The first three are from Denmark, presumably formica rufa, the last one looks a little different and was from northern spain, so not sure if it is a common wood ant too?
The first three were with a new lens for me, a minolta 3x-1x macro zoom. The maximum focal distance is about 40mm from the end of the lens so it is very difficult to get good lighting in to the subject. It reports the actual f number taking into account the magnification which is very nice, and it seems usable up to f/57?!?!? Diffraction is much less of a problem than I thought it would be and at 3x it is not noticable on a 12MP APS sensor before about f32. So difficult to use for me still but it looks like it could produce very good results with some practice.
Spanish variant?
Tim
Ants
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23564
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Re: Ants
This should be a fun lens to play with. Already you're getting good results for some small ants.
I do have some question about the numbers you're reporting.
When you say "not noticable", are you viewing at the level of actual pixels coming from the camera, or as reduced to 800 pixels wide for a web posting?
For reference, take a look at the cambridgeincolour diffraction calculator HERE (at "VISUAL EXAMPLE: APERTURE VS. PIXEL SIZE"). The Nikon D2X has almost exactly the same pixel size as your camera. At f/32, light from a single point on the subject is spread across a blob roughly 5 pixels wide. This will look distinctly fuzzy at actual pixels from the camera, but pretty good when downsized by 5X to fit in an 800 pixel web posting.
If your results are much different from this prediction, then I'd sure be interested to see some actual-pixel crops.
--Rik
I do have some question about the numbers you're reporting.
These results are surprising enough that I wonder what criteria you're using.tpe wrote:It reports the actual f number taking into account the magnification which is very nice, and it seems usable up to f/57?!?!? Diffraction is much less of a problem than I thought it would be and at 3x it is not noticable on a 12MP APS sensor before about f32. So difficult to use for me still but it looks like it could produce very good results with some practice.
When you say "not noticable", are you viewing at the level of actual pixels coming from the camera, or as reduced to 800 pixels wide for a web posting?
For reference, take a look at the cambridgeincolour diffraction calculator HERE (at "VISUAL EXAMPLE: APERTURE VS. PIXEL SIZE"). The Nikon D2X has almost exactly the same pixel size as your camera. At f/32, light from a single point on the subject is spread across a blob roughly 5 pixels wide. This will look distinctly fuzzy at actual pixels from the camera, but pretty good when downsized by 5X to fit in an 800 pixel web posting.
If your results are much different from this prediction, then I'd sure be interested to see some actual-pixel crops.
--Rik
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23564
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I believe that's exactly what tpe meant when he wrote "the actual f number taking into account the magnification".P_T wrote:Perhaps it reports the "Effective Aperture"?
If it were reporting the nominal f-number, when then had to be further increased to account for extension, my concerns would be even more.
--Rik
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23564
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Tim & Chris: I split our technical posts off into a separate topic over in Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions. See HERE.
--Rik
--Rik
The 1x-3x is equipped with mounting grooves for the Minolta 1200 Macro Ringflash. And yes it lights quite well with that setup.ChrisR wrote:Some nice angles there!
What a strange lens! Would a ring flash get light where you need it?
There is also a slide copying stage that matches up with the lens. It, too, has mounting for the ringflash which gives you backlighting of what you put on the stage. One of these days I should try that with microscope slides and such.
I'm not terrably fond of the lens as a field lens, bulky and slow to use. But it is a very good lens.
Walt