Hello Rik,
If I have understood you correctly you have written the Zerene Stacker, haven’t you? Great, Zerene is my favorite.
The tests I have done should help me to choose the stacking-software for me. During the tests I also have learnt some things about the processing of the images for the focus-stacking.
As you already know I am a beginner and looking for the hardware and software for the macro-photography.
Would you be so kind as to recommend me the best ones?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
Adi
Adi
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
The USED one you found on ebay, for shipping to UK, is $249 + 17 + 79 = $343Actually I didn’t want to buy any new lens
The NEW one from Nikon is $355.
There is currently one in Europe Used, for slightly less 281798715989 $300, but still too much.
No contest! Objectives are often damaged without anything showing.
That lens is well known and popular for photography, it doesn't often sell cheaply
The "BE" is even more rarely seen Used.
I don't think they publish a price list, it seems to vary with exchange rates, so it's worth checking their current figure.
This is from the post , for which I gave the link in the FAQ:
Before the CFI was "discovered " here, the ebay price was about $100 .
I have one which has scratches but only on the metal. Back then, it was £40 (=~$60 US)
--Nikon UK gave price /delivery today ( 9th April 2015) as follows on these popular infinite objectives. "1-2 weeks" means they are currently in stock somewhere in Europe.
4x BE MRN70040
£33 3-6 weeks
10x BE MRN70100
£52 1-2 weeks
10x Nikon CFI E MRP70100.
£113 1-2 weeks
10x CFI MRL00102
£194 1-2 weeks
All prices are GBP, + carriage +VAT (20%)
UK postage is about £5
Before the CFI was "discovered " here, the ebay price was about $100 .
I have one which has scratches but only on the metal. Back then, it was £40 (=~$60 US)
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Yes, that's correct.Adalbert wrote:If I have understood you correctly you have written the Zerene Stacker, haven’t you?
Always good to hear. I got a different impression from reading the Google translations of your comments:Great, Zerene is my favorite.
Adalbert wrote:Da Zerene schlecht mit Ressourcen umgeht, habe ich mir den Prozess angeschaut. Und mit Staunen habe ich festgestellt, dass Zerene entweder vollständig in JAVA geschrieben ist oder ständig JAVA-Komponenten verwendet!
(as translated) Since Zerene deal poorly with resources, I have looked at the process. And with amazement, I have found, that Zerene is either completely written in JAVA or constantly used Java components!
username safari (as translated) wrote:When Zerene is written in Java, so I would not continue testing.
I was not sure whether to be amused or confused by what looks like a complaint about "more than 70% CPU". Most experienced users would be happier if that number was even higher -- the closer to 100%, the better. This is because numbers below 100% mean that, part of the time, the program is not making use of all processors in the computer, so it is not running as fast as it could in a perfect world.Adalbert (as translated) wrote:Hello Safari, when the stacking starts at Zerene, then eats, "" Java ™ Platform SE binary "more than 70% CPU and going higher and higher.
Thanks and regards,
Adi
Your conclusion is correct, Zerene is programmed in Java. This is what allows it to run in the same way on all types of computers: Windows, Mac, and Linux. There are lots of other advantages with Java. Unfortunately many people have only heard wrong information, so they think badly of Java.
--Rik
Hello Rik,
I didn't mean to offend you. So, I would like to clarify this issue:
- I really didn’t know that you are the Author of Zerene
- I don’t have anything (absolutely nothing) to do with Picolay
If you are a software-developer then you surely know that such stupid “idiots” – tests are also necessary.
As you probably know there are already many tests of the stacking-software with the perfectly taken photographs. Why should I repeat them? So, I have decided to do a different test.
It was very easy for me, because I am a beginner and can produce easily a bad stack :-)
In my tests I mostly haven’t commented any result. And Zerene has stayed ahead all the time.
Concerning JAVA and Zerene I only answered a question of one user.
I don’t have anything against JAVA and usually I’m using OpenSuse13_2.
BTW, the most criticism got PhotoShop :-)
Best regards,
Adi
I didn't mean to offend you. So, I would like to clarify this issue:
- I really didn’t know that you are the Author of Zerene
- I don’t have anything (absolutely nothing) to do with Picolay
If you are a software-developer then you surely know that such stupid “idiots” – tests are also necessary.
As you probably know there are already many tests of the stacking-software with the perfectly taken photographs. Why should I repeat them? So, I have decided to do a different test.
It was very easy for me, because I am a beginner and can produce easily a bad stack :-)
In my tests I mostly haven’t commented any result. And Zerene has stayed ahead all the time.
Concerning JAVA and Zerene I only answered a question of one user.
I don’t have anything against JAVA and usually I’m using OpenSuse13_2.
BTW, the most criticism got PhotoShop :-)
Best regards,
Adi
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Adi,
No problem -- I was not offended, and I certainly don't expect (or want!) that people should say nice things about Zerene Stacker just because they know that they're speaking to the person who wrote it.
My concern was only that your tests appeared to be a case of a newbie asking the wrong questions.
It is definitely relevant to ask how well various programs handle flawed input, if you plan to keep providing flawed input. Otherwise, that question becomes pretty much not relevant.
Likewise, it is valuable to ask how easy various programs are to use well, but perhaps not so valuable to ask how good is their output when they are used badly.
As I wrote earlier -- at the risk of offending you -- the tests that you published in the other forums basically address the question of how good is the output of programs that are provided with flawed input and asked to process it using the wrong settings to handle those flaws. At the time, those looked to me like newbie mistakes, so I decided I should tell you that.
I'm happy that we have been able to discuss these issues openly. Thank you for that!
Thank you also for including Picolay in your tests. I was interested to see that it produced an excellent result in your first test, even with default settings, where all the other programs did not. I will have to take a closer look at that, sometime.
--Rik
No problem -- I was not offended, and I certainly don't expect (or want!) that people should say nice things about Zerene Stacker just because they know that they're speaking to the person who wrote it.
My concern was only that your tests appeared to be a case of a newbie asking the wrong questions.
It is definitely relevant to ask how well various programs handle flawed input, if you plan to keep providing flawed input. Otherwise, that question becomes pretty much not relevant.
Likewise, it is valuable to ask how easy various programs are to use well, but perhaps not so valuable to ask how good is their output when they are used badly.
As I wrote earlier -- at the risk of offending you -- the tests that you published in the other forums basically address the question of how good is the output of programs that are provided with flawed input and asked to process it using the wrong settings to handle those flaws. At the time, those looked to me like newbie mistakes, so I decided I should tell you that.
I'm happy that we have been able to discuss these issues openly. Thank you for that!
Thank you also for including Picolay in your tests. I was interested to see that it produced an excellent result in your first test, even with default settings, where all the other programs did not. I will have to take a closer look at that, sometime.
--Rik