Macro

[Vivek]

There have been a few threads recently. One of my interests is macro photography (ie 1x or greater magnifications). An year ago, I posted some shots with a Leitz Milar 10cm lens on G1.

Extension tubes, focus mounts from salvaged lenses, bellows, anything and everything is used in my set-up.

Lighting and stability (camera set-up as well as specimens) is a major issue.

The intention is to share an image or two and to exchange any tips and tricks from everyone. So, post anything (images) you have got at or above 1X.

Here is a recent capture of a live tick @ 8X. The insect was <2mm in length and was cleaning its legs while sitting on a piece of fruit. It was lit up by two fluorescent lamps. An ancient Leitz Summar 24mm f/2 on extension tubes mounted on a G1 was the imaging system. The camera was on a focus rail which was supported on a tripod (ISO100, 1/100s, cable release, ~f11).

The set-up was not all that stable as I would have liked (something similar to an Aristophot set-up is available to me but that behometh was elsewhere.)

Next time, the tripod would stand on concrete (and not wooden) floors.

 

[Irwell]

 

[Vivek]

Irwell, Would you care to add any information on the gear/technique associated with that image?

 

[JerryMK]

Hi Vivek. I also have Macro as a favorite facet of photography.

G1. Tokina ATX 90mm with Macro extender mounted. Fl360 external flash. Handheld.

These were shot using G1 a FL/FD Bellows with a Canon 50mm F1.4 lens mounted. Fl360 Flash. Handheld.

These guys are somewhat like .5 mm in size.

 

[Irwell]

Irwell, Would you care to add any information on the gear/technique associated with that image?

I didn't really want to upset the apple cart, but
that shot was taken with a Sony W300 P&S, hand held
using a 2x cheapo close up lens.

I do own the Panasonic G1 with additional lenses also,

 

[Vivek]

What apple cart?!

BTW, the very reason I asked for the gear details was the quality of the image shown here.

Any idea on the magnifications? Do you really think it would be 1X or over that?

 

[petermcwerner]

There have been a few threads recently. One of my interests is macro photography (ie 1x or greater magnifications).
...
So, post anything (images) you have got at or above 1X.

Hi Vivek,
I am getting a bit confused by the magnification issue. What is the meaning of at or above 1X Do you refer to the size of the image on the sensor of that particular camera? In that case the 1x would be different for cameras with different sensor sizes.

On the other hand, if you look at a picture on screen or print, the apparent magnification depends on the dimensions of the screen/print. See for instance my pictures in the Macro options for m4/3 thread. There I stated the apparent magnification explicitely for my screen. A flower that is 12mm wide will appear different if you show a 900 pixel web post or an A3 print and/or a different crop.

Could you please bring some clarity into this issue?

Thanks
Peter

 

[Vivek]

Peter,

If an object of 17.3mm wide fills the frame in your G1 (horizontal) then the magnification is 1X. On a Nikon D700, the same object would fill only half the frame.

The tick shown here was <2mm long hence 8X magnification.

Enlargements made after the capture has nothing to do with the magnification factors during the shot.

Hope this helps.

 

[petermcwerner]

If an object of 17.3mm wide fills the frame in your G1 (horizontal) then the magnification is 1X. On a Nikon D700, the same object would fill only half the frame

1. Not really. If you take a picture of the same object that will look identical (say with a 150mm lens and corresponding extension rings), it will fill a bigger amount of the sensor, say 34mm. Would it then become 2x although the final image, once developed and re-sized to the same dimensions will look identical? (Let's forget for the arguments' sake the other variables, like the difference in sharpness because it will use more pixels)

2. How would you determine the magnification with a digital camera? If you open the file with one of the usual Raw Conversion or jpg viewing tools, you will not see the image at the actual size it had on the sensor. 100% (or 1:1) refers to the pixels and not to the sensor size.

If you select a preview size of 1:5 in the raw converter, the 12mm orchid taken with the G1 will measure 110mm on my screen. 110/5 = 22. The object size being 12mm, the magnification factor would thus be 22/12 = 1.83? Is that correct? But if you use a bigger or smaller screen, you would get a different result.

