DiMAGE 5400 sweet spot

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:06 pm

Just wondering if it has been established what the 'sweet spot' magnification wise is for this scanner lens? Also what the sweet spot 'range' might be from a magnification perspective. I am most interested in knowing the least magnification sweet spot would be, such as 1:1?

The reason for bringing this up is I 3D printed an adapter for my Nikon MM-11 turret receptacle last year, which also works on my Optiphot Biological and Optiphot POL scopes that worked great. This particular adapter would be called a Optiphot dovetail by M42x1F. Rafael is going to machine small run of these. The prototype is shown in the image below holding a DiMAGE 5400. With *MY* particular setup (Canon 50D etc.) the least magnification I can achieve as its configured in the image below is 1.9x which is fine with me. It can be designed in such a manner that the 5400 lens will set in deeper. I was just wondering if that's a good idea or not for anyone else that may want one of these adapters? Not for me but for others that may wish to purchase the adapter.

-JW:

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:09 pm

... just a quick 'test shot' with this setup. No diffused light, not a great stack, just a test at 1.9x.

-JW:

RobertOToole · Post by **RobertOToole** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:01 pm

Hi JW,

Nice image BTW, thats a kind of white sand thats made of fossilized sand right?

You know I don't think I tested the Minolta 5400 lens for a sharpness peak but the lens seems to set up for right under 2x from the factory but we don't know for sure since I don't know how much width the sensor uses exactly and how much area is being masked. I think 1.8x or so.

At about 3x the sharpness starts to drop off in the corners.

BTW just for fun I tried the Minotla 5400 on a tube lens and it was terrible with only the lens center area being sharp.

Hope this helps.

Robert

Macro_Cosmos · Post by **Macro_Cosmos** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:16 am

RobertOToole wrote:Hi JW,

Nice image BTW, thats a kind of white sand thats made of fossilized sand right?

You know I don't think I tested the Minolta 5400 lens for a sharpness peak but the lens seems to set up for right under 2x from the factory but we don't know for sure since I don't know how much width the sensor uses exactly and how much area is being masked. I think 1.8x or so.

At about 3x the sharpness starts to drop off in the corners.

BTW just for fun I tried the Minotla 5400 on a tube lens and it was terrible with only the lens center area being sharp.

Hope this helps.

Robert

The sand looks like Okinawa beach sand, featuring some really pretty microfossils.

(Photo found on the net)

Which lens performed the best in the range of 0.5x-2x in your opinion? I got hold of a Minolta 5400 scanner lens and the performance was great until about 2-3x where resolution gets a massive hit. It falls behind the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 lens in that regard.

Have you tried comparing it against the Makro-Varon? It's way too expensive in my opinion... but I might just eat dirt for several months and bite the bullet if it proves itself to be worthwhile. I don't think it will be bad even when pushed to 3x.

I do remember you asking for a Laowa 25mm to try out, I might be able to send mine after I finish writing my own long term review.

-- MC

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:50 am

The Lomo 3.7x is better than the DiMage (and cheaper) at the higher end of that magnification range.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:24 am

Macro_Cosmos wrote:The sand looks like Okinawa beach sand, featuring some really pretty microfossils.

I'm curious about the subject and/or the nomenclature.

These things look to me like what's described at https://www.sandatlas.org/star-sand-and-sun-sand/ , which notes that

Star sand and Sun sand
Foraminifera or more precisely their calcareous tests are very common components of many beach sands.

Lots of so-called coral sands are composed mostly (or in large part) of foram tests.

If that's the right stuff, then I gather that these things are recently dead, not the sort of ancient remnant that I normally associate with "fossil".

Can you explain more fully what we're looking at and how they're talked about?

--Rik

elimoss · Post by **elimoss** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:29 am

RobertOToole wrote: BTW just for fun I tried the Minotla 5400 on a tube lens and it was terrible with only the lens center area being sharp.

Interesting.
I tried the 7 element Nikkor Scanner ED on a tube lens and I could not get good results, even with an aperture between the lenses

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:01 pm

RobertOToole wrote:Hi JW,

Nice image BTW, thats a kind of white sand thats made of fossilized sand right?

Robert

Thanks but it was just a test. The image would of been spot on if I had used a diffuser or maybe a flash setup. I purchased the sand on eBay. The add said;

Star sand is a biogenic sand made of skeletons of tiny, mono-celled sea creatures belonging to the foraminifera group. This type of sand can be found in the limited area of Okinawa.

On another note, I do have some mounted Foraminifera but I haven't photographed them yet. Dunno if that's what Rik is talking about or not.

-JW:

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:09 pm

Not trying to waste anyones time here, just sharing my particular efforts. <g> I 3D printed this adapter a few months ago exclusively for the DiMAGE 5400 lens. It does not vignette and the magnification is 1.2x. Of course modifying it a little more and setting the lens in further I should be able to achieve 1:1. Hoping I can do the same with the newer machined design eventually.

-JW:

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:09 pm

Here's a quick shot of that slide at 1.2x, no stacking, poor lighting etc. (i.e. quick shot).

Here's some interesting info:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Wetmore.html

-JW:

Post by **enricosavazzi** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:12 am

rjlittlefield wrote:
Macro_Cosmos wrote:The sand looks like Okinawa beach sand, featuring some really pretty microfossils.
I'm curious about the subject and/or the nomenclature.

These things look to me like what's described at https://www.sandatlas.org/star-sand-and-sun-sand/ , which notes that
Star sand and Sun sand
Foraminifera or more precisely their calcareous tests are very common components of many beach sands.

Lots of so-called coral sands are composed mostly (or in large part) of foram tests.
If that's the right stuff, then I gather that these things are recently dead, not the sort of ancient remnant that I normally associate with "fossil".

Can you explain more fully what we're looking at and how they're talked about?

--Rik

Correct, these are forams (formally, kingdom Chromista, phylum Foraminifera).

I have somewhere samples of "star sand" I collected in Iriomote Island (Ryukyu, Japan). I was told by locals that the locality is called Hoshi no Suna (star sand), but the name Hoshizuna no Hama, which is just a variation, is found on maps. They are most likely found also elsewhere in Ryukyu.

These are not fossils, they are empty "shells" (technically called tests in the case of forams) and the species is alive and well. After a few years in the wave zone, empty tests are visibly worn out, but are continuously replenished by fresh ones from large populations living nearby.