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
|
|||
|
|||
Image stabilization shoud be stabilized
Le 20/08/2013 23:45, sid a écrit :
Ghost-Rider wrote: http://cjoint.com/13au/CHusUl3JPft_d7000_07890.jpg http://cjoint.com/13au/CHutJicQBXe_d7000_07896.jpg Well they look focused well and plenty sharp. Second one is the better one, better angle on the dragon fly. A bit of post and they'll come up lovely. How big were these dragonflys? What sort of magnification are you getting with your setup? just curious Here is a spreadsheet where I put all my measures. http://cjoint.com/13au/CHvm0CNm2dS_m...nification.jpg One can see on line 17 that using the 18-300 at 300 mm and one Olympus MCON-35 add-on lens (2.85 dioptries), the magnification ratio obtained is between 0.48 and 0.91, depending on the focus distance set on the barrel. Surprisingly, the maximum magnification and distance from the subject are obtained when the distance is set at infinity and not 0.45 m. That is due to the internal focus system of the zoom. The distance recorded in the EXIF does not take into account the add-on lens. Therefore, it is misleading but useful though. The head of this dragon-fly had a diameter of say about 5 millimeters if I remember well. Let's see if we can calculate it. The distance read in the EXIF is 70.79 meters in the first photo, 18.84 meters in the second, nearly the infinity. The first photo is therefore very close to the maximum magnification of 0.91, say 0.9. The width of this photo can roughly contain 5 heads across. As the width of the sensor is 23.6 mm, the head's diameter is 23.6 / 5 / 0.9 = 5.24 millimeters. The spreadsheet shows many scenarios with my two successive cameras : D90 + 18-200 and D7000 + 18-300, with one, two, three or four add-on lenses and at different distances set on the barrel. I usually only use one and not more than two since finding the subject and hand-help focusing become very difficult as I pile-up lenses and I lose the extra details because of bad focusing and the minute depth of field. With two add-on lenses I can reach a magnification ratio of 1.57 which is quite nice. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Image stabilization shoud be stabilized
On 8/21/2013 7:05 AM, Ghost-Rider wrote:
Le 20/08/2013 23:45, sid a écrit : Ghost-Rider wrote: http://cjoint.com/13au/CHusUl3JPft_d7000_07890.jpg http://cjoint.com/13au/CHutJicQBXe_d7000_07896.jpg Well they look focused well and plenty sharp. Second one is the better one, better angle on the dragon fly. A bit of post and they'll come up lovely. How big were these dragonflys? What sort of magnification are you getting with your setup? just curious Here is a spreadsheet where I put all my measures. http://cjoint.com/13au/CHvm0CNm2dS_m...nification.jpg One can see on line 17 that using the 18-300 at 300 mm and one Olympus MCON-35 add-on lens (2.85 dioptries), the magnification ratio obtained is between 0.48 and 0.91, depending on the focus distance set on the barrel. Surprisingly, the maximum magnification and distance from the subject are obtained when the distance is set at infinity and not 0.45 m. That is due to the internal focus system of the zoom. The distance recorded in the EXIF does not take into account the add-on lens. Therefore, it is misleading but useful though. The head of this dragon-fly had a diameter of say about 5 millimeters if I remember well. Let's see if we can calculate it. The distance read in the EXIF is 70.79 meters in the first photo, 18.84 meters in the second, nearly the infinity. The first photo is therefore very close to the maximum magnification of 0.91, say 0.9. The width of this photo can roughly contain 5 heads across. As the width of the sensor is 23.6 mm, the head's diameter is 23.6 / 5 / 0.9 = 5.24 millimeters. The spreadsheet shows many scenarios with my two successive cameras : D90 + 18-200 and D7000 + 18-300, with one, two, three or four add-on lenses and at different distances set on the barrel. I usually only use one and not more than two since finding the subject and hand-help focusing become very difficult as I pile-up lenses and I lose the extra details because of bad focusing and the minute depth of field. With two add-on lenses I can reach a magnification ratio of 1.57 which is quite nice. The results are nice, and I would be reluctant to change. But, have you tried extension tubes? -- PeterN |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Image stabilization shoud be stabilized
Le 21/08/2013 22:29, PeterN a écrit :
The results are nice, and I would be reluctant to change. But, have you tried extension tubes? Not yet. I'll do that some day I think but I have postponed it so far for several reasons. - I have not yet exhausted all the possibilities of my present contrivance, far from it. - Although I use a long zoom lens, I would have to limit the magnification on the zoom itself to use it as a shorter focal lens to get a bigger overall magnification, but I don't know which. What happens then ? Vignetting ? - In any case, the aperture of my zoom is f3.5 to f5.6. If I double it's extension, I'll get f7 to f11 where the autofocus will probably no longer work (properly). - My zoom is a G lens and the Nikon extension tubes, which are quite short, do not work with G lenses, so I'll have to find compatible ones (Kenko ?) or buy a shorter lens compatible with the Nikon extension tubes. - I have read that for optical reasons (increase of extra-axial aberrations : coma, field curvature), the quality obtained with extension tubes is slightly diminished, which is not the case with add-on lenses (apart from their own would-be aberrations). - Last but not least, I don't envisage buying something without being reasonably sure that I'll get acceptable results. So... |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
extension tubes (was Image stabilization shoud be stabilized
On 8/22/2013 7:20 AM, Ghost-Rider wrote:
Le 21/08/2013 22:29, PeterN a écrit : The results are nice, and I would be reluctant to change. But, have you tried extension tubes? Not yet. I'll do that some day I think but I have postponed it so far for several reasons. - I have not yet exhausted all the possibilities of my present contrivance, far from it. - Although I use a long zoom lens, I would have to limit the magnification on the zoom itself to use it as a shorter focal lens to get a bigger overall magnification, but I don't know which. What happens then ? Vignetting ? - In any case, the aperture of my zoom is f3.5 to f5.6. If I double it's extension, I'll get f7 to f11 where the autofocus will probably no longer work (properly). - My zoom is a G lens and the Nikon extension tubes, which are quite short, do not work with G lenses, so I'll have to find compatible ones (Kenko ?) or buy a shorter lens compatible with the Nikon extension tubes. - I have read that for optical reasons (increase of extra-axial aberrations : coma, field curvature), the quality obtained with extension tubes is slightly diminished, which is not the case with add-on lenses (apart from their own would-be aberrations). - Last but not least, I don't envisage buying something without being reasonably sure that I'll get acceptable results. So... Just to be clear, I am talking about Extension tubes, not tele-extenders. The old Nikon extension tubes do not give you autofocus. I use Kenko pro and they work fine on my 70-200. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
decent cost image stabilized digital cameras? | Boch | Digital Photography | 6 | April 8th 05 01:18 PM |
decent cost image stabilized digital cameras? | John Pett | Digital Photography | 0 | April 8th 05 04:23 AM |
Image Stabilized Digital Camera on a boat | junktin | Digital Photography | 21 | March 13th 05 02:55 AM |
EOS 28-135mm Image Stabilized | Tallman | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 24th 04 01:13 PM |
28-105mm USM Image Stabilized Canon EOS | Tallman | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | February 24th 04 01:11 PM |