Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BUG RIDERS LOVE THE 20D !!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 8:42:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42768262

More about : bug riders love 20d

May 1, 2005 4:23:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42768262


Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you
will see what I'm talking about. I got a shot with an inverted lens on a
tele but the quality is awful.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 6:22:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:

>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42768262

Nice. By the way, your "bee" isn't a bee, it's a "Syrphid Fly"
(probably Metasyrphus Americanus?):

http://www.cirrusimage.com/Flies_hover.htm

Bees don't have sponging mouths like flies. Theirs are more
munching/licking:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/ceos/Insects4.html

Perhaps you could work on a nice series of insect tongues for us?

--
Ken Tough
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:31:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you

>will see what I'm talking about.

Now where am I gonna get one of those?
May 2, 2005 2:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

>>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you
>
>
>>will see what I'm talking about.
>
>
> Now where am I gonna get one of those?


What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :-)
Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
some major vingetting):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
May 3, 2005 5:23:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>>>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you

> Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
> some major vingetting):
>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
> I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
> with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg

100% crop

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:23:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>
>>Annika1980 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill, you
>
>
>>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
>>some major vingetting):
>>
>
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
>
>>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
>>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
>
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg
>
> 100% crop
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg



OK, I'm beat, what's your specs?



--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 3, 2005 6:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/full5.jpg
>>
>> 100% crop
>>
>> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg
>
>
>
> OK, I'm beat, what's your specs?
>
>
>

E-300 w/ manual focus OM 80mm F4 macro lens on a bellows, no flash f8 @ 1/2
second. I have to say your shot handheld is amazing for that magnification
without a flash. I'd never -even- attempt that!

You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a longish zoom
and aren't that expencive.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:25:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a
> longish zoom and aren't that expencive.

Do the 5T/6T work ok on lenses that take 52mm accessories (e.g. 80-200/4.5)
if you use a 52-62 step-up ring? The 62mm stuff is more expensive but if
it works on both sizes of lens then it probably makes more sense to just
get it.

Also, how much does the max magnification of, say, a 200mm lens with a
6T depend on the close focus distance of the unadorned 200mm lens?

Thanks.
May 3, 2005 6:54:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
>> You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a
>> longish zoom and aren't that expencive.
>
> Do the 5T/6T work ok on lenses that take 52mm accessories (e.g.
> 80-200/4.5)
> if you use a 52-62 step-up ring?

Yep.

> The 62mm stuff is more expensive but if
> it works on both sizes of lens then it probably makes more sense to just
> get it.

That's what I figured. I use it on my 50-200 ZD zoom and also on a 55-110
zoom on my mamiya 645. Both of these are 67mm so have to use a step down
ring which is no problem focused this close. Also have used it on the ZD
50mm which is a 52mm size and it works fine.

>
> Also, how much does the max magnification of, say, a 200mm lens with a
> 6T depend on the close focus distance of the unadorned 200mm lens?
>

It does depend on how close the native lens focuses, but my mamiya lens
doesn't focus very close at all and I can get really good flower closeups
with it. The best part of these good types of closeup lenses is you don't
lose any light like a ext tube does and it will work on any camera you ever
own.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:32:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <dLqdnSLA3q3dXejfRVn-rg@speakeasy.net>,
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :-)
>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
>some major vingetting):
><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:32:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <dLqdnSLA3q3dXejfRVn-rg@speakeasy.net>,
> paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :-)
>>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
>>some major vingetting):
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
>>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
>>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
>
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original


LOL OK you win!
(I didn't use flash though <grin> and was yours hand held?)
90mm macro on what?
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:50:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>OK, I'm beat, what's your specs?
>>
>
> E-300 w/ manual focus OM 80mm F4 macro lens on a bellows, no flash f8 @ 1/2
> second. I have to say your shot handheld is amazing for that magnification
> without a flash. I'd never -even- attempt that!


Well I took it out in full sun & the lens was leaning on the table so
not exactly hand held.

>
> You might try the nikon 6T filter, they work really well on a longish zoom
> and aren't that expencive.


I've got a +2 Canon 500D diopter 77mm thread. It didn't occur to me that
when zoomed in, I could use a smaller filter with a step down ring.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

>>Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill,
>>you will see what I'm talking about.
>
>
> Ok, how's this?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42926050/original


Damn you!

It is pretty soft at full pixels but still I think you win the
competition given the texture of the paper fibers, even shrunk to match
JPS' shot. JPS's is really nice but has some of that over-active
highlight stuff that I was seeing wide open (sparkles on black ink), I
dunno maybe his is close to winning.

Brett (20D with killer micro specific lens):
http://jiki.pbase.com/u14/bret/upload/42926050.fiver.jp...

JPS (20D with 90mm macro & extension tubes):
http://k41.pbase.com/u10/jps_photo/upload/42881886.5dol...

Stacey (Oly with 80mm macro on a bellows):
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/crop5.jpg

Paul (D70 with something like 25 elements jerry rigged, full sun):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/misc-photos/2005-05-01-s...;
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:39:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>The rig went like this:
>550EX
>20D Canon1.4x 36,12,20mm_kenkos TamronSP2x Tamron90mmf/2.8

I used a similar setup for this one:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42926050/original

20D, 68mm of extension, 2x, 65mm MP-E lens

Here's one taken with the 65mm MP-E Macro by itself
without and extension tubes or teleconverter:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42936051

And here's a full-frame shot (reduced about 25%)
of the back of a US $20 dollar bill.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42936052
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:07:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <0dWdneIUv4o6auvfRVn-3w@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <dLqdnSLA3q3dXejfRVn-rg@speakeasy.net>,
>> paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What're you a foreigner? Don't you know this is a 'Merican forum? :-)
>>>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
>>>some major vingetting):
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
>>>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
>>>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original
>
>
>LOL OK you win!
>(I didn't use flash though <grin> and was yours hand held?)
>90mm macro on what?

The rig went like this:


550EX

20D Canon1.4x 36,12,20mm_kenkos TamronSP2x Tamron90mmf/2.8

F5.6, 1/250, flash, lying on a corkboard, bill propped up by spring
clamp.

The pixels are original pixels, cropped from the full 8MP image.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:07:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <0dWdneIUv4o6auvfRVn-3w@speakeasy.net>,
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Actually I got it to come out pretty good later by stopping down (with
>>>>some major vingetting):
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-phot...;
>>>>I posted in another thread about the wierd optical problems I've got
>>>>with this setup shooting reflective stuff wide open.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/42881886/original
>>
>
>
> The rig went like this:
>
> 550EX
>
> 20D Canon1.4x 36,12,20mm_kenkos TamronSP2x Tamron90mmf/2.8


So 90mm macro on multiple extension tubes &/or teleconverters if I'm
reading that right. Thanks for that & the settings. I guess that lens
ain't too bad if it does so well at 5x magnification wide open. I needed
to stop down to f/45 LOL! yeah 45, no decimal missing there.


>
> F5.6, 1/250, flash, lying on a corkboard, bill propped up by spring
> clamp.
>
> The pixels are original pixels, cropped from the full 8MP image.



--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:30:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> writes:
> Here's one taken with the 65mm MP-E Macro by itself
> without and extension tubes or teleconverter:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42936051

Must be nice and convenient and it's a high quality shot. The MP-E is
a little too rich for my blood but it makes me want to get one of
those 640x480 USB microscopes.

> And here's a full-frame shot (reduced about 25%)
> of the back of a US $20 dollar bill.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42936052

Oh cool! I'd have never recognized it.
May 4, 2005 3:32:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

>
>
> I've got a +2 Canon 500D diopter 77mm thread. It didn't occur to me that
> when zoomed in, I could use a smaller filter with a step down ring.
>

That and being focused closer both make it not cause any problems..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:26:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <OrOdnd-rgt4lZurfRVn-3A@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>So 90mm macro on multiple extension tubes &/or teleconverters if I'm
>reading that right.

Yep. 68mm of extension, 2.8x of TC, and a 90mm macro. It's as long as
my 100-400 zoom fully extended!

>Thanks for that & the settings. I guess that lens
>ain't too bad if it does so well at 5x magnification wide open. I needed
>to stop down to f/45 LOL! yeah 45, no decimal missing there.

Well, who knows what 45 on the ring turns out to be in the overall
optics.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:40:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <14SdnXgfN9ITuOXfRVn-sw@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>JPS's is really nice but has some of that over-active
>highlight stuff that I was seeing wide open (sparkles on black ink),

Well, that was a first attempt, and I didn't really optimize a few
things. I used direct flash (believe it or not, the lens was about 4
inches from the subject), and it was too dark in the viewfinder (no
modelling light) to perfect focus. I didn't try the two TCs stacked
right on top of each other; they were separated by the extension tubes.

You must say, this 90mm Tamron goes *way* beyond the call of duty.
Without the TCs, the original pixels would be at least this good with a
64MP, 1.6x crop sensor, or the center of a 164MP full-(35mm)frame
sensor!

This may be one of the sharpest lenses available for the EOS mount.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:40:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <14SdnXgfN9ITuOXfRVn-sw@speakeasy.net>,
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>JPS's is really nice but has some of that over-active
>>highlight stuff that I was seeing wide open (sparkles on black ink),
>
>
> Well, that was a first attempt, and I didn't really optimize a few
> things. I used direct flash (believe it or not, the lens was about 4
> inches from the subject), and it was too dark in the viewfinder (no
> modelling light) to perfect focus. I didn't try the two TCs stacked
> right on top of each other; they were separated by the extension tubes.
>
> You must say, this 90mm Tamron goes *way* beyond the call of duty.
> Without the TCs, the original pixels would be at least this good with a
> 64MP, 1.6x crop sensor, or the center of a 164MP full-(35mm)frame
> sensor!
>
> This may be one of the sharpest lenses available for the EOS mount.


LOL 164MP?!?!?, I don't know, I'm not the expert. It's all good to me!!
Thanks for the tests.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:02:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <OrOdnd-rgt4lZurfRVn-3A@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>I guess that lens
>ain't too bad if it does so well at 5x magnification wide open.

It wasn't wide open. The camera was set to 5.6, but it acknowledges the
2x, but not the 1.4x, so the real f-stop was 8 (and the real focal
length 252mm.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 10:37:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <0jlg711nmb92c1hocinf543f7pmtlmsn3i@4ax.com>,
JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <OrOdnd-rgt4lZurfRVn-3A@speakeasy.net>,
>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>I guess that lens
>>ain't too bad if it does so well at 5x magnification wide open.
>
>It wasn't wide open. The camera was set to 5.6, but it acknowledges the
>2x, but not the 1.4x, so the real f-stop was 8 (and the real focal
>length 252mm.

Sorry, I had that backwards. The camera saw the 1.4x, and not the 2x.
The lowest f-stop as far as the camera was concerned was f4, and I had
it a stop down at 5.6.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:46:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:

> >Bret, try taking a pic of the curly trim at the edge of a $5 bill,
> >you will see what I'm talking about.
>
> Ok, how's this?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/42926050/original

Try using it to take a shot of a sharp Velvia slide and compare that to what
your Minolta 5400 produces.

(At 5x, that's 2400 x 5 dpi or so, which is a lot more magnification than
the 5400 provides. Of course, you don't get the whole frame without a _lot_
of work<g>.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:29:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <NL-dnTq1cJnS5uXfRVn-jA@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>> You must say, this 90mm Tamron goes *way* beyond the call of duty.
>> Without the TCs, the original pixels would be at least this good with a
>> 64MP, 1.6x crop sensor, or the center of a 164MP full-(35mm)frame
>> sensor!

>> This may be one of the sharpest lenses available for the EOS mount.


>LOL 164MP?!?!?, I don't know, I'm not the expert. It's all good to me!!
>Thanks for the tests.

It has to be. The TCs don't make the main lens any sharper; they just
use what the main lens can resolve more efficiently given a fixed pixel
pitch. It is logical that if there was a sensor of the same size that
had 2.8x as many pixels per linear mm as my 8.2MP camera, that the lens
would be able to resolve the same way it did with the TCs, without them,
or better (air instead of TCs).

8.2MP * 2.8 * 2.8 = 64.288MP

For full-frame, that would be

64.288MP * 1.6 * 1.6 = 164.577MP.

Of course, such sensors would only be quiet up to about ISO 200, and
would have limited use.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 11:16:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Try using it to take a shot of a sharp Velvia slide and compare that to
what
your Minolta 5400 produces.

(At 5x, that's 2400 x 5 dpi or so, which is a lot more magnification
than
the 5400 provides. Of course, you don't get the whole frame without a
_lot_
of work<g>.)
----------------------------------

I tried it an got pretty good results. As you mentioned, the
magnification
increase is huge, at least 4x what I get from the 5400. Of course that

doesn't mean you're getting 4x the amount of detail, but there does
seem
to be a slight increase.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 12:51:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> Try using it to take a shot of a sharp Velvia slide and compare that to what
> your Minolta 5400 produces.
>
> (At 5x, that's 2400 x 5 dpi or so, which is a lot more magnification than
> the 5400 provides. Of course, you don't get the whole frame without a _lot_
> of work<g>.)


Lots of stitching eh?

I've been playing with slide duplicating at about 1:1 with 6MP to get
the whole slide & it's not too bad.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 8:35:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > Try using it to take a shot of a sharp Velvia slide and compare that to
what
> > your Minolta 5400 produces.
> >
> > (At 5x, that's 2400 x 5 dpi or so, which is a lot more magnification
than
> > the 5400 provides. Of course, you don't get the whole frame without a
_lot_
> > of work<g>.)
>
> Lots of stitching eh?

It would be worse here: my slides are 56x42, 56x56, and 56x70 mm.

> I've been playing with slide duplicating at about 1:1 with 6MP to get
> the whole slide & it's not too bad.

And a lot easier than scanning.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!