First thoughts on Pentax K-1 36Mp FF camera

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Lou Jost
Posts: 5949
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

You will like it as a camera, Macrero. Please keep us posted about any discoveries or observations about using the camera. Together we can learn faster!

Don't forget to budget for an external power supply.

Beatsy
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:10 am
Location: Malvern, UK

Post by Beatsy »

Thanks Lou, I thought that was the case. I tinkered with super-resolution years ago, but as you say, it took a lot more than 4 photos to get a decent result. In landscapes at least, it was easier to do panoramas instead.

But my followup question - since we nearly all have our specimens on some adjustable mount, what about an extra little gizmo that moves the specimen up, down, left and right by a small, consistent amount (in the low microns range)? I guess a piezo transducer of some sort could do that. Specimen shift instead of sensor (pixel) shift.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5949
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Macrero, there is a subtle issue about lens mounts that you need to be aware of.

I tried the black anodized Fotodiox Nikon F to Pentax K mount, with optics and central structure removed, but I also made a thinner mount myself out of a Nikon ring and a salvaged chrome Pentax K mount. Oddly, the anodized mount worked but the chrome mount did not work; the camera would not fire, even though the camera menus were properly set to fire without autofocus confirmation and without the aperture ring locked in the automatic configuration (two menu items that have to be set properly when non-native lenses are used).

So I assume that the electronic contacts will block the camera from working if a conductive mount shorts them out.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5949
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Specimen shift instead of sensor (pixel) shift.
I think it would be very hard to shift the subject the exact amount needed to move the image one pixel in each direction on the sensor.

But people who do video stacking might be able to use some variations on the super-resolution techniques.

Macrero
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Hmm, interesting, thank you for making me aware of this. I am planning to make an adapter for my Canon FD bellows with PK-M42 adapter and FD camera mount ring, just I did with the Sigma SDQ. I'm guessing that should work, given that there is no problem shooting with the K1 and M42 lenses via PK-M42 adapter.

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

mawyatt
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

Beatsy wrote:Thanks Lou, I thought that was the case. I tinkered with super-resolution years ago, but as you say, it took a lot more than 4 photos to get a decent result. In landscapes at least, it was easier to do panoramas instead.

But my followup question - since we nearly all have our specimens on some adjustable mount, what about an extra little gizmo that moves the specimen up, down, left and right by a small, consistent amount (in the low microns range)? I guess a piezo transducer of some sort could do that. Specimen shift instead of sensor (pixel) shift.
Beats,

Maybe a small stepper motor could be kludged up to drive one of these Precision positioning stages? Have no idea how accurate they are though.

Image

Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3417
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

mawyatt wrote:
Beatsy wrote:Thanks Lou, I thought that was the case. I tinkered with super-resolution years ago, but as you say, it took a lot more than 4 photos to get a decent result. In landscapes at least, it was easier to do panoramas instead.

But my followup question - since we nearly all have our specimens on some adjustable mount, what about an extra little gizmo that moves the specimen up, down, left and right by a small, consistent amount (in the low microns range)? I guess a piezo transducer of some sort could do that. Specimen shift instead of sensor (pixel) shift.
Beats,

Maybe a small stepper motor could be kludged up to drive one of these Precision positioning stages? Have no idea how accurate they are though.

IMAGE SNIPPED

Best,
They are pretty accurate, but I don't think accuracy is super important. I suppose if you're trying to reproduce the exact pixel steps of the Sony and Pentax, or the exact sub-pixel steps of the Olympus, then it would be important for those algos. But if you're doing the super-resolution methods, exact/accurate steps are not really needed, as long as sufficient number of shots are taken.

That said, if indeed you were able to sub-sample accurately at half-pixel or quarter-pixel steps, you could reduce the number of shots required even for the super-resolution algos to work.

I'm curious if the Stackshot 3D can do this sort of work? I have not researched it but seems this is the type of thing it could excel at. I should look into this.

Ultimately the lens resolution will limit. Even at 1:1, there are few lenses which can significantly outresolve a 4um sensor, though 6um is not so tough. For landscapes, with lenses having wide apertures, the super-resolution methods have great promise. I would see only limited potential benefit at higher mags (except perhaps in noise redux).

I have not tried this method before, but my interest is piqued and I'm planning to do a test. My earlier tests relied on the camera company software to do the compositing, and this seems to be a huge mistake given that the folks reporting good results are using other software to do the compositing.

Oh boy, another big project, but perhaps one that can give me what I was looking for with those failed pixel-shift experiments.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5949
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Ray, I think it would be more efficient to try the existing algorithms again. Your results for both the cameras you tried were anomalous relative to other people's results on the internet, and I can vouch for the fact that the Oly algorithm, which you did not try, works perfectly even at high magnifications. The latest Oly cameras can probably do it faster than my PEN-F too.

I couldn't see anything about your testing procedure that could explain why you got such weird results, but there must have been something subtle that was missed. It would be very interesting to try to pin it down.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3417
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:Ray, I think it would be more efficient to try the existing algorithms again. Your results for both the cameras you tried were anomalous relative to other people's results on the internet, and I can vouch for the fact that the Oly algorithm, which you did not try, works perfectly even at high magnifications. The latest Oly cameras can probably do it faster than my PEN-F too.

I couldn't see anything about your testing procedure that could explain why you got such weird results, but there must have been something subtle that was missed. It would be very interesting to try to pin it down.
It's a bit late for that, since both cameras were returned.

I'm not sure what I could have done to cause the problem. The setup used had extremely low vibration, and I verified this before each shot using Live View. The one thing I did that most others probably don't is to use a coin, with specular highlighting, as a subject. Not sure why this would make a difference, but it might. Perhaps small changes in lighting angles?

Lou Jost
Posts: 5949
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Yes, I suppose those specular highlights might be the problem. I did some shiny-scaled Urania moth wings with super-resolution and had no problem, but maybe I should look at those again.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic