OlyMinCan-28

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Gravity and inertia are such oppressive burdens. :oops:

I've accumulated some promising junk, but without a workshop, assembly is going to involve wood and glue. "Junk" here being stuff which is not valueless, but not quite the marvellous means to achieving some wonderful result that was envisaged when it was bought, at such a "bargain" :? price. Odd how the object then acquires additional value through being personal, which makes it impossible to part with, even though its original destiny has evaporated.

Initial tests (small "t") show these three to be at least reasonable enough, close up. I suspect that a little loss of definition won't be very noticeable as the eye is drawn up the picture.
Finding suitable subjects is a challenge. If there's no continuity between the depths, the image looks like a paste-up. With very wide lenses the FOV gets so wide so soon, it's difficult to have relevant detail at different depths. That aspect is much easier to deal with using a longer lens, and without bespoke metalwork - a long enlarger lens on a normal bellows can be used, if not a normal SLR macro lens.

I was speaking with a magazine editor recently (Outdoor Photography) who explained his problem with some images where there's an initial "Wow" reaction, but that's quickly followed by thoughts of how the image might have been faked. Charlie's beautiful Quinalt Rainforest pictures [ref], we know weren't, but the detail in them does come , naturally enough, in bands of depth. If those bands become very distinct to a point where they might have been put together in PP, then the viewer can become offended by what looks like artifact.
Focus stacking isn't pehaps as much of a trick as collaging images together in Photoshop, but it IS still a trick, enough to put many off where it's too obvious. I'm looking forward to an interesting Spring - assuming I can get about more.

So I'm seeking a way to deal with these and more conventional lenses, and the junk mounts, much to the consternation of my wife.

bvalente
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by bvalente »

I picked up an oly 21mm and the oly bellows so when they arrive, and assuming I can pull all this together I'll report on my findings as well.

Charlie - you made note that you would have done it differently with a wider lens (differently as in, not using bellows). Do you still think that?

ChrisR - I don't believe focus stacking is a trick per se - more of a technique. "Trick" to me is to somehow create the illusion something existed when it really didn't. Focus stacking is simply overcoming the limitations of focusing in a lens.


Cheers

Brian

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Chris,
If there's no continuity between the depths, the image looks like a paste-up.
That's an excellent point. It is actually pretty tricky to find a nice composition where you do have a relatively smooth continuity of subject matter from front to back. Especially true when so many of the "primary" subjects seem to be at or near ground level.
assembly is going to involve wood and glue
Don't forget tape!

Brian,

It would be really nice if nothing in the "hardware" protruded past the front of the lens. You can see in the second picture how the base of the bellows (and the top of the tripod head) extend out past the front of the lens. This is a 28mm lens and the primary subject will be very close to the front of the lens in many instances. If a wider lens were used the working distance would be even less. So I frequently find these "protrusions" hitting something before I can get my subject close enough to the lens. However, in actual usage I find (as I believe I mentioned earlier) that in order to get the camera positioned low enough, the entire apparatus is used "upside down" suspended from a reversed center-post on my tripod. This is done primarily for camera position, but it makes these "protrusions" much less of an issue. So I would keep this concern in mind when configuring another set-up.

One other point. While I don't show it here, when I use this I have my Novoflex focusing rail between the tripod head and the bellows. You really need some method of moving the "lens" forward and back when setting up a shot. You may be able to slide the tripod around when practicing indoors on a hardwood floor, but that's near impossible in the field!

PaulFurman
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:14 pm
Location: SF, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by PaulFurman »

Good luck with the 21mm. This is a lot easier with longer lenses, I did it with an 80mm f/5.6 El-Nikkor without even having to modify anything, it's narrow enough to fit through the front standard of my PB4 bellows with a cut up plastic pill jar & tape. If you go to 150mm or so, you can mount on the front, or just get a bellows lens. Wide angle is nice for this effect though. I've done it with a 28/3.5 pre-Ai Nikkor with bag bellows for just hand held lensbaby effect.

bvalente
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by bvalente »

Charles Krebs wrote:One other point. While I don't show it here, when I use this I have my Novoflex focusing rail between the tripod head and the bellows. You really need some method of moving the "lens" forward and back when setting up a shot. You may be able to slide the tripod around when practicing indoors on a hardwood floor, but that's near impossible in the field!
Indeed - classic macro challenge to get the whole apparatus positioned correctly before even starting the shot

