Which system should I pursue?

Justwalking · Post by **Justwalking** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:58 pm

Lou Jost wrote:I can't think of anything more to say that hasn't been said....if he calculates the number of line pairs resolved across each sensor, and finds them to be the same, what more can he want?

Calculator about limnits of diffraction but ppl want to think that it not e?ist and still walking around simple geometry.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:21 pm

Justwalking wrote:Calculator about limnits of diffraction but ppl want to think that it not e?ist and still walking around simple geometry.

We definitely believe in diffraction. We also believe your calculator is computing the right numbers.

Lou Jost wrote:Now you don't believe your own calculator?
Why? I do, but others won't.

We believe the calculator's numbers. We just disagree with you about what those numbers mean.

Let's start a count of real achievable resolution of object by math not by manipulation of diffraction limited resolution on sensors.

Pixel pitch = 0.0015mm
Object space resolution: 1.5um/0.8 = 1.875um
Object space resolution lp/mm = 1000/1.875/2 = 266.7 lp/mm

Agreed so far. Here you are talking about the object space resolution of the pixels.

From this resolution Crop5 sensor on f/10 can resolve 149 lp/mm

No. You have suddenly switched from object space to image space. 149 lp/mm is the resolution in the image space.

I agree that the crop5 sensor at f/10 can resolve 149 lp/mm on the crop5 sensor. But 149 lp/mm on the crop5 sensor corresponds to 119.2 lp/mm on the subject, because this sensor is using a 0.8X lens. (149 *0.8 = 119.2)

Let's see about 1X 16 MP sensor

Pixel pitch = 0.00749mm
Object space resolution: 7.49/4 = 1.875um (same as on small sensor)
Object space resolution lp/mm = 1000/1.875/2 = 266.7 lp/mm

Agreed. Here you are talking about the object space resolution of the pixels.

From this FF can resolve 30 lp/mm on f/50

No. Again you have suddenly switched from object space to image space.

I agree that the crop1 sensor at f/50 can resolve only 29.8 lp/mm on the crop1 sensor. But 29.8 lp/mm on the crop1 sensor corresponds to 119.2 lp/mm on the subject, because this sensor is using a 4X lens. (29.8*4 = 119.2)

In math, it is important to only compare things that have the same units. We cannot just say "12 is bigger than 1" and ignore that those are 12 inches and 1 foot.

"lp/mm on the subject", "lp/mm on the crop1 sensor", and "lp/mm on the crop5 sensor" are three different units, just like feet and inches. You have to convert between them by taking the magnification into account. Converting everything to "lp/mm on the subject", the number is 119.2 lp/mm of diffraction-limited resolution, for both pairs of sensor+lens.

The mistake you are making is like comparing feet to yards and saying that 3 (feet) is much longer than 1 (yard). But they are both the same: 36 inches.

--Rik

Justwalking · Post by **Justwalking** » Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:39 pm

rjlittlefield wrote: We just disagree with you about what those numbers mean.

This numbers very simple. Calc did not know anything about your magnificstion. there effectife-F already which we insert corresponding to our magnification. F(eff)=f(m+1)

Lens is just lens as it is. And system resolution limited just from diffraction with given F on sensor or limited density of pixel on sensor.

Pixel pitch = 0.0015mm
Object space resolution: 1.5um/0.8 = 1.875um
Object space resolution lp/mm = 1000/1.875/2 = 266.7 lp/mm
Agreed so far. Here you are talking about the object space resolution of the pixels.

Were are you find the pixels, Rik? There lp/mm of object space resolution.

From this resolution Crop5 sensor on f/10 can resolve 149 lp/mm
No. You have suddenly switched from object space to image space. 149 lp/mm is the resolution in the image space.

I show already that image space not correspond with 149 as with 29 also.
Calc give it as the maximum theoretical resolution of the lens. Lens as it is per given F(eff). No matter Macro lens or Telelense. At F10 lens on FF give you same 149 lp/mm regardless of pixels quantity, 5 or 35.

I agree that the crop5 sensor at f/10 can resolve 149 lp/mm on the crop5 sensor. But 149 lp/mm on the crop5 sensor corresponds to 119.2 lp/mm on the subject, because this sensor is using a 0.8X lens. (149 *0.8 = 119.2)

Suddenly you switched to magnification again but it is already in calc.

I agree that the crop1 sensor at f/50 can resolve only 29.8 lp/mm on the crop1 sensor. But 29.8 lp/mm on the crop1 sensor corresponds to 119.2 lp/mm on the subject, because this sensor is using a 4X lens. (29.8*4 = 119.2)

Calc did not know about 4X lens. It is about difraction and maximum lens perfomance.

"lp/mm on the subject", "lp/mm on the crop1 sensor", and "lp/mm on the crop5 sensor" are three different units, just like feet and inches. You have to convert between them by taking the magnification into account. Converting everything to "lp/mm on the subject", the number is 119.2 lp/mm of diffraction-limited resolution, for both pairs of sensor+lens.

What is mean your 119? Where it Is? On sensor, on lens projection?
16MP FF can resolve only 68 lp/mm on sensor.

The mistake you are making is like comparing feet to yards and saying that 3 (feet) is much longer than 1 (yard). But they are both the same: 36 inches.

And your mistake is to talk in terms of selfmade definition "lp/mm on crop5 sensor" "lp/mm on crop1 sensor", so became absolutelly impossible to compare anything.

Beatsy · Post by **Beatsy** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:22 am

I'm running out of popcorn...

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:18 am

And your mistake

The mistakes are all your side, from where I'm standing, Justwalking.
You repeatedly take something relatively simple, and conflate it with something irrelevant in order to claim someone is wrong.
And it has become apparent that you're doing it on purpose.

lonepal · Post by **lonepal** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:41 am

I think you should talk this matter face to face

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:24 am

Justwalking, just calculate the line-pairs per sensor width for the two sensors, based on the calculated resolution per mm on each.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:09 am

Beatsy wrote:I'm running out of popcorn...

I still have plenty of popcorn, but it has become apparent that there are better uses for my time.

This thread is currently being discussed within the Admin group. Current thinking is that the thread can remain open as long as the discussion remains cordial. If it does not, we will revisit that decision.

--Rik

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:20 am

The multi-page digression into equivalent image discussion was mildly interesting, and indeed I had not read the original equivalent image thread, so that was a benefit to me and hopefully others. But I guess the real question goes back to the OP...did this thread help in making your decision, and do you have any remaining questions?

IntusCaliga · Post by **IntusCaliga** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:38 am

Haha yeah I've been following it. I don't understand all of it, but I do find it entertaining to read through.

Pretty sure I'm going with a 2-5x laowa 25mm for $400 + a Stackshot $625, and to go futher some infinity objective lenses attached to 70-200mm with adapter to a crop sensor camera. Or I could o a full frame setup with Infinity Objective Lenses attached to Raynox DCR-150 with an empty tube with flocking.

From what I read the Mitutoyou M Plan Apo Series is the best for no CA and longest working distances, do you know of any other objectives that would be similar in those respects but possibly cheaper? I was originally looking at some Nikon objectives but someone linked to a photo that had a bunch of CA...

Thanks again for your help!!!

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:17 am

Haha yeah I've been following it. I don't understand all of it, but I do find it entertaining to read through.

I'm glad that you've at least found it entertaining. It's not at all a typical discussion for photomacrography.net, and we've also been bothered that it hijacked your thread.

IntusCaliga wrote:From what I read the Mitutoyou M Plan Apo Series is the best for no CA and longest working distances, do you know of any other objectives that would be similar in those respects but possibly cheaper? I was originally looking at some Nikon objectives but someone linked to a photo that had a bunch of CA...

The CA photo was probably from my thread about tube lenses, HERE.

I am not aware of any objectives that sit in the gap between the Nikon achromats and the Mitutoyo M Plan Apos. There are some other Nikons that probably have good CA also, but all the ones that come to mind cost almost as much as Mitutoyo, have shorter working distances, and I haven't tested any of them. Perhaps somebody else knows of something that is "known good".

