Lighting for macro photography of fern gametophytes

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:12 am

This is the same setup with the MP-E lens on x5. It doesn't look quite so good.

Peter M. Macdonald · Post by **Peter M. Macdonald** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:54 am

Jen,

I am glad that your long journey seems to have reached a satisfactory destination. Well done for persevering.

Peter

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:30 am

Hi Peter,

I was thinking about you yesterday as I was writing it all up. Thanks for the encouragement. It really helped.

Jen

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:56 am

I just figured out that the missing shots are probably because the infra red remote control doesn't work in strong sunlight. The latest run was fine. Phew!

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:57 am

I took my kit to the exhibition today and came home with a trophy! Yay!

Thanks so much for all of your help. I told them all about this website, so you may get a few new visitors.

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:28 am

I tried again with the MP-E, but I think I need to try harder with directional lighting to get the sense of the shape of the fern. I'm not sure it's really as good as with the mity lens.

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:29 am

Do you think the resolution is maybe not great on these? I'm wondering if I'd be better to sell the MP-E and buy a 5x mity objective.

JohnyM · Post by **JohnyM** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:48 am

Mitutoyo 5x/0.14 and Canon have almost same theoretical resolving power (slight edge to canon actually, but that's assuming f2.8 is "sharpest"). Can you mark on the image, which part have detail that is unresolved and you would like to improve?

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:18 am

The image just doesn't look nearly as sharp as with the mity. Do you think there's some other reason maybe? These are the two images. Mity first.

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:18 am

The lighting was identical.

JohnyM · Post by **JohnyM** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:44 am

Sharpness and resolution are similar, but different things. By increasing resolution beyond nyquist criterium, you're getting just more sharpness, not detail.

So with 0.25 NA lens pushed to 5 you're throwing away detail that would be visible as non-sharp @10x, but your 5x image looks sharp.
On the other hand, sensor is already pushing Mp-E65 to its limits and you're pretty much getting everything the lens can resolve (not rly purists will say), but image looks not sharp.

You shuld see some confocal super-resolution images, they have amazing resolving power, but perceived sharpness is horrible. And on the other side you can check some wide angle photos that are tack sharp, but you cant see any cells in those.

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:47 am

I'm not quite following the technical language in that. Does that mean that the mity x5 would be better then the mp-e or not? Thanks! :-)

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:51 am

Remind us! IIRC:
Canon 5DMk2
Olympus 200mm prime
Canon 100mm macro
Canon MP-E65
Mitutoyo 10x NA 0.28
Nikon 20x NA 0.45?
80-200 zoom
50mm Oly macro 1:2
Tubes
2x converter
Am I missing anything relevant?
Did you try the Raynox route at all?

For slightly less than 10x magnification did you try the zoom lens (say at 180mm, infinity)+ Mitty 10x? (= 9x)
It would vignette quickly but might be ok.

With a full frame camera, corner coverage is going to be an issue, but if your subject is central and the corners are black anyway, something may be usable into a useful range.
Exactly how far you could push a Mitty 10x with a shorter "tube" lens I'm not sure.
The same question an be asked of a (cheaper) Nikon 10x NA 0.25. Not apo, but I think slightly wider FOV.

The MP-E is "pretty sharp" It might be worth your while doing a couple of tests to see if f/2.8 is sharper than f/4. Mine and Rik's are, Charlie's isn't.
Here's a snap or 8 with Charlie's fuzzy old

thing:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... =9757#9757 on a Canon 5D.
Pretty bloomin sharp.
Actually we don't know which lens is best at its best aperture,
but his and mine are both good enough for a magazine cover. Something looks a little OFF on your 5x pic, can you show us a 100% crop?

The only lens I can name confidently which should be better, is a Mitutoyo 7.5x, because of its wide image circle. But they are extra very expensive, and almost unheard of used. I bought one (c/o CS) and it was bad enough to send back, though it reappeared on ebay.

Don't forget directional lighting is likely to reduce your eff aperture, and therefore resolution, if you overdo it. I think you're making things hard having a black background, too.

Congrats on your award - it's been an adventure!

JohnyM · Post by **JohnyM** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:18 am

jsp wrote:I'm not quite following the technical language in that. Does that mean that the mity x5 would be better then the mp-e or not? Thanks! :-)

I dont own mitu, but theory sais they should be veeery similar in resolution and sharpness, which holds for my test of Mp-e65 vs Nikon Plan 4x/0.13.
However, Beatsy reports that his 5x/0.14 is (at least in the center) better than Mp-e65:
http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... e037b84f28

This also could be sample variation + specifics of this subject. I think in your case, you wouldnt see any difference, but it's just my guess.

jsp · Post by **jsp** » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:33 am

Thanks Chris :-) I'm really pleased to have finally got there, or at least to have got somewhere. :-)

This is the 100%

The kit I have is Canon 5d mkII, and Mitutoyo 10x + Olympus Zuiko 200mm prime, and MP-E.

A man I met at the meeting said he had a drawer full of Mity lenses and could lend me one, and I emailed him, but haven't heard back.

The Olympus lenses are much sharper than the Canon ones I have, across the board, so I'm inclined to stick with those. One option is perhaps to try the Mity 10x on an Olympus Zuiko 50mm that I already have for lower magnification, or there is also a 100mm that I have seen for sale quite cheaply. I gather it is also very sharp.

It's odd that the Olympus lenses are so much sharper. I wondered what they know that others don't?