Im learning extreme macro using a clone of amScope objective 4x in my Z6 and a 3d printed extension tube.
- I’m using continue LED light and I’ve tried 1/60 and 1/1000 with similar results regarding sharpness. I’m stacking around 30 photos or more.
I see so many examples with extreme sharp images but I’m unable to get that. What am I missing?
- Flash is a must for that even when the exposure is right?
- The problem is that my objective is a clone, not a genuine amScope?
*Im getting a Laowa 2-5x to test the difference.
My setup and a sample photo.
https://ibb.co/WzVT2Bp
https://ibb.co/VQSS87D
Unable to get crisp images with amScope clone
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
Scarodactyl
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Unable to get crisp images with amScope clone
There are at least two completely different optical designs that look externally identical (https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 25&t=44363). I say at least two because even some people with the correct-looking design have had poor performance (https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 8&p=280536).
It seems likely that the good batch of these was a fluke.
It seems likely that the good batch of these was a fluke.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Re: Unable to get crisp images with amScope clone
Duveral, welcome aboard.
I have downloaded and studied the image at https://ibb.co/VQSS87D (image URL https://i.ibb.co/WPyy1bF/CFAB98-D4-4967 ... B78858.jpg ).
What I see does not make me think that you have a bad lens. Image quality at the center of the frame looks OK, and more importantly, image quality on the edge and corner is not much different from center. On edge and corner I do not see any of the extreme softness and astigmatism that we usually see with bad lenses.
So, I am wondering if there are issues with technique and expectations.
First, regarding expectations... At 4X and NA 0.10, the objective will be effective f/20 from the standpoint of the sensor. On 24 megapixel fullframe, the optical image will be quite soft at the scale of actual pixels, due to diffraction blurring. This is normal and unavoidable. The softness can be partially compensated by digital sharpening, but you are never going to get clean bright/dark/bright/dark transitions at the scale of camera pixels.
Second, regarding technique... Metadata inside the image shows 1/125 second, no flash, ISO 640. I do not see indication of motion blur, but I do see a lot of pixel noise, consistent with the high ISO followed by stacking and digital sharpening. If this were mine, I would shoot at lower ISO, preferably the camera's base ISO, and either add light or increase the exposure time to get a good exposure. Certainly switching to flash would reduce concerns about motion blur.
One odd thing is that the image served by https://ibb.co/VQSS87D is of size 3214 x 2176 pixels. I do not find that as any of the Z6 native modes shown at https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ ... -z6DAT.HTM , so I'm not sure how to match up what I see against what the camera captured.
Can you clarify please, how did the image get to size 3214 x 2176 pixels?
One last thing, I do not see a problem with glare but I have to check: are those extension tubes flocked?
--Rik
I have downloaded and studied the image at https://ibb.co/VQSS87D (image URL https://i.ibb.co/WPyy1bF/CFAB98-D4-4967 ... B78858.jpg ).
What I see does not make me think that you have a bad lens. Image quality at the center of the frame looks OK, and more importantly, image quality on the edge and corner is not much different from center. On edge and corner I do not see any of the extreme softness and astigmatism that we usually see with bad lenses.
So, I am wondering if there are issues with technique and expectations.
First, regarding expectations... At 4X and NA 0.10, the objective will be effective f/20 from the standpoint of the sensor. On 24 megapixel fullframe, the optical image will be quite soft at the scale of actual pixels, due to diffraction blurring. This is normal and unavoidable. The softness can be partially compensated by digital sharpening, but you are never going to get clean bright/dark/bright/dark transitions at the scale of camera pixels.
Second, regarding technique... Metadata inside the image shows 1/125 second, no flash, ISO 640. I do not see indication of motion blur, but I do see a lot of pixel noise, consistent with the high ISO followed by stacking and digital sharpening. If this were mine, I would shoot at lower ISO, preferably the camera's base ISO, and either add light or increase the exposure time to get a good exposure. Certainly switching to flash would reduce concerns about motion blur.
One odd thing is that the image served by https://ibb.co/VQSS87D is of size 3214 x 2176 pixels. I do not find that as any of the Z6 native modes shown at https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ ... -z6DAT.HTM , so I'm not sure how to match up what I see against what the camera captured.
Can you clarify please, how did the image get to size 3214 x 2176 pixels?
One last thing, I do not see a problem with glare but I have to check: are those extension tubes flocked?
--Rik