:1 is not anywhere near the level of the Voigtländer SL 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar in the 1:1 department. I have not shot the Schneider 40mm f2.8 Apo, but it seems to be more of a stacking lens than a nature lens. This guy's comments confirm. As a fixed optic, requiring extremely-close proximity, it would not be a very handy thing to have on a hike, except for very limited purposes, providing it has aperture control. As an enlarger lens, its very design demands a studio, and for this I would imagine it to be a great choice. However, if the Nikon version comes with an aperture ring, like Zeiss iterations do, then I could see it making a great reverse lens also.

By contrast, the Voigtländer is a true nature photographer's lens. It can capture *anything* from infinity to 1:1, it has a good working distance, an exceptional 9-bladed bokeh (rivaled by few lenses on the planet), very subtle contrast/color transfer, and it has 630° of focus throw, allowing for more absolutely precise focusing than any other macro lens I have ever heard of, save the Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit.

There are but a few macro lenses that can touch the Voigtländer 125 Apo as a macro lens ... its degree of focus precision and its rendering. Those few that can, invariably can only do so only in very limited applications, and pale in comparison as an overall field companion. That is not just "my opinion," or the opinion of a nameless eBayer, but of a whole host of other well-experienced lensmen. Within the limitations of 1:1 macro lenses, and speaking of a field lens, especially under the conditions of natural light, I can't think of a single macro lens that is more universally-revered.

For other purposes, however (high-mag macro, diffused flash, etc.), there better choices.



Aug 15, 2017 at 04:37 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #10 · p.28 #10 · Post Your Set Up!


e6filmuser wrote:
Here is a shot of a tiny mushroom ca 2mm across, shot with my reversed Scneider HM 40 at f16 (f32 effective),:

Harold


No offense, but there is nothing in focus and everything is severely diffracted.

Using 220mm of extention at f/16 wouldn't be something I personally would do as it's impossible to get a clean result.

I, too, have been practicing with taking single-image shots with reversed lenses, using a flash ... trying to achieve depth-of field @ f/16 ... but that's only at 2x, not 10x.

At 10x, I would only shoot wide-open.

Even at only 2x, athough I have got some sharp results with single image + flash @ f/16, I do not like the background rendering anywhere near as much as shooting wide-open (f/2.8-f/4), stacking, using natural light and a low shutter ... as my above images.

Much-much cleaner IMO. (Albeit, much-much more labor-intensive.)



Aug 15, 2017 at 04:56 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #11 · p.28 #11 · Post Your Set Up!


JohnK007 wrote:
For me, however, I place ZERO importance in "corner sharpness" in a macro lens.


I agree entirely.

JohnK007 wrote:
I totally disagree that a person can't use reversed lenses in the field. Maybe that was true with his Schneider


It is the ONLY way I use mine.

Harold



Aug 15, 2017 at 05:58 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #12 · p.28 #12 · Post Your Set Up!


JohnK007 wrote:
No offense, but there is nothing in focus and everything is severely diffracted.


That's just no the case.

JohnK007 wrote:
Using 220mm of extention at f/16 wouldn't be something I personally would do as it's impossible to get a clean result.


It is the correct register distance for such a large format lens.

JohnK007 wrote:
I, too, have been practicing with taking single-image shots with reversed lenses, using a flash ... trying to achieve depth-of field @ f/16 ... but that's only at 2x, not 10x.

At 10x, I would only shoot wide-open.


There is no point, as it shows nothing of any depth of the subject.

JohnK007 wrote:
Even at only 2x, athough I have got some sharp results with single image + flash @ f/16, I do not like the background rendering anywhere near as much as shooting wide-open (f/2.8-f/4)


Background rendering is an issue. However, the background is not the main point of the image.

JohnK007 wrote:
stacking, using natural light and a low shutter ... as my above images.

Much-much cleaner IMO. (Albeit, much-much more labor-intensive.)


So where are your field insect stacks?

