JML 20X Results (keep adding pictures)

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

abpho
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

That bumblebee stinger came out really good.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21138
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

ChrisR wrote:AH - I thought we "knew" it was a finite.
I tried it both ways. The difference in image quality was not compelling, and the only way I could get exactly 20X was to go finite on 222mm extension. Other samples of the lens may be different. I have no idea what the design spec is.
Dmap doesn't show less definition, exactly, it shows "what's there" but Pmax does pull detail out of a haze better and the micro-contrast is higher which can make things look like there's more resolution.
I usually find I'm retouching ALL of Pmax's highlight flares with Dmap though.
Dmap's colours are usually more saturated too, so it's often only overlapping edges which remain, from Pmax.
"YMMV"!
My mileage is pretty much the same. Pmax is great for structure, DMap wins for color, flares, and noise.

--Rik

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Here I added a Varied Carpet Beetle - Anthrenus verbasci , taken with the JML 20X. DMAP retouched with PMAX 112 shots @ 3 µm, tubelength 210mm.
Added some clarity and sharpness, brushed out blobs and pixeltrails. The fullsize is a bit sharper, reducing to a smaller jpg made it a bit softer.

The hollow scales are very peculiar to say the least.

See a larger version here

Image
Last edited by canonian on Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Here's my first go, doesn't seem too bad to me, for the price it's pretty sweet imo!

Image

JML 20x, 77 slices at 4 micron steps (and approx 200mm extension), Zerene DMAP/PMAX, mostly DMAP.

abpho
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

WOW!!! I want one too. Too bad 20x is a real pain (physical) to do for me.

PS: No flickr for Laurie?

PPS: Never mind. I found you.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Great detail, Laurie, you control the lens very well.
To compare both: the carpetbeetle was done with continuous LED light, 210mm extension and Canon 550D, yours was probably flash and 5D or other FF?

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Thanks guys. Mine was flash on an Oly E330 (4/3 sensor)

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Here's another shot, same setup, same subject..

Image

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Having fun with this lens! It's a lot easier to light than my 20x Nikon LWD. (I have to say advertising standards should have a word with Nikon about that 'L'..)

Same bug, same setup.

Image

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

And one last one for now.. This is the underside of the abdomen of the same 'Cream-spotted' ladybird.

Image

Here are some crops, no real PP except what happens at RAW processing stage which is basically contrast, levels, colour correction, minor sharpening and minor NR. (I would normally do more contrast work and sharpening work in PP but thought these crops might be more useful as is)

Center:

Image

Top right:

Image

and Bottom left:

Image

I don't think this lens is bad at all, at least on my sensor. These are certainly a lot sharper at 100% than anything I get from the Nikon 40x ELWD.

It could be my imagination but I seem to have to use my flash at slightly higher power than I would 'expect' for a lens sitting 1/2 way between my Nikon 10x and 40x, so I suspect it may be a bit slower (but that would imply softer due to diffraction? - which I would not say is the case at least compared to the 40/0.50).

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21138
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Nice images!
It could be my imagination but I seem to have to use my flash at slightly higher power than I would 'expect' for a lens sitting 1/2 way between my Nikon 10x and 40x, so I suspect it may be a bit slower (but that would imply softer due to diffraction? - which I would not say is the case at least compared to the 40/0.50).
My copy measures NA 0.30 -- see HERE.

About the diffraction, we'd expect the 40/0.50 to resolve finer detail on subject, but the 20/0.30 to produce an image that's sharper on a details-per-pixel basis.

--Rik

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Nice to see you're having fun with this lens, Laurie.
I wonder how the JML20X stands up to the Nikon 20X LWD.
Given the room we have for light I tend to think the JML20X is an ELWD.

I had an off-topic question about the pixeltrails I spotted in one of your images but I transferred it to another post.

abpho
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

Laurie, you rock. Those are amazing.

Rylee Isitt
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Rylee Isitt »

I'm seeing some over-sharpening in those post processed shots and loss of detail in the mid-range. I think you might have overdone the sharpening and contrast boost, which does give the image a first impression of "wow", but that fades on critical inspection. I actually think something half-way between the original shots posted by canonian and the post-processed ones by Cactusdave would stand up better to close inspection.

Just my opinion, though.

Aside from technical nitpicking about resolution, the lighting and composition of some of those shots is excellent. I love the abstract, textural quality of a lot of high mag shots. Those images are very nice, IMO. A good lens, certainly, but an equally good photographer :)

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Your critique is good, Rylee and keeps me sharp; I must agree on most points.
Although tempted to go for the wow-effect and let the images pop of the screen I try to make subtle use of sharpening.
For web publishing it's nice to let it pop out a bit, but for large prints the effect is often horrible.

I'm not using high-end optics and camera and cannot produce results like the FF's and Mitu's do, so there's often some PP involved.
Mostly I have to clean up the pictures from dust- and pixeltrails and other blemishes and try only to add a bit of clarity, contrast and sharpness.
It also requires skill to make good and subtle use of powertools like PhotoShop and its plug-ins.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic