Taggart's Wood September 2018

Images of undisturbed subjects in their natural environment. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Taggart's Wood September 2018

Post by gardenersassistant »

These were captured at a local nature reserve a few days ago using a Raynox 150 close-up lens on a Panasonic FZ330 small sensor bridge camera and a Venus Optics KX800 twin flash with home-made multi-layer diffusion, using base ISO 100, 1/1000 sec and minimum aperture of f/8, equivalent to f/45 on full frame in terms of depth of field and loss of detail from diffraction.

The raw files were longlisted using Fast Picture Viewer and the longlisted images were batch processed in DXO PhotoLab (producing DNG files), Silkypix Developer Pro (DNG in, TIFF out) and Lightroom Classic CC (Tiff in) with image-specific adjustments then applied in Lightroom (JPEG out).

The images are taken from this album at Flickr where there are 1400 pixel high versions of these and other images from that session.

#1
Image

#2
Image

#3
Image

#4
Image

#5
Image

#6
Image
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

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

Post by ChrisR »

I'sd say it was a successful session!.
I think that as you're using the Raynox, f/8 isn't quite as "bad" as f/45, but point taken, it's small.
Chris R

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

ChrisR wrote:I'sd say it was a successful session!.
Thanks. It was slighly better than the rest of the year so far, when I found few subjects and very little variety in what I did find. In fact it was so discouraging that I stopped photographing invertebrates completely for several months in the middle of the year. In our garden and the local nature reserves it seems to have been getting progressively worse over the past decade.
ChrisR wrote:I think that as you're using the Raynox, f/8 isn't quite as "bad" as f/45, but point taken, it's small.
As far as I can tell it does seem to be around f/45 equivalent (around f/28 for Canon APS-C). This is from Cambridge in Colour.

Image

Image

Their calculations fit with my experience with three sensor sizes (1/2.3", m43 and APS-C) and close-up lenses vs macro lenses (where it gets more complicated because of the effect of magnification on effective aperture for macro lenses, extension tubes etc but not for close-up lenses).

Real world, out in the field like for like examples are a bit difficult to come by with invertebrates, but as an example there are some comparisons here and here of fairly similar scenes using 1/2.3" f/8 and Canon APS-C f/29 and f/32, both cameras using the same Raynox 150 close-up lens.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

gardenersassistant wrote:
ChrisR wrote: wrote:
I think that as you're using the Raynox, f/8 isn't quite as "bad" as f/45, but point taken, it's small.
As far as I can tell it does seem to be around f/45 equivalent (around f/28 for Canon APS-C). This is from Cambridge in Colour...
I agree, f/8 on the DMC-FZ330 is equivalent to effective f/45 on full frame and f/28 on APS-C.

The relationship is simple: two apertures are equivalent for DOF and diffraction if their effective f-numbers are in direct proportion to sensor size.

The FZ330 has sensor size 4.5 x 6.2 mm [ref], which makes it between 5.33 and 5.8 times smaller than full frame, depending on which axis we're considering. Looking at the diagonal, the number is 5.65, and then 8*5.65 = f/45.2 on full frame equivalent to f/8 on FZ330. A similar calculation gives f/28 on APS-C.

No correction is needed on the FZ330, because there the camera's lens is focused at or near infinity anyway. On full frame or APS-C, you might need to set a different number depending on camera and optics, but in all cases the equivalent effective aperture would be f/45 or f/28 depending on sensor size.

This illustrates one case where a small-sensor camera can legitimately claim to allow more DOF than a DSLR, since even at long focus the FZ330 allows f/8 to be set, in contrast to full frame or APS-C where f/45 or f/28 will not be settable with many lenses. The tradeoff between DOF and diffraction is the same for all sensor sizes, but here the small-sensor camera can reach a point on the operating curve that the larger cameras may not be able to reach using standard optics.

Nice pictures, BTW! :D

--Rik

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

Post by ChrisR »

Thanks - error found - I had the sensor as "2/3", not "1/2.3", which would have made it 8.8mm wide.
Chris R

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

rjlittlefield wrote:The relationship is simple: two apertures are equivalent for DOF and diffraction if their effective f-numbers are in direct proportion to sensor size.

The FZ330 has sensor size 4.5 x 6.2 mm [ref], which makes it between 5.33 and 5.8 times smaller than full frame, depending on which axis we're considering. Looking at the diagonal, the number is 5.65, and then 8*5.65 = f/45.2 on full frame equivalent to f/8 on FZ330. A similar calculation gives f/28 on APS-C.
Thanks Rik, that is very useful to know.
rjlittlefield wrote:No correction is needed on the FZ330, because there the camera's lens is focused at or near infinity anyway. On full frame or APS-C, you might need to set a different number depending on camera and optics, but in all cases the equivalent effective aperture would be f/45 or f/28 depending on sensor size.

This illustrates one case where a small-sensor camera can legitimately claim to allow more DOF than a DSLR, ....
... up to a point ...
rjlittlefield wrote: .... since even at long focus the FZ330 allows f/8 to be set, in contrast to full frame or APS-C where f/45 or f/28 will not be settable with many lenses. The tradeoff between DOF and diffraction is the same for all sensor sizes, but here the small-sensor camera can reach a point on the operating curve that the larger cameras may not be able to reach using standard optics.
... but only, typically, up to magnifications of around 1:1 for full frame, beyond which the full frame can have greater depth of field (and will have greater loss of detail/sharpness) than the FZ330 at f/8.

Reasoning (you obviously know this Rik, this is intended for any readers for whom this is new, and for me to get my understanding of it checked!): The FZ330, having a fixed lens, can only use close-up lenses, and with close-up lenses the effective aperture does not change with magnification. (I haven't found this clearly documented anywhere, but my own experiments are consistent with this being the case, with a demonstration of it from 3:00 to 5:20 in this video.) So, with the FZ330, f/45 full frame equivalent is the minimum achievable aperture whatever the magnification.

In contrast, with f/22 set on a macro lens on a full frame setup at a magnification of 1:1 the effective aperture is f/45, since effective aperture = (approximately) nominal aperture * (1+magnification). Beyond 1:1, the full frame at f/22 will have a smaller effective aperture and therefore greater depth of field, and greater loss of detail/sharpness from diffraction, than the FZ330 at f/8.

If my calculations are correct (happy to be corrected if they are not) Canon APS-C at 1:1 reaches f/45 full frame equivalent at around f/14 set on the camera and micro four thirds at 1:1 reaches f/45 full frame equivalent at around f/11 set on the camera. Decreasing the aperture and/or increasing the magnification will in either case give greater depth of field and greater diffraction losses than the FZ330 at f/8.

rjlittlefield wrote:Nice pictures, BTW! :D

--Rik
Thanks. :)
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

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

Post by ChrisR »

Ah, so my error has opened a little bit of a can'o'worms :).

I'll leave Rik to that, but one small point from your video, something you probably wouldn't have had exposure to: with manufacutrers' own macro lenses, Canon and Nikon are different. Nikon's recent lenses cause the effective aperture to be reported on the camera as you focus close, Canon's don't. Just to complicate things.
Chris R

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

ChrisR wrote:Ah, so my error has opened a little bit of a can'o'worms :).
Oh, I think it's great when something opens up a substantive discussion, especially one that may be helpful, both to those involved and those reading about it.
ChrisR wrote:I'll leave Rik to that, but one small point from your video, something you probably wouldn't have had exposure to: with manufacutrers' own macro lenses, Canon and Nikon are different. Nikon's recent lenses cause the effective aperture to be reported on the camera as you focus close, Canon's don't. Just to complicate things.
Indeed so. I should perhaps of mentioned it. The problem is that my stuff tends to get quite lengthy and it's difficult to know where to draw the line.

One thing I am curious about though regarding Nikon, do their cameras report effective aperture with non-Nikon lenses? Obviously it can't for non-communicating lenses (can you use lenses like that on Nikon, are there adapters?), but for non-Nikon lenses that do communicate with the camera? Looking again at what you wrote, "Nikon's recent lenses" suggests not, for any other lenses, Nikon or otherwise.

Similar curiosity regarding extension tubes and teleconverters (Are there any Nikon teleconverters that work with their macro lenses?)
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

gardenersassistant wrote:The FZ330, having a fixed lens, can only use close-up lenses, and with close-up lenses the effective aperture does not change with magnification. (I haven't found this clearly documented anywhere...
A simple explanation goes like this: The effective aperture is determined by the exit pupil of the optics, as seen by the sensor. In turn, the exit pupil is determined by the limiting aperture and the lenses behind it, and only by those things. Adding a closeup lens does not change the limiting aperture or the lenses behind it, so the exit pupil does not change, so neither does the effective aperture.

It is possible to change the effective aperture by adding optics in front of the FZ330's lens, but only by introducing a new limiting aperture. For example if you point the FZ330 down the eyepiece of a microscope, ignore whatever vignetting you get, and stick on an objective with sufficiently high magnification and low NA, then the objective can become the limiting aperture even within the non-vignetted image area. The same thing could be done without the microscope, by just sticking an added aperture in front of the FZ330's own lens. In both these scenarios, opening the FZ330 as wide as possible will reduce vignetting.

--Rik

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

rjlittlefield wrote:
gardenersassistant wrote:The FZ330, having a fixed lens, can only use close-up lenses, and with close-up lenses the effective aperture does not change with magnification. (I haven't found this clearly documented anywhere...
A simple explanation goes like this: The effective aperture is determined by the exit pupil of the optics, as seen by the sensor. In turn, the exit pupil is determined by the limiting aperture and the lenses behind it, and only by those things. Adding a closeup lens does not change the limiting aperture or the lenses behind it, so the exit pupil does not change, so neither does the effective aperture.
Thanks so much Rik. That is extremely helpful (and instantly bookmarked).
rjlittlefield wrote:It is possible to change the effective aperture by adding optics in front of the FZ330's lens, but only by introducing a new limiting aperture. For example if you point the FZ330 down the eyepiece of a microscope, ignore whatever vignetting you get, and stick on an objective with sufficiently high magnification and low NA, then the objective can become the limiting aperture even within the non-vignetted image area. The same thing could be done without the microscope, by just sticking an added aperture in front of the FZ330's own lens. In both these scenarios, opening the FZ330 as wide as possible will reduce vignetting.

--Rik
Trying to get my head around this I just did a quick and dirty (hand-held) experiment. I put a Raynox MSN-505 on a 14-140 at 40mm on a Panasonic G80. This one used f/22.

Image

This one used f/4.7.

Image

As you said, the one with the larger aperture has less vignetting. But how does this relate to (changes in?) the effective aperture caused by something in front of the camera lens? My mind has gone blank on this.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

gardenersassistant wrote:As you said, the one with the larger aperture has less vignetting. But how does this relate to (changes in?) the effective aperture caused by something in front of the camera lens? My mind has gone blank on this.
First, let me explain the images that you've shown.

In the setup with MSN-505 in front of a 14-140 camera lens set at 40mm, there are two potentially limiting apertures: the one built into the camera lens, and the barrel of the MSN-505.

The vignette is caused by those two apertures fighting with each other.

In the outer portion of the vignette, where the image is solid black, the two apertures don't overlap even a little bit. If you look into the front of the combo from those positions in the field of view, you'll see that the camera lens aperture is completely hidden by the barrel of the MSN-505.

In the graded portion of the vignette, where the image is darkened but still shows detail, the two apertures overlap to some extent, more toward the center of the field and less toward the outside. If you look into the front of the combo from these positions in the field of view, you'll see that the camera lens aperture is partially hidden by the barrel of the MSN-505.

In the central portion of the field, where the image is not even darkened, the two apertures overlap completely, and the one in the camera lens is smaller. If you look into the front of the combo from these positions, you'll see that the camera lens aperture is completely visible. As a result, in this area the effective aperture, with its corresponding DOF and diffraction, is entirely determined by the aperture inside the camera lens.

Now getting back to your question...

To see a change in the effective aperture caused by adding something in front of the camera lens, you need to use an added something with a hole that is smaller than the entrance pupil of the camera lens.

As a next experiment, I suggest to remove the MSN-505, grab a piece of black paper that is large enough to completely cover the front of camera lens, poke a pinhole in it, and let the camera look through the pinhole. In this setup, the pinhole will always be limiting, even in the center of the field. Using your 14-140 camera lens, you will certainly have large areas that are vignetted to black, probably even on its longest telephoto setting. But in whatever areas are not black or graded, the effective aperture will be determined by the pinhole, not by the aperture in the camera lens. In those areas you'll get the DOF and diffraction of the pinhole, with the aperture in the camera lens only controlling how large the vignette is.

See http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoPa ... xPoint.pdf, especially pages 4-7, for discussion of what happens when the added pinhole moves. (Quick summary: the center of perspective moves with it!)

--Rik

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

rjlittlefield wrote:
gardenersassistant wrote:As you said, the one with the larger aperture has less vignetting. But how does this relate to (changes in?) the effective aperture caused by something in front of the camera lens? My mind has gone blank on this.
First, let me explain the images that you've shown.

