JML 20X Results (keep adding pictures)

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:46 pm

Here's one more, small greeny-blue fly abdomen..

I had to crank the jpeg compression up quite a lot to squeeze this shot in the 300kb limit!

The only difference with this shot to my previous ones with this lens, this time I set the bellows to maximum extension, which is around 250-260mm, so this is a bit beyond 20x.

Here's a slightly larger and less-compressed version

canonian · Post by **canonian** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:29 pm

There is one more test I like to do:

ChrisR wrote:AH - I thought we "knew" it was a finite.

rjlittlefield wrote:I tried it both ways. The difference in image quality was not compelling...

I received my 52mm->42mm ring today from HongKong to mount the M42->RMS converter, which hold the JML20X.

First an overview: a fruitfly (previously used in "what is it" post)

Canon EF 100-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 tubelens @200mm, 55 frames@3µm

Bellows @200mm extension, 44 frames@3µm

I gave them both the same treatment in PP.
In CameraRaw, I upped clarity and added slight sharpening and exposure, copied and applied settings to 2nd.
Using bellows gave me better DOF, 11 frames less?
I think using empty extention gives - slightly- better quality than on a tubelens, agree?

It's a strange phenomenon, I allways thought finite and infinite lenses were very different by design and use.
I still have a lot to learn on characteristic and behaviour of optics (noob) .

abpho · Post by **abpho** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:33 pm

Looks like the tube picture is sharper.

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:27 pm

Here's another test shot on Flickr with the JML20x. I have to say I'm really liking this lens - bang for buck it's pretty hard to beat!

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:14 pm

canonian wrote: Using bellows gave me better DOF, 11 frames less?
I think using empty extention gives - slightly- better quality than on a tubelens, agree?

It certainly seems to be the case. Is that about sharpness of individual frames or an indication that there is an optimal number of frames for a stack?

Harold

canonian · Post by **canonian** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:17 pm

lauriek wrote:I have to say I'm really liking this lens - bang for buck it's pretty hard to beat!

I must say you get excellent results with this lens, Laurie. Mine seems a little "muddier." Might be the way we light things differently.

Harold Gough wrote:Is that about sharpness of individual frames or an indication that there is an optimal number of frames for a stack?

I'm not sure about frame sharpness, usually before shooting I check the 'travel' distance so at both extremes everything in the frame is in focus.
With bellows it seems to give me shorter travel. Comparing was not exactly the same and hard to get the same magnification. On the tubelens there were a lot of conversions that added from frontlens to objective: 58-55,55-52,52-42 and 42-RMS, adding 2cm.
I do know now that this lens covers DOF at about 3-5 micron steps. I wonder if other JML20X users use the same stepsize.

BugEZ · Post by **BugEZ** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:09 pm

I found a Doli that is minute (1.2mm from head to tip of abdomen) so I photographed it with my JML20X. It is mounted to my 200 mm f4 telephoto.

I am pleased with the results in general, but focus is a bit soft near the corners on my APS size sensor.

Note the Doli was not "fresh" and the eye color has transitioned from green/red to black. It has also lost a bit of the antenna.

Keith

BugEZ · Post by **BugEZ** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:17 pm

Second try after I soaked the doli in warm water for 30 minutes. That made the eye colors a bit brighter!

I discovered some settings that I had wrong on the RAW to JPEG conversion in my post above so the color abboration was not properly compensated... Using the proper settings helped the softness on the corners...

K

canonian · Post by **canonian** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:12 am

BugEZ wrote:I am pleased with the results in general...

As you probably discovered it is a nice little gem, Keith. Both in price, performance, magnification and workability.
Have you also tried it without a tubelens, with just a 200-222mm empty extention?

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:46 am

I have yet to use mine. I am not practiced in working at the higher magnifications so I don't want to rush into using it just to show some images. That said, the results posted indicate it will give the kind of results I am working towards.

Harold

BugEZ · Post by **BugEZ** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:23 am

canonian wrote

Have you also tried it without a tubelens, with just a 200-222mm empty extension?

No, I just swapped it onto the telephoto, replacing the 10X OLY that normally lives there... I recall that Rik did quite a thorough test of the lens with/without a tube lens and his conclusion was that it was slightly better with the tube. So I started with his recommended configuration. Rik pointed out that the color aberration can be somewhat compensated with software. Taking Rik's advice, I made some tweaks in my processing and the images were improved. I described that here http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 871#104871
near the middle of the thread.

I too like the lens. To bad there is not a "big brother" 40X JML lens of comparable value!

canonian · Post by **canonian** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:47 am

Well Keith, like some say: YMMV ! You bought yours very early and things got spiraling out since Rich got us all one.
There's so much posts going on about the JML20X I forgot (or overlooked) your reply in that post.
I didn't apply any abberation correction in software but any tip on how to enhance the quality of the shot is welcome.
I will try this in the stack to follow.

I using the JML 20X very frequently now but a JML 40X would be very nice in the future.

canonian · Post by **canonian** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:16 am

I just applied the Chromatic Abberation setting on the first image I shot with the JML 20X, following the instructions in the post by Keith (BugEZ).
I do most of my editing in Adobe Camera Raw which also has a "Fix Blue/Yellow Fringe" slider and chose to edit the highlight edges.
It fixed most of the lens abberations so I decided to repost the first image.

The slight green color cast from the background in the facet eyes are removed by using the Adjustment Brush to reduce saturisation, turning them almost colorless.
The brush also reduce the exposure slightly, which lowered the specular highlight in the facettes.
I still don't master all the editing skills in photoshop fully but posts like Keith's and Rik's helps a great deal.

Turning these abberations >-----------------------------------------------------------------------> into this.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:55 am

BugEZ wrote:I recall that Rik did quite a thorough test of the lens with/without a tube lens and his conclusion was that it was slightly better with the tube.

I don't recall that conclusion. Checking my postings, the main one that turns up is http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 871#104871. The sample image linked there is with 222 mm of plain extension, no tube lens. As I recall, I shot it both ways, didn't notice any compelling difference in quality, and posted the plain extension version because it was 20X and thus directly comparable to my Nikon CF M Plan 20X NA 0.40 ELWD at rated magnification.

I vaguely recall seeing other people report that they thought the JML was a little better on tube lens, but I don't recall seeing detailed imagery to support that judgement.

--Rik

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:10 pm

I posted this over in 'technical' but thought it deserved to be posted in this thread too as it was with the JML20x..

Tiny mite, as yet unidentified any further. (Alive)

53 slices with JML20x at around 200mm of extension, approx 4-5 micron steps. Zerene PMAX.

JML 20X Results (keep adding pictures)

Tiny doli

Re: Tiny doli