Harold




Aug 15, 2017 at 06:05 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #13 · p.28 #13 · Post Your Set Up!


e6filmuser wrote:
I agree entirely.

It is the ONLY way I use mine.

Harold


10-4



Aug 15, 2017 at 06:13 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #14 · p.28 #14 · Post Your Set Up!


e6filmuser wrote:
That's just no the case.


Okay, we can just agree to disagree.



e6filmuser wrote:
It is the correct register distance for such a large format lens.


I don't really pay attention to stuff like that, I just shoot according to my eye.

Some people may like my work, others may not, and that's okay too.



e6filmuser wrote:
There is no point, as it shows nothing of any depth of the subject.


Ahh, but that's where the stacking comes in

You achieve DOF this way while at the same time rendering a beautiful background.



e6filmuser wrote:
So where are your field insect stacks?

Harold


Lol, fair enough

Here are some different images taken with the same camera/lens, to different effect:



Single Image (Taken @ f/4) good bokeh, albeit terribly busy background, nothing much in focus.



Single Image (Taken @ f/16) Everything's in focus, but ugly background (too much in focus), aberrations of diffraction setting in, etc.



52-Image Stack (Taken @ f/4) Best of everything: creamy bokeh, everything's in focus, zero diffraction.



52-Image Stack (Taken @ f/4) Best of everything: creamy bokeh, everything's in focus, zero diffraction.


The last two stacks aren't perfect, but they are a lot closer to perfection than the first two.

I am working, so I have to go, but later I will post an image taken at f/16 ... with 72mm of extension ... at 3x ... compared to a 50-image stack at f/4 ...to show how much difference there is in image quality.

Cheers,

PS: The last 2 field stacks are ~ 1:1 while the top 2 are @ ~ 1:2 (bigger mantids).
Still, none of these mantid images are anywhere near as clean and sharp as my spider images (taken @ 2x - 4x) due to wind movement. In the studio, of course, I am able to get much cleaner images because there is zero air movement, or at least not enough to cause motion-blur as what happens in the field.



Aug 15, 2017 at 06:43 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #15 · p.28 #15 · Post Your Set Up!


John,

It's good to swap opinions, and experience. It is stimulating.

Drawing on my experience:

For many years I was involved in the taxonomy of springtails. For those who don't know, these are tin (as small as 0.25mm) six-legged, wingless arthropods. This involved a lot of high magnification microscope work, mostly at x 400, much at x1500 in oil immersion (fluorite objective). I can say that I never saw a sharply-defined edge on any part of any of them at such magnifications. The parts were in focus. It is just that the closer you look, the more detail you see and that is not condusive to sharp edges. Shapes had to be worked out by repeatedly focusing up and down perhaps making drawings to construct the morphology. The lines in those drawings did not exist in nature but they represented an approximation which could be worked with, including for comparisons with other specimens/species.

A better way of imaging the external morphology is by electron-scanning micrographs, built up by bouncing beams of electrons off gold-plated specimens - very lifelike! When you look at such photos there is no sharpness, only ever-smaller detail. But our eyes (brain) compromise to form an outline.

If you want your images to look sharp, make then small. Contact prints and 35mm transparencies mostly look equally good until you blow them up.

There are no straight lines or sharp edges in nature, including in non-living things. If you look at the edge of the sharpest knife at a high enough magnification it will resemble a mountain range.

As you increase magnification in plant, animal or microbial material you see more and more detail and irregularities. For example, the expanding network emerging from inside a slime mould spore capsule ( Trichia, etc.) are formed to do just that. Having the edges of the strand parallel, or all in one plane seem not to be required They might (I don't know but suspect) have numerous pits where spores had been before release.

So, as we look closer and closer, our subjects look less and less well-defined. Eventually, although light will not work for this, we would see molecules and then the atoms, the last of which are mostly empty space.

In general photography the lens and camera conspire together with our eyes and brain to make us see edges and lines. This is a lie but it pleases us. As we go up the magnifications, it becomes more of a lie and eventually gives up the pretence.