On your stack shots, how much extension was involved to get to 1:1? I ask because I know you mentioned chopping some of the bellows, but if it's not so much, perhaps I could fashion a different kind of setup, maybe with a linear stage and the front standard of a pb6, and avoid some of the complexities you ran into.

on a separate note, thinking through the flange focus distance, there's no reason we couldn't use nikon lenses on a canon body setup. the FFD is .5mm more than olympus, though olympus has an advantage in the compactness of lenses and their design to have the aperture closer to the end of the lens. or even Leica R or Contax N though I would be hesitant to start disassembling those lenses :)

Cheers

Brian

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Brain,
On your stack shots, how much extension was involved to get to 1:1?
A little over an inch. Even though I had to cut the bellows down to squeeze together enough for infinity focus, I still have more bellows draw than I need. A small "bag" bellows would work nicely and require less space.

In reality, the flange focal distance is far more important when contemplating adapters to attach "unmolested" lenses of one brand to a different brand body, while maintaining infinity focus. With unmodified lenses the difference between the FFDs of any 35mm SLRs (with wide angle lenses) is not enough to accommodate the mechanisms needed to get the additional extension needed and still focus to infinity. (I suppose there might be a way to squeeze it into a mm or two, but it would be tricky! :wink: ) Once you start disassembling lenses to remove the mount then it's less an issue provided the rear of the lens is small enough to fit into the throat of the camera body. Just remember to always consider mirror clearance!

I've not tried this with other than this Olympus 28mm. But I imagine the front aperture control really makes it simpler.

If I ever try a different arrangement than I have here, the primary thing I would try to accomplish is mounting the lens so that it juts out farther than any other parts, so as to minimize the situations I referred to earlier where the base of the bellows might interfere with the subject matter.

Incidentally, there are a some wide-angle lenses that, out of the box, might be able to provide this effect to some degree (although nothing as extreme as the 1:1 foreground). The closest focusing wide-angle I've seen is a Sigma 24mm that focuses down to 1:2.9. I don't know how this lens focuses (i.e. internal elements or basic helical) so it may not be suitable for stacking in this manner. And if it's a helical, you would need to rig some way that the the body moves "back" rather than the lens extending forward. (But my "OlyMinCan-28" cost me only a fraction of that lenses cost. I can get far greater foreground magnifications. And I love to tinker! :wink: )

PaulFurman
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:14 pm
Location: SF, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by PaulFurman »

Charles Krebs wrote:I've not tried this with other than this Olympus 28mm. But I imagine the front aperture control really makes it simpler.
The Nikon 28/3.5 pre-Ai loses it's aperture ring. It ends up looking similar to the Oly pictured but the tape on the narrow end serves as the only way to adjust aperture. You have to open up the bellows to stop down.
The closest focusing wide-angle I've seen is a Sigma 24mm that focuses down to 1:2.9. I don't know how this lens focuses (i.e. internal elements or basic helical) so it may not be suitable for stacking in this manner.
The 24mm f/3.5 PC-E Nikkor goes to 1:2.7 but yes it is internal focusing. You can also use tilts to get a little closer on one side.

bvalente
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by bvalente »

Hi All,

This thread is not dead for me! I've been thinking about this and tinkering, and I'm getting closer to taking a stab at a similar rig.

Regarding mirror, I have an olympus 21mm lens, which I removed the lens mount and shoved the whole thing into my Nikon DSLR body (a D7000) and fired the shutter. It still has enough room and does not interfere with the shutter. Infinity seems to be about 2mm further out than I was able to push the lens into the body, which is all good news.

I'm also considering looking at a Leica R wide angle lens, which has a longer FF at 47mm. They are a bit pricey, but if I can get this rig right, some nice lens is going to have to take the fall!


Cheers

Brian
Cheers


Brian

Brian Valente
bvalente.smugmug.com

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

An unskirted 21mm Oly goes into a D700 too, though there's no room for a rear standard to support it. I wasn't certain it was going to clear the mirror, which is a bit deeper than yours.
I said 3 Hail Mary's and got away with it, so there must be a God.
That's as far as the project got, unfortunately.
Last edited by ChrisR on Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

bvalente
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by bvalente »

Hi Chris

I'm talking to my friends at Really Right Stuff to see if we can't figure out a way to affix the lens and body close enough. i'll report back, though knowing RRS it probably won't be cheap.


Cheers

Brian
Cheers


Brian

Brian Valente
bvalente.smugmug.com

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I haven't even taken a picture with it at very close focus. It could be that the IQ is so poor things really don't stack up.

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Brian,

If you look at the picture I had posted before (and included again here) you can see that with the the lens removed from the focusing mount it is really easy to insert the rear of the lens into a camera body. (As previously discussed, mirror clearance and infinity focus need to be carefully checked).

While I don't know the dimensions of the 24mm or 21mm Olympus (this is the 28mm), mounting the lens via the front filter ring is easy to do. If I were to do it again from scratch, I would probably try to mount the lens around the surface indicated by the red arrow. (Note that to have good access to that surface and to provide some "bellows room" I did machine off some of the aperture ring as indicated by the black arrow). Mounting the lens at the surface shown by the red arrow (instead of the filter threads) would result in the lens jutting out a little at the front, making it easier to approach subjects in the field without interference from the mechanisms. Then I would use a simple bag bellows between the back of the lens and camera body.

At the time I did this I had decided to utilize an old bellows that I had lying around. Doing it again, I think I would try basing it on something like Velmex slider seen here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=9032
I have a spare, and the way it is made it would be pretty simple to do... but there are several focusing rails/sliders that could also be incorporated with a similar approach. Naturally with the "modularity" of the A/S mounting system is should be easy to do with a focusing rail based on that system.

I would attach the body to the sliding platform using the Arca clamp. A flat aluminum "lens-board" would be attached to the front of the units (non-moving) base. You would have plenty of options for making a simple bag bellows between them. The camera is focused using the slider. Depending on the flange-focal-distance of the body and lens selected, this approach might also allow you do do much less lens "disassembly" and hacking compared to using a bellows unit as I had initially done. If you look at the first images in this thread, you can see that the bellows standard to which the camera is mounted uses up a large amount of precious distance between lens and sensor. You would pick up some nice working distance to fool around with if the camera were mounted at the base rather then using the lens mount.

The close-up performance of the 28/3.5 Olympus is remarkably good when used "extended" in this manner. I would really want to check the adequacy of close-up imaging performance of a wider/faster lens before I started disassembling it or basing a project on it. The performance of some wide-angle lenses gets very poor when used in this way.

Image

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

This may just help someone.

I just compared the depth of the OM to micro 4/3 adaptor and the minimum extension of my Olympus OM autobellows. The front standard is detachable/reversable. Detaching that leaves the minimum length of the bellows very close to that for infinity focus of an unmodified OM lens.

Removal of the rear stand instead would leave lens support in place with OM diaphragm operation via the cable socket intact. A thin m4/3 extension ring might both satisfy any need of the camera to function and take the rear of the bellows as a sleeve.

NB this is strictly for micro 4/3, the flange to sensor distance being 20mm, half that of 4/3.

The smaller sensor would require a lens with a wider angle than the 28mm used by Charles for a similar result. My best option would be the Tamron SP 17mm. (The closest focus without extension is 0.25m, the same as for the Tamron 24mm and 28mm and the OM 24mm).

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Harold,

Thanks for that info. Micro 4/3 cameras (as well as some of the other non-SLR cameras) have crossed my mind for this "technique" because of the much shorter flange-to-sensor distances. As you mention, the lens is the "tricky" part. (Wish I had kept my Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 ASPH :cry:). 28mm on full-frame (24x36mm) is pretty good. I think 24mm would be even a little nicer. So the focal length "issue" makes finding appropriate lenses for smaller formats tricky without investing considerable money into the few that might prove suitable.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Where unmodified OM lenses could be used I wonder if one could substitute a macro lens for a conventional lens of the same focal length as the stack moved outwards (as the camera moves forwards, closing the bellows).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the wideangle scenario: For example, starting in close with the Zuiko 80mm auto bellows (long range of working distance, AOV at closest 9 degrees) and replacing it with, say, the Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 35-80mm (OM mount), set at 80mm (AOV 30 degrees?) for frames out to infinity for the frames out to infinity. The closest working distances and magnification ranges of the two lenses overlap.

http://www.alanwood.net/photography/oly ... 80-4a.html

http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/01A.html

Even if the images work together for perspective, is the extreme magnification range going to preclude stacking?

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic