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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity" wrote in message ... 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. Then it never really was. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
Looks like I have inadvertently started a storm here. Thanks to all for the replies that closely answered my query. Maybe I should have explained the request better. I live in Western Australia and we have very many wildflowers here which I like to capture. I used to to this a number of years ago on my totally manual SLR with a Zeiss 50mm prime and a set of extension rings. Now that I have a DSLR I wised to do the same (rather than scan my old slides). So I am able to take manual exposure photos (still have my old light meter) if necessary but was anxious to know whether I could use my existing zoom lens with rings and still use the built in functions of the D50. I know I am not technical about photography but measure my satisfaction by the resultant photos. Anyway on balance you have convinced me that using rings with the Tamron is probably not a good idea and I may be better off looking for a relatively cheap 50mm prime plus the rings or even (possibly better) a second hand macro lens. Once again thanks. Gerrit - Oz |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
Gerrit wrote:
Looks like I have inadvertently started a storm here. Maybe I should have explained the request better. Regardless of the clarity of your request, there are no means to preventing storms here... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Paul Furman" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: "Ofnuts" wrote in message ... Food for Thought wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:44 +0200, 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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... No spam please wrote: "Ofnuts" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view, because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to depict your subject? -- Bertrand Hey guys, we should be out with our macro lenses taking photos rather than debating definitions :-) Anyone else remember the days when a lens on a 35mm film body was defined as having a "macro" setting if: The image on a 6" x 4" print was life-size or larger. This meant that a lens was "macro" if it could project a 1/4 size image on the film. Never heard that definition - Neither have I. further, I've always accepted that 35mm macro was at least 1/2 size (dimension, not area) on the film. That's my understanding too, the macro lens itself capable of focusing to 1:2 but usually with some sort of adaptor (extension tube or secondary lens) available that could take it to 1:1. My first Minola (MD mount) 50mm macro had the former arrangement, and I have a Vivitar 90mm macro with the latter. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"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? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
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. Here's a quick example of plain ol' "creme of tartar" crystals in polarized light at the low magnification of 120x or so. Not even one of my favorites. One of the few snapshot examples I'm willing to share publicly. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/...55bc0707_o.jpg Can't you useless DSLR trolls find at least ONE thing that makes a DSLR superior for any photography related situations or subjects? You're hopelessly pathetic so far. Even the OP of that referenced thread is using the worst possible lighting for his microscope. The shallow DOF and disastrous CA is horrendous when he cranks up the magnification beyond a simple dissecting scope's level of magnification. Totally useless results. Incident lighting is child's-play in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing. When I see idiots behaving like idiots, I call them idiots. It's a pretty simple call. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"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. |
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 10:26 PM |
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters. | default | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | January 20th 06 08:24 AM |
How does adding extension affect macro lenses? | Belgos | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | April 28th 05 06:29 PM |