Thanks for your patience. I am certain this issue will also interest other users.

Peter

 

[Vivek]

Peter, Sorry. I tried.

 

[petermcwerner]

Peter, Sorry. I tried.

Thank you anyway, Vivek. I was intrigued by the question in your previous post: Any idea on the magnifications? Do you really think it would be 1X or over that?

 

[laptoprob]

Magnification is usually referred to as related to the capture phase in photography, not the display or projection. So it is confusing, but related to sensor size.
For more practical info in this multi-sensor era, the size of the subject is more illustrating.
Macro photography is something else than projecting or printing big.

 

[Vivek]

Peter,

If you already do not have it, I would strongly suggest that you get a copy (can be found used, easily and is fairly inexpensive) of:

Close-up photography & Photomacrography

Kodak publication No.12

ISBN 0-87985-206-2

Though that one is from 1977, nothing has changed when in comes to definitions or techniques.

 

[JerryMK]

Just added the Kiron MD 105mm f2.8 to my Macro lens collection. Using a MD/m43 mount adapter it works beautifully together with my G1.

Some first results...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I opened this thread and got scared the forum was being invaded by insects. You guys had me worried for a second. 3 Espresso's now and i feel much better. LOL

Great thread Vivek

 

[petermcwerner]

I opened this thread and got scared the forum was being invaded by insects. You guys had me worried for a second. 3 Espresso's now and i feel much better. LOL

Guy, you haven't seen anything yet. The troops are just starting to assemble for the mother of all invasions. You will need 30 Espressos...

Macro Switar 26mm/1.1 on G1 - ISO=100 1/30 @ F/5.6
​

 

[Ron Evers]

I inherited my dad's old Minolta kit containing 4 Minolta MC mount lenses. I have been playing around with them shooting macros using extension tubes on my Panasonic DMC G1. The 35mm/f2.8 is fairly sharp but requires me to be too close for insects, the 55mm/f1.7 is not as sharp but provides better working distance. However, the 100mm/f3.5 allows me to be back about 10" & still get decent magnification & IQ. Here I will provide an example from each lens; the camera is mounted on focusing rails on a tripod & the ISO set @ 400.


1. Green Pepper seeds on black felt, shot @ f16 with 35mm

2. Toothpicks, shot @ f16 with 55mm

3. Black Peppercorn in gator clip, shot @ f3.5 with 100mm

 

[madmaxmedia]

As laptoprob says, it has everything to do with capture and nothing to do with projection/viewing. So question 2 is out the window. I guess perhaps another way of looking at it, it is actually mainly an optical quality, and has little or nothing to do with even the sensor.

For question 1, Vivek's definition makes lens focal length irrelevant. All that matters is the size of the original object, and the size of the image being projected onto the sensor (which depends on focal length, subject distance, etc.)

Of course, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong...

1. Not really. If you take a picture of the same object that will look identical (say with a 150mm lens and corresponding extension rings), it will fill a bigger amount of the sensor, say 34mm. Would it then become 2x although the final image, once developed and re-sized to the same dimensions will look identical? (Let's forget for the arguments' sake the other variables, like the difference in sharpness because it will use more pixels)

2. How would you determine the magnification with a digital camera? If you open the file with one of the usual Raw Conversion or jpg viewing tools, you will not see the image at the actual size it had on the sensor. 100% (or 1:1) refers to the pixels and not to the sensor size.

If you select a preview size of 1:5 in the raw converter, the 12mm orchid taken with the G1 will measure 110mm on my screen. 110/5 = 22. The object size being 12mm, the magnification factor would thus be 22/12 = 1.83? Is that correct? But if you use a bigger or smaller screen, you would get a different result.

Thanks for your patience. I am certain this issue will also interest other users.

Peter

 

[madmaxmedia]

Those are wonderful shots, Ron!

 

[Vivek]

I opened this thread and got scared the forum was being invaded by insects. You guys had me worried for a second. 3 Espresso's now and i feel much better. LOL

Great thread Vivek

Guy, Thanks.

A Great forum deserves good threads.