If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message ... Outing Trolls is Unending! wrote: relentless, and overwhelmingly blatant displays of ignorance and stupidity, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again [...] BOOM! Heh ... another troll busted. Thar it blows! Call in a hazmat cleanup team, the stuff is full of stupitrons and bogosity. It's not "another troll," it's the same one. He's apparently changing his name about every hour now. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
.... wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:34:43 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: All of which is to say that microscope objectives can indeed be used as a camera lens (for DSLR's, but P&S cameras are simply not optimal for this use due to the non-removable lens), but it is not just a case of picking up whatever one can find and trying it. Selection for the intended use is necessary. So speaks a troll who's never done this. I just explained that I did it yesterday and it worked. If you'd read my links, they explained the corrective eyepiece approach. I still think I was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much larger. As you increase magnification, the image circle grows & grows, right? Sure it's convenient to be able to look through the eyepiece like a normal microscope the put on the camera to document but not optimal. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:28:39 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote: I still think I was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much larger. "eyepiece threads"??!!?? NO microscope that I have ever used in my life has ever had a threaded barrel on the eyepieces. (Unless you are counting the internal aperture-stop positioning rings where measuring reticles are placed.) Not even toy microscopes that I had when only a small child. Now I know you're just making this all up as you go along. Really, go take some Optics 101 courses or something. You're only making a hopelessly pathetic fool of yourself. (As most of you do.) Too bad you trolls haven't recognized your positions in life. I could have shared and taught you SO much. Your major loss. This is why I only accept apprentices in real life today. Rare is someone who qualifies, indeed. Nobody on these newsgroups has appeared to be deserving of what I know. And most certainly, nothing like you is deserving of that knowledge and experience for free. E.g. Dismantling and cleaning a 100x phase-contrast apochromatic oil-immersion objective is a simple evening project. You'd be surprised how many lenses, spacers, aperture stops, with required annular-stop are contained in that tiny barrel. There's good reason that a decent objective can cost $500 and more, small though it be. Just to give you an example of the depths of my experience and know-how. This is precisely why I know you are nothing but a DSLR-Troll and fool, when you can so easily dismiss the superior photomicrography that can be done with a P&S camera matched to the exit-pupil of a quality microscope. You, sir, are a ****ING IDIOT. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
small typo correction apochromatic = plan-apochromatic
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:28:39 -0700, Paul Furman wrote: I still think I was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much larger. "eyepiece threads"??!!?? NO microscope that I have ever used in my life has ever had a threaded barrel on the eyepieces. (Unless you are counting the internal aperture-stop positioning rings where measuring reticles are placed.) Not even toy microscopes that I had when only a small child. Now I know you're just making this all up as you go along. Really, go take some Optics 101 courses or something. You're only making a hopelessly pathetic fool of yourself. (As most of you do.) Too bad you trolls haven't recognized your positions in life. I could have shared and taught you SO much. Your major loss. This is why I only accept apprentices in real life today. Rare is someone who qualifies, indeed. Nobody on these newsgroups has appeared to be deserving of what I know. And most certainly, nothing like you is deserving of that knowledge and experience for free. E.g. Dismantling and cleaning a 100x phase-contrast plan-apochromatic oil-immersion objective is a simple evening project. You'd be surprised how many lenses, spacers, aperture stops, with required annular-stop are contained in that tiny barrel. There's good reason that a decent objective can cost $500 and more, small though it be. Just to give you an example of the depths of my experience and know-how. This is precisely why I know you are nothing but a DSLR-Troll and fool, when you can so easily dismiss the superior photomicrography that can be done with a P&S camera matched to the exit-pupil of a quality microscope. You, sir, are a ****ING IDIOT. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
.... wrote:
small typo correction apochromatic = plan-apochromatic Paul Furman wrote: I still think I was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much larger. "eyepiece threads"??!!?? The opening when the eyepiece is removed, seems too small to project onto a 35mm frame. Maybe not with more extension... that's what it looks like in the first link I offered. I already said I haven't worked with a microscope. I'm just getting into low power stuff though, so I'm interested and learning about it. NO microscope that I have ever used in my life has ever had a threaded barrel on the eyepieces. (Unless you are counting the internal aperture-stop positioning rings where measuring reticles are placed.) Not even toy microscopes that I had when only a small child. Now I know you're just making this all up as you go along. snip when you can so easily dismiss the superior photomicrography that can be done with a P&S camera matched to the exit-pupil of a quality microscope. Like I said, that's easy but not optimal or superior. It's never going to be optimal to use a zoom lens designed for general photography in a micro setup, that doesn't require any special knowledge to understand. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Macro + extension tubes | Gordon MacPherson | Digital Photography | 2 | June 21st 07 12:38 PM |
macro equipment: macro lens or extension tubes? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 06 08:13 AM |
Extension Tubes or Macro Lens? | Edward Holt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 3rd 06 09:26 PM |
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters. | default | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | January 20th 06 07:24 AM |
How does adding extension affect macro lenses? | Belgos | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | April 28th 05 06:29 PM |