--Rik

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:02 pm

There are modern plan fluorite infinite corrected Olympus UIS and UIS2 series. I only have direct experience with the UPlFl 4X 0.13 and it is pretty good, very little CA but barely covering APSC with a 200mm tube lens (it is designed for 180mm, so I use it at a bit higher magnification). There are also 10X UMPlFl models that look promising.

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:58 am

Pau wrote:There are modern plan fluorite infinite corrected Olympus UIS and UIS2 series. I only have direct experience with the UPlFl 4X 0.13 and it is pretty good, very little CA but barely covering APSC with a 200mm tube lens (it is designed for 180mm, so I use it at a bit higher magnification). There are also 10X UMPlFl models that look promising.

I can add some information about Olympus UIS and UIS2 10x objectives and tube lenses. I have been using the following for a few months for microscopy of wet subjects and to make stacks of a few images, but have not tried them yet for deep stacks of 3D subjects in air. All of these 10x objectives are rated -/infinity (no cover glass), so at least in principle they can be used in air. The nominal magnification requires a 180 mm tube lens.

UPlanFLN 10x 0.30. Working distance is very roughly 10 mm. The end of the barrel is conical, so it does not block illumination sources too much. This is UIS2 and therefore provides 26.5 mm image circle (on paper, but I am using it in a UIS system with 22 mm image circle). To provide a 26.5 mm image circle it requires an Olympus SWTLU-C tube lens (or a non-Olympus tube lens to provide other sizes and magnifications). This objective can be found for around 150 US$ on eBay. The UPlanFL 10x (without N) is the older UIS model with 22mm image circle, and I have not tried it. The optical scheme is different enough in the two objectives that they need different condenser DIC prisms.

UPlanApo 10x 0.40. This is a good objective, but not as sharp as the UPlanApo 20x and 40x in my possession. Working distance is way too short for stacking 3D subjects.

10x Ach 0.28. A rather ordinary objective, not as good as the UPlanFLN 10x. Working distance is similar to the UPlanFLN 10x.

There is an Olympus U-TLU tube lens (180 mm FL) mounted in a tube about 60 mm long, designed to replace a trinocular head on an Olympus stand. I have one and seems to be the same quality as the tube lens in trinocular heads (but not the super-wide heads). It is a UIS part and therefore provides a 22 mm image circle. It is not uncommon on eBay and goes for 120-150 US$. I *suspect* that it could replace the head on a BH stand to allow use of UIS infinity objectives, but I have not tried. The other end of the U-TLU connects to a U-SPT photo tube, which with PE 2.5x photo eyepiece (not the older NFK 2.5x) and the Olympus OM Photomicro adapter can be adapted to full frame cameras.

Alternatively, the U-TLU tube lens can mount a third-party "1x" C adapter made in China (without internal optics) and directly project an image on Micro 4/3 sensors.

Edmund stocks an unnamed Olympus tube lens (part #86-835) specified for 26.5 mm image circle. It might be the UIS2 successor of the U-TLU, and the barrel looks externally identical. This should be wide enough to fill an APS-C sensor with a good margin (but not an APS-H).

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:49 am

To be clear, my objective is a UPlanFLN 4x 0.13 (UIS2) so designed for 26.5mm image circle. It doesn't vignette even with 150mm tube lenses on APSC but the corner quality degrades, not much with a 200mm TL but clearly visible with 180mm

Macrero · Post by **Macrero** » Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:14 am

All of the "modern" UIS and UIS2 Series objectives have FN 26.5, but they not all performs equal on camera. For instance, an UPlanFl 10/0.30 covers perfectly an APS-C sensor at nominal magnification, while an UMPlanFl 5/0.15 does not. I have tried an Oly MPlanFl N 50/0.80 with 80mm tube lens at 22X on APS-C sensor and (surprisingly) coverage was great with very slight vignetting. WD is pretty short though, 1mm.

- Macrero