Yeah, Robert is the main culprit, but titles like "Holey moley!!! DImage 5400 elite scanner lens. Just wow!" adds fuel to the fire... so you're to blame as wellBeatsy wrote: Not me guv! Blame Robert O'Toole. He should have kept it secret and PM'ed us individually - starting with me first of course
Holey moley!!! DImage 5400 elite scanner lens. Just wow!
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
I think diffraction is taking its toll on that lens at 5x; the 1-stop advantage of the Mitu is a lot. So I don't think flocking will improve this very much. But heck, the results at lower m are reason enough to be happy, at least on large-sensor cameras. On an MFT sensor it is already touching on diffraction territory at m=1.2 (EA = 4*(1.2+1) = 8.8 ).
-
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 6:40 am
- Location: China
Re: Holey moley!!! DImage 5400 elite scanner lens. Just wow!
[/quote]
Hi, Beatsy, According to this picture, I think you mounted the 5400 lens reversely, is that true?
Please reference to http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=37244
Hi, Beatsy, According to this picture, I think you mounted the 5400 lens reversely, is that true?
Please reference to http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=37244
Re: Holey moley!!! DImage 5400 elite scanner lens. Just wow!
Haha. I wondered if anyone would notice that. Well spotted. It was the wrong way round when I took this pic - I had quickly re-assembled it (wrong) for the pic at the time. Sorry for any confusion. It's paint-mark toward the specimen now. As you demonstrated though, It's easy to tell if you have it the wrong way round. The centre of the image looks fine, but FF corners turn to mush. Proper way round, they're golden.Vector1968 wrote: Hi, Beatsy, According to this picture, I think you mounted the 5400 lens reversely, is that true?
Please reference to http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=37244
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 6:40 am
- Location: China
After seeing that the latest DImage 5400 Elite went for £251 on Ebay last night (slide tray broken - selling for spares or repair), I'm even more pleased with the cost of mine Having said that, if you're serious about your macro and want to fill that 2x range - even this price is *well* worth it IMO. I'm sure the buyer will be one very happy bunny!
One cool thing about this lens is that it fills a gap. The 2-3x range has been problematic--lots of us have optics that work there, but not much makes us go "Wow!"
I bought a 5400 scanner shortly after Robert's post, have its lens out (piece of cake, with the instructions at Robert's Website), and mounted in a nice adapter specifically made for it by Rafcamera. Now, to find time to shoot with it. . . .
--Chris S.
I bought a 5400 scanner shortly after Robert's post, have its lens out (piece of cake, with the instructions at Robert's Website), and mounted in a nice adapter specifically made for it by Rafcamera. Now, to find time to shoot with it. . . .
--Chris S.
I got the Raf adapter too (and a similar one with 40mm I/D for my Linoscan lens). Both perfect for the job of mounting these lenses with an added bonus that you can mount the 5400 a little further in or out to tweak magnification.Chris S. wrote:One cool thing about this lens is that it fills a gap. The 2-3x range has been problematic--lots of us have optics that work there, but not much makes us go "Wow!"
I bought a 5400 scanner shortly after Robert's post, have its lens out (piece of cake, with the instructions at Robert's Website), and mounted in a nice adapter specifically made for it by Rafcamera. Now, to find time to shoot with it. . . .
--Chris S.
In the case of my Linoscan lens, the 40mm adapter let me slide the lens in to touch the glass of the Raynox tube lens - needed for better quality at the edges as the Linoscan isn't an infinity design. Using it this way halved the subject to sensor distance though (compared to direct projection), so I'm content to take the slight compromise on FF edge quality. APS-C is perfect.
Good luck finding the time to shoot...
Later scanner designs cover a small part of the image and build it digitally, whereas in earlier times it was cheaper to do the whole thing in one go - to the extent that one of the Scitek scanners had 6 different scanning lenses (its 7th was just for lining up, or something). The main circuit board in that one is something like 20" x 24", and they cost a few tens of thousands decades ago, so it must have been hard!
You can guestimate from how they work, and what you can glean about the sensor (strip) size, what the reproduction ratio would have been, and what the coverage (image circle) should have needed to be.
A lot of the scanner manufacturers did quote a resolution, though some of the figures you see (eg Plustek) turn out to be pretty spurious. Some of them have short working distances (like the Minolta 5400), some are hard to mount, and none have an adjustable aperture.
The M5400 fits into a gap between more mainstream lenses perhaps, but if you have say a Canon MP35mm f/2.8 which is about the same FL, you probably wouldn't benefit very much from one.
I think there's still a "gap" at around 3x for a ~4µm res, apo lens with a wide aperture and good working distance. Will just have to keep making do with MP-E65, M/N 65, Luminar 63, ....
But l can't get results like some on the forum could achieve with a used 60's milk bottle so I'll have to buy more lenses, obviously.
You can guestimate from how they work, and what you can glean about the sensor (strip) size, what the reproduction ratio would have been, and what the coverage (image circle) should have needed to be.
A lot of the scanner manufacturers did quote a resolution, though some of the figures you see (eg Plustek) turn out to be pretty spurious. Some of them have short working distances (like the Minolta 5400), some are hard to mount, and none have an adjustable aperture.
The M5400 fits into a gap between more mainstream lenses perhaps, but if you have say a Canon MP35mm f/2.8 which is about the same FL, you probably wouldn't benefit very much from one.
I think there's still a "gap" at around 3x for a ~4µm res, apo lens with a wide aperture and good working distance. Will just have to keep making do with MP-E65, M/N 65, Luminar 63, ....
But l can't get results like some on the forum could achieve with a used 60's milk bottle so I'll have to buy more lenses, obviously.
Chris R
Well, around 3x for a ~4µm res, apo lens with a *narrow* aperture and good working distance would float my boat moreChrisR wrote: I think there's still a "gap" at around 3x for a ~4µm res, apo lens with a wide aperture and good working distance. Will just have to keep making do with MP-E65, M/N 65, Luminar 63, ....
Haha - you owe me a keyboard - proper 'splutter my coffee' LOL momenta comedian wrote: But l can't get results like some on the forum could achieve with a used 60's milk bottle so I'll have to buy more lenses, obviously.
I recently discovered a serious downside to these better scanner lenses. After a few weeks looking at nothing but the beautifully flat, distortion-free images from my 5400 and Linoscan lenses, I'm suddenly rather less enamored with my Mitties
Well, to be more accurate, less enamored with the tube lenses I regularly mount them on. Bendy city in comparison. Chip dies are seriously unforgiving subjects in this regard too - trust me the choose a lot of *those* as my test subjects. So now I have another (all-too-familiar) bee in my bonnet! Does it never end...?
Well, to be more accurate, less enamored with the tube lenses I regularly mount them on. Bendy city in comparison. Chip dies are seriously unforgiving subjects in this regard too - trust me the choose a lot of *those* as my test subjects. So now I have another (all-too-familiar) bee in my bonnet! Does it never end...?