Extension rings for macro

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:39:06 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Outing Trolls Is FUN!" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:48:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:38:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

That never really was a universal definition anyway

Actually, it was. But it's not just 1:1. There were defined ranges
within
which each term embraced their subject to virtual-image size. These
were/are the scientific and optical designers' concrete definitions.

(image-size : subject-size)

10:1 to 10:1 = microphotography or photomicrography
10:1 to 1:1 = macro photography
1:1 to 1:10 = gross photography (still in common use in medical fields)
1:10 to 1:100 = photography
1:100 to 1:100 = telephotography or astrophotography

Cite source/reference. I don't see anything "wrong" with that list,
just never seen anything like it.

This has been one of your rare, possibly useful posts since you began
trolling here. Keep up the good work and hold your tongue on your other
useless diarrhea.

Too bad you don't know all the names I have posted under.

Hardly "too bad." Why would anyone care?


About as much as anyone would care about the one name that you post under.

Guaranteed.

Go ahead, test it. Don't post for a whole month, just read the newsgroup.
See if even ONE person mentions you missing for that whole month. (Beyond
immediate replies to this thread of course.) Can you think of anyone who's
not posted in the last month? No, of course not. Your presence is just as
unimportant, as is your name on usenet. Just as all of you are. None of you
matter being here. If you're not here someone else will post. EVERY single
poster on usenet is 100% disposable. The ONLY time you exist on usenet is
while you are posting. The moment you stop posting you cease to exist to
all others and the world. That's how much your being here matters to
anyone.

The difference between you and I is that I'm fully aware of that. You are
precisely that hopelessly ignorant and unaware of reality.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:13:22 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Fer Cryin' Out Loud" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:27:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than
noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268

Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


Oh fer cryin' out loud. I've been using P&S cameras for over a decade for
imaging through my lab-quality phase-contrast microscope.

No, you haven't.


Well, with that much certain intimate knowledge of my activities for the
last decade, then YOU must be the one who's been shaking my dick every time
I **** too.

Thanks! But take your time next time.

What a ****in' moron.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:13:22 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Fer Cryin' Out Loud" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:27:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than
noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268

Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


Oh fer cryin' out loud. I've been using P&S cameras for over a decade for
imaging through my lab-quality phase-contrast microscope.

No, you haven't.


Well, with that much certain intimate knowledge of my activities for the
last decade, then YOU must be the one who's been shaking my dick every time
I **** too.

Thanks! But take your time next time.

What a ****in' moron.


p.s. Guess how I got my microscope? Leica awarded it to me for an
innovative optics design that I sent to them. Free of charge, both ways.
Yes, I own a Leica microscope. Chew on that you ****ingly pathetic troll.

"Fer Cryin' Out Loud" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:13:22 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Fer Cryin' Out Loud" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:27:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't
designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than
noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use
P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's
not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268

Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


Oh fer cryin' out loud. I've been using P&S cameras for over a decade
for
imaging through my lab-quality phase-contrast microscope.

No, you haven't.


Well, with that much certain intimate knowledge of my activities for the
last decade, then YOU must be the one who's been shaking my dick every
time
I **** too.

Thanks! But take your time next time.

What a ****in' moron.


p.s. Guess how I got my microscope? Leica awarded it to me for an
innovative optics design that I sent to them. Free of charge, both ways.
Yes, I own a Leica microscope. Chew on that you ****ingly pathetic troll.

GUFFAW!

Yes, you own a Leica "lab-quality phase-contrast microscope" that they sent
you free of charge, of course you do.

And I own a double-decker spaceship with steam-powered ultrasonic bio-cosmic
drive that the Imperial Government of the Third Moon of Jupiter sent me, not
only free of charge but with with a 22-year-old curvaceous blonde flight
attendant who brings me cocktails and hors d'oeuvres in addition to
performing various sexual services, some of them never heard of outside of
Ganymede. Now what do you think of that, you witless ******?

Neil Harrington wrote:
Paul Furman wrote
Neil Harrington wrote:
Ofnuts wrote
Food for Thought wrote:
Ofnuts wrote:

That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking up close
at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes out of my DSLR
(Canon 450D), this is far from being the same quality. My rule of
thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while
the DSLR pics are still OK at 1:1...

What do you mean by "crappy at 1:3 zoom" as opposed to "still OK at 1:1"?

This is a human perception issue, and not really a true image-quality
issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a shallow DOF image, the
bits
that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in the image
is
painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a black
background as opposed to when presented on a gray background. It's a
human
perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image
regions.

No, I'm talking in general, when taking well focused pictures with
enough DOF on both cameras. The P&S image looks good until you get
close, while the DSLR image stays good all the way.
I am not understanding this at all. When say "until you get close," do
you mean the viewer getting close to the picture, or the camera getting
close to the subject? What sort of pictures are you talking about, taken
how?

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268

Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?

I'm really not that familiar with microscope setups but I meant the DSLR
lens. The point of posting the link is, he removed the lens on the
camera & just imaged directly to the microscope which gave much improved
results. You can't do that with P&S, it's always going to have that
super-zoom lens attached.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
Paul Furman wrote
Neil Harrington wrote:
Ofnuts wrote
Food for Thought wrote:
Ofnuts wrote:

That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking
up close at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes
out of my DSLR (Canon 450D), this is far from being the same
quality. My rule of thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start
looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while the DSLR pics are still OK at
1:1...

What do you mean by "crappy at 1:3 zoom" as opposed to "still OK
at 1:1"?
This is a human perception issue, and not really a true
image-quality issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a
shallow DOF image, the bits
that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in
the image is
painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a
black background as opposed to when presented on a gray
background. It's a human
perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image
regions.

No, I'm talking in general, when taking well focused pictures with
enough DOF on both cameras. The P&S image looks good until you get
close, while the DSLR image stays good all the way.
I am not understanding this at all. When say "until you get
close," do you mean the viewer getting close to the picture, or
the camera getting close to the subject? What sort of pictures are
you talking about, taken how?

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't
designed for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample
light or exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference
other than noise and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm
sure scientists use P&S this way sometimes but if they are really
pushing the limits, that's not optimal. Check out this discussion
of how it helps to remove the relay lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268

Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?

I'm really not that familiar with microscope setups but I meant the
DSLR lens. The point of posting the link is, he removed the lens on
the camera & just imaged directly to the microscope which gave much
improved results.

OK, now I understand.

You can't do that with P&S, it's always going to
have that super-zoom lens attached.

Yep.

Gerrit wrote:

I live in Western Australia ...

Perth? (Albany me.)

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:26:35 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:


I'm really not that familiar with microscope setups but I meant the DSLR
lens. The point of posting the link is, he removed the lens on the
camera & just imaged directly to the microscope which gave much improved
results. You can't do that with P&S, it's always going to have that
super-zoom lens attached.

The depths of your ignorance and inexperience never ceases to amaze me.

When doing afocal photography through a microscope (or telescope) you must
match the exit-pupil diameter of the eyepiece to the entrance-pupil
diameter of the camera lens.

With P&S cameras having much smaller diameter lenses (and the advantageous
deeper DOF) to contend with, getting superior images through a microscope
by this method is easy.

Conversely, due to the larger diameter optics required for illuminating the
larger sensor in a DSLR, you cannot match the exit-pupil of the microscope
eyepiece to that of the DSLR lens. You MUST remove the lens in order to be
able to use it with a telescope or microscope.

Quality of image has absolutely NOTHING to do with how you must approach
using either camera design with those instruments.

Go educate yourself with hands-on experience before you stupidly spew out
your relentless nonsense yet again.

Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I'm really not that familiar with microscope setups but I meant the DSLR
lens. The point of posting the link is, he removed the lens on the
camera & just imaged directly to the microscope which gave much improved
results. You can't do that with P&S, it's always going to have that
super-zoom lens attached.

The depths of your ignorance and inexperience never ceases to amaze me.

When doing afocal photography through a microscope (or telescope) you must
match the exit-pupil diameter of the eyepiece to the entrance-pupil
diameter of the camera lens.

I'm talking about non-afocal, meaning nothing but the microscope
objective and the sensor. Read the link:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268
and this:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=1521

Like I said, I'm just getting into it so feel free to elaborate
constructively or **** off. I comment here to share and learn. You seem
to do neither unless an insult is to be had.


With P&S cameras having much smaller diameter lenses (and the advantageous
deeper DOF) to contend with, getting superior images through a microscope
by this method is easy.

Yep, easy but compromised, that's why they are called P&S.


Conversely, due to the larger diameter optics required for illuminating the
larger sensor in a DSLR, you cannot match the exit-pupil of the microscope
eyepiece to that of the DSLR lens.

Remove the microscope eyepiece.
Nothing but the microscope objective and the sensor.

Hmm, OK looks like typically you'd need a special 'eyepiece' to
translate to the larger format. I'm more familiar with low power work
where the objective *can* fill a 35mm sensor. But even with the special
eyepiece, at least you don't have another zoom lens in there like a P&S.


You MUST remove the lens in order to be
able to use it with a telescope or microscope.

Not necessarily.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:57:45 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:


Remove the microscope eyepiece.
Nothing but the microscope objective and the sensor.

Not going to waste my time addressing all your other inexperienced
DSLR-Troll's bull****. Hell, it's even not worth bothering reading more
after this bit o' crap spewing from that ****-hole you might think is a
brain. But letting you know the blatant error in just one comment of yours
might, JUST MIGHT, make you start to see how amazingly stupid you appear to
the whole world with every post you make, and no doubt will ever make.

For the good of the knowledge of humanity someone needs to go to your home
and rip your computer out and smash it into a thousand bits. You have yet
to post even ONE piece of valid photography advice to anyone.

The standard eyepiece barrel of all microscopes is only 20mm in diameter.
You cannot make that wider without designing a whole new microscope.
Measure the diameter of the entrance pupil of your camera lenses. Can you
get them to match?

Now go get a large axe or sledge and hit yourself in your pathetically
ignorant and stupid head with it. Repeatedly.

Hit yourself again once more for wasting the time of people who are far
more valuable than you have ever been or will ever be. Wasting their
valuable time and expertise in having to correct your obnoxious,
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ....