1-5x macro lens

[nto]

- Will be performing stacking

I saw some amazing pictures Nikkor 50mm EL reversed on bellows and I'm also wondering if this can produce such sharp images over wide range of magnifications.

the Nikkor 50mm EL at f/2.8-f/4-f/5.6 and unusable for stacking, becomes very strong at f/11, for stacking and preferable f/4 and f/5.6, enlarger lenses Apo Rodenstock and better to f/4 and f/5.6 (stacking programs work better with open diaphragms, and blur background is better),
for stacking whereas high cost apo rodenstock, the best choice and objective 4x microscope.

ciao

[rovebeetle]

The newer ones have tilt and shift, as Canon ones have had for many years, whereas the original PC Nikkors only had shift.

Yes, that's a real improvement. However, the "older" 85PC also has both tilt and shift - but it is by far not as old as the unchipped 28mm and 35mm lenses.

Cheers

[Mike B in OKlahoma]

I've spoken of the MP-E-65 a lot in these forums in the past, do a search for extensive pontificating by me and others. Sounds like you are experienced and realize the problems with DOF and simply finding the subject that you'll experience at these magnifications.


As for the Canon EOS 40D not having enough megapixels, I wouldn't let that bother you. The difference between 10 and 12 megapixels won't be noticeable in your final photographs, unless perhaps you are printing at 13 by 19 inches or somesuch! Once you get past 8 megapixels, even a 50% increase in megapixels will take careful viewing to spot at 8.5 by 11 inches, and almost impossible to find at smaller print sizes. I think I can tell the difference between 6 and 8 megapixels at 8.5 by 11 inches on a photo with lots of fine detail (such as a landscape with tree leaves), but it's not a big difference, and many of the internet experts (self-proclaimed and otherwise) say I shouldn't be able to (and they may be right).

This article is informative about pixels and print size, and the author is well-respected (when I look at his figures, he agrees that I might be able to tell the difference between 6 and 8 megapixels at 8.5 by 11 inches!).

http://bythom.com/printsizes.htm

[DaveW]

From what I have read in the past people forget that the Megapixel count is an area not a linear matter. It was said therefore to see the same increase in resolution camera model to camera model it becomes a doubling sequence.

So to see the same increase in quality as from 2 to 4 Megapixels the next step would not be an extra 2 Megapixels, but to 8 Megapixels and then 16 Megapixels in the series 2-4-8-16-32-64.

Therefore the increase in quality with every new camera is in fact rapidly slowing down since the manufacturers are still only progressing in say 2 Megapixel steps instead of the doubling sequence. Soon just adding 2 extra Megapixels on a new model will mean the increase is virtually undetectable even in the laboratory.

However, that does not mean image quality is not increasing with new cameras, but it is now usually the associated noise reduction and other electronics around the sensor that is leading to most of the increase, or the move to full frame 35mm film sized sensors which mean larger sized pixel sites and lower pixel site density for the same number of pixels so lower noise etc. Obviously you do not need to enlarge the image from a larger sensor as much to obtain the same sized print so quality improves.

I may have misunderstood it, and no doubt somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but simply adding 2 Megapixels to each new camera is more a marketing gimmick now than any real improvement.

These links are a bit out of date now but do sum the matter up:-

http://www.majid.info/mylos/stories/200 ... pixel.html

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

http://www.thetechlounge.com/articles.php?id=121

DaveW

[puzzledpaul]

George - Whilst I'm nowhere near as experienced as other ppl around re using the mpe, a few issues I've experienced have been mentioned here - following on from Ken's post.

pp

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=5283

[Mike B in OKlahoma]

Paul's posts mention using the "modeling light" feature of the Canon macro flashes (MT-24 and MT-14) for focusing, but that doesn't work for me in most field shooting. For me at least, the modeling light doesn't last long enough. And it can't last too long, else it will overheat the flash and damage it.

Also, the mounting ring won't fit on the lens when mounted on my aging Canon 1Ds.

Just a couple more of the many challenges to using this lens! But you can't have mine, sorry!

[puzzledpaul]

Thx, Mike for those comments - I've never used either of those 2 dedicated macro lighting setups.

There's currently a (barely) used 14ex in a local cam shop which I've been looking at - first I've seen 'in the flesh' - but again, I don't like the way that the end of the lens 'diameter' is effectively increased by the annular width of the flash unit. This again increases the angle that you're 'looking down' on the subject - if resting the camera / lens combo on the same surface - a useful 'prop' - esp. at the higher mags.

There's no such heat / 'on' duration problems with the LED based ring I made (get about 7 hrs running from one charge and on/off switch - no timer) ...and I leave them on during pic taking.

In some pics (FFly overheads) they sometimes (depending on angle) create a shimmering effect that I quite like.

<< But you can't have mine ... >>

Ditto

pp