Diverting for a moment, many photographers dislike teleconverters. They accuse them of degrading their images. What is happening is that detail has appeared where there were "lines" before. It is strange that the same photographers who may have decided to buy a lens based on a test showing that it resolves more lines per mm than others simply can't cope when it does so.

Yes, there is diffraction as an issue, an increasing problem as (effective) apertures get smaller and smaller.

The difficulty, at high magnification, is in judging what is diffraction and what is the true appearance of fine biological structures. Processing artifacts...

Well done to anyone still awake after reading through this! I struggled.

Harold




Aug 15, 2017 at 07:35 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #16 · p.28 #16 · Post Your Set Up!


Hello again, Harold.

Agree that such philosophical discussions can be stimulating ... especially since Philosophy is the degree conferred upon me by UCLA

We disagree, though, fundamentally.

What you describe is lack of resolution + inadequate lens, rather than reality.

When shooting photographs, we operate within the limitation of the resolution of our sensor + the resolving power of our lenses. Thus, in antiquated years gone by, using inferior glass + inferior sensors, YES, as you 'blow up' the image, the finer details of what you photographed get fuzzier and fuzzier, exactly as you describe. Your conclusion is in error, however.

This phenomenon is NOT because of any lack of definition between the subject and its background; rather, it is merely the lack of resolution inherent in the sensor you are using + the lack of resolving power in the lens.

When I shot the Canon 7D +100 mm macro, six years ago, when I blew up my images to full-size, they looked terrible. I believe the resolution limit was something around 4500 megapixels on a raw file. If I blew it up to 6000 megapixels, the resolution was more horrific still.

Again, as you described, when I shrunk my images down 800 megapixels they looked "sharp" — but they were anything but when blown-up 7x this size.

By contrast, when shooting my Nikon D810, at Base ISO, and my Voigtländer SL 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro, the result is the opposite. I absolutely love how my images look, blown up full-size, on my color-calibrated monitor. In exactly the opposite fashion, I hate the way they look (as small jpgs) posted online. Everything is much more clearly defined in its larger form: the colors, the contrast, the detail.

WHY? Because my current D810 sensor is 10 times the sensor of the 7D, and the Voigtländer lens is 10 times the lens of the severely-outdated 100 mm macro.

I don't have time for more, but I think the phenomenon you're describing is an inequity in lens/sensor resolution over a reality in the physical world.

There are, absolutely, physical boundaries between the subject and the background.

That these clear lines become blurred at higher magnification = an indication of a substandard lens + an inadequate sensor.

By contrast, the more proficient the lens, and the greater the resolution of the sensor, the more we are able to make these clear distinctions at higher and higher magnifications ... hence the price difference between the best lenses + sensors available versus 'budget,' substandard equivalents

That's my $0.02.



Aug 15, 2017 at 08:10 PM
micaelwidell
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #17 · p.28 #17 · Post Your Set Up!


JohnK007 wrote:
Hello again

FYI, after reviewing some of your claims, and while freely admiring (and admitting) your images are excellent--as is the information in Mr. Hallmén's link--some of what has been said is actually incorrect.

You claim your DIY high-mag macro is the lightest lens setup possible, but actually it is not.

Adding up the weight, the Meike MK-C-UP Auto Macro Extension Tube you need weighs 250g, the Canon Pancake weighs 130g, and your 36mm extender weighs 125g. The Metabones adapter is another 203g.
According to my calculations, this means your lens setup weighs 708g ... and the MP-E itself (which you say is
...Show more

Hi!

I did say "you couldn't get much lighter than this", and not "the lightest setup possible". And I stand by that, as not only my lens, but also the camera itself and the flash are extremely light weight, especially considering it is a full frame camera. But yes, with an old manual lens you could definitely go a bit lighter in terms of lens. In fact, I would find it nicer to have a manual aperture for macro photography anyway.

Also, it is not fair to compare the weight of the MP-E 65 without the metabones adapter, to my lens construction WITH the metabones adapter, as you would need the metabones adapter in either case – making my lens construction lighter than the MP-E 65.




Sep 02, 2017 at 08:12 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.28 #18 · p.28 #18 · Post Your Set Up!


I don't concern myself much with the weight of my hardware, although I often walk considerable distances, over many hours, photographing subjects (close-up & macro) whenever I find them. I don't use a conventional camera strap as I find that it gets in the way.

On such long walks I wear a chest harness, which allows my camera to be suspended via a standard tripod-thread screw. The camera can be swung up and used while still attached.

More usually, when walking between shoots, I just rest my camera-holding hand on the top of my camera shoulder bag, which I invariably carry.

Looking more widely, I find camera and lens reviews wierd. The concern is with weight, compactness and appearance. Image quality rarely gets a mention. I have other priorities.

Harold

Edited on Sep 04, 2017 at 06:42 AM · View previous versions



Sep 02, 2017 at 08:42 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #19 · p.28 #19 · Post Your Set Up!


micaelwidell wrote:
Hi!

I did say "you couldn't get much lighter than this", and not "the lightest setup possible". And I stand by that, as not only my lens, but also the camera itself and the flash are extremely light weight, especially considering it is a full frame camera.


Hi again. I agree it is a nice and very light setup. No doubt. I enjoyed your video also

The D810 is a FF camera.




micaelwidell wrote:
But yes, with an old manual lens you could definitely go a bit lighter in terms of lens. In fact, I would find it nicer to have a manual aperture for macro photography anyway.


Exactly my point. Don't need any adapters with a Nikon and an AI-S lens. No need for an adapter. No need for another device to gain aperture control, either.



micaelwidell wrote:
Also, it is not fair to compare the weight of the MP-E 65 without the metabones adapter, to my lens construction WITH the metabones adapter, as you would need the metabones adapter in either case – making my lens construction lighter than the MP-E 65.


Nope. Don't need an aperture controller, or a lens adapter, with a Nikon camera + Nikkor lens.

If you're a fan of Sony cameras, and want manual aperture, you might want to check out a Zoom Nikkor 28-85mm f/3.5~4.5 AI-S Macro zoom lens, reversed.

Once reversed, it acts like an MP-E, but even better, goes from normal range (at 85mm) ... to 1:4 (something the MP-E can't offer) ... all the way to ~3x at 28mm. It has a manual aperture, so there's no need for electrical gadgetry to work the aperture.

Properly-oriented, it is a nice lens for habitat shots also, 28-85 ... offering advantages the MP-E can't give you, just by flipping it back over the right way.

If you want something more compact, there is also the 25-50 AI-S, which is excellent also, offering similar advantages, but it is a bit more expensive.

Jack

PS: In closing, I liked the flash set-up you had the most. I will be incorporating this into my own system. Best regards.



Sep 03, 2017 at 09:25 PM
GeorgeR
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.28 #20 · p.28 #20 · Post Your Set Up!


Sports shooter looking to get more into macro and just had a nice, used Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED Lens fall in my lap.

I am adding a D850 to complement my D5 for sports and assume the D850 and 200mm f4 combo would be formidable gear additions once I master how to use them. I also have an old 105mm macro as my most used lens for underwater photography.

I have owned a Gitzo GT3530LSV tripod with RRS BH-55 Ball Head for some time. For flash, I have a Nikon SU-800, an SB 900, and two of my three SB-800’s that still work.

I usually add an RRS foot to my lenses; is something like the RRS B150B-LMT-PKG: FOR COLLARED MACRO LENSES also worth considering? Any other recommended additions now that I have gone this far?

Macro will be for my personal enjoyment, not to satisfy editors. Time to start studying and shooting once my equipment shows up and then I’m sure I’ll be back with more questions.

Thanks



Sep 08, 2017 at 09:43 PM
1       2       3              27      
28
       29       end






FM Forums | Macro World | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              27      
28
       29       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password