Sternotomis virescens (F)

[Macrero]

Pana S1R, Photar 2/25 (at f/3) + Sigma LSA @ 4.8X approx (cropped a tad).



See bigger: https://images2.imgbox.com/f0/c7/hqT5FfxM_o.jpg

Best,

- Macrero

[Guppy]

Very nice picture in a super resolution, everything clear and recognizable.

Kurt

[Macrero]

Thank you, Kurt!

[Lou Jost]

So you are happy with the camera?

[Macrero]

So you are happy with the camera?

No reason not to be. I love the build quality, probably the best-built digital camera I've owned. The 47MP files are great, the 187MP pixel-shifted ones are astounding, though my oldish workstation is not as happy with them as I am, but processes them without moaning of course, not at lightning speed, but it gets the job done.

Btw, I expected shorter in-camera processing time for the HR files. It is actually quite longer than in the G9, 15 vs 10 sec. (total time per shot). That's with a Sony XQD G card.

[Lou Jost]

Yes, those are similar to the processing times I've been reporting here.

And yes, the thing is built like a tank. When I first got mine, it slid off my closed laptop which was on my desk, and fell almost a meter onto a bare concrete floor. I thought it was finished. But no harm done

[Macrero]

I remember reading that. Luckily it is indeed built like a tank and survived.

Now I am in search of a good lens/es for the 1-3.5X range. The ones I use on MFT and APS does not cover the FF sensor. Still have some combos pending tests though. I am planning to shoot "exotic" coleoptera this winter, and most of them fits in that mag range.

[Adalbert]

Hello Macrero,
Very nice
Have you already created any stack based on the photographs taken using the pixel-shifting?
Best,
ADi

[Macrero]

Thank you, Adi.

Haven't made nothing "showable" yet, only tests, but pixel-shift is working as expected. Here is a 100% crop gif from a HR-Normal comparison I did, the regular 47MP image upscaled to 187MP. The improvement is obvious:

https://images2.imgbox.com/63/38/MFWDwXty_o.gif

Best,

- Macrero

[Guppy]

"Now I am in search of a good lens/es for the 1-3.5X range."

Hola Macrero

One of the best lenses at full format from 1:4 to 4:1 is the HR Digaron Macro 105mm f/5.6. It is accordingly expensive, about 5000 US dollars.

I use the Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N 50mm, 1:2.8 in retro.
The resolution is high, well corrected to the corners on the full format.
Evenly high resolution up to the corners, especially well suited for photography.
Microscope objectives (e.g. Mitutoyo) have a measurable, but not visibly higher resolution in the center of the image,
but the resolution in the corners of the full format is poor.
The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N 50mm, 1:2.8 in retro is very flexible in its imaging scale (for 1:1 to 5:1).
The Rodenstock APO-