In the setup with MSN-505 in front of a 14-140 camera lens set at 40mm, there are two potentially limiting apertures: the one built into the camera lens, and the barrel of the MSN-505.

The vignette is caused by those two apertures fighting with each other.

In the outer portion of the vignette, where the image is solid black, the two apertures don't overlap even a little bit. If you look into the front of the combo from those positions in the field of view, you'll see that the camera lens aperture is completely hidden by the barrel of the MSN-505.

In the graded portion of the vignette, where the image is darkened but still shows detail, the two apertures overlap to some extent, more toward the center of the field and less toward the outside. If you look into the front of the combo from these positions in the field of view, you'll see that the camera lens aperture is partially hidden by the barrel of the MSN-505.

In the central portion of the field, where the image is not even darkened, the two apertures overlap completely, and the one in the camera lens is smaller. If you look into the front of the combo from these positions, you'll see that the camera lens aperture is completely visible. As a result, in this area the effective aperture, with its corresponding DOF and diffraction, is entirely determined by the aperture inside the camera lens.

Now getting back to your question...

To see a change in the effective aperture caused by adding something in front of the camera lens, you need to use an added something with a hole that is smaller than the entrance pupil of the camera lens.
Ah, now I understand!
rjlittlefield wrote:As a next experiment, I suggest to remove the MSN-505, grab a piece of black paper that is large enough to completely cover the front of camera lens, poke a pinhole in it, and let the camera look through the pinhole. In this setup, the pinhole will always be limiting, even in the center of the field. Using your 14-140 camera lens, you will certainly have large areas that are vignetted to black, probably even on its longest telephoto setting. But in whatever areas are not black or graded, the effective aperture will be determined by the pinhole, not by the aperture in the camera lens. In those areas you'll get the DOF and diffraction of the pinhole, with the aperture in the camera lens only controlling how large the vignette is.

See http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoPa ... xPoint.pdf, especially pages 4-7, for discussion of what happens when the added pinhole moves. (Quick summary: the center of perspective moves with it!)

--Rik
Brilliant explanations; so clear. Thank you!
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

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

Post by ChrisR »

One thing I am curious about though regarding Nikon, do their cameras report effective aperture with non-Nikon lenses? Obviously it can't for non-communicating lenses (can you use lenses like that on Nikon, are there adapters?), but for non-Nikon lenses that do communicate with the camera? Looking again at what you wrote, "Nikon's recent lenses" suggests not, for any other lenses, Nikon or otherwise.

Similar curiosity regarding extension tubes and teleconverters (Are there any Nikon teleconverters that work with their macro lenses?)
Some of the old, electrically connected, Nikon lenses don't do it but I don't know the point of change. No, Nikon don't make any electrically connected extension tubes (sigh!) but others have done. Then you get in a pickle with your Micro Nikkor showing 2 stops smaller EA at 1:1, then you put tubes on it and the EA is, er, something else - which you have to scratch your head about. I prefer the Canon way!
Sigma macro lenses - pass, (@Robert??)
Converters do show the EA, to the extent that I've used them, in that the additional 1, 2, or whatever stops is shown in the camera.
Chris R

gardenersassistant
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 5:21 am
Location: North Somerset, England

Post by gardenersassistant »

ChrisR wrote:
One thing I am curious about though regarding Nikon, do their cameras report effective aperture with non-Nikon lenses? Obviously it can't for non-communicating lenses (can you use lenses like that on Nikon, are there adapters?), but for non-Nikon lenses that do communicate with the camera? Looking again at what you wrote, "Nikon's recent lenses" suggests not, for any other lenses, Nikon or otherwise.

Similar curiosity regarding extension tubes and teleconverters (Are there any Nikon teleconverters that work with their macro lenses?)
Some of the old, electrically connected, Nikon lenses don't do it but I don't know the point of change. No, Nikon don't make any electrically connected extension tubes (sigh!) but others have done. Then you get in a pickle with your Micro Nikkor showing 2 stops smaller EA at 1:1, then you put tubes on it and the EA is, er, something else - which you have to scratch your head about. I prefer the Canon way!
Thanks. I did wonder if it might get confusing as between those that do and those that don't.
ChrisR wrote:Sigma macro lenses - pass, (@Robert??)
Converters do show the EA, to the extent that I've used them, in that the additional 1, 2, or whatever stops is shown in the camera.
Nick

Flickr
Blog
Journey since 2007

Rework and reposts of my images posted in this forum are always welcome, especially if they come with an explanation of what you did and how you did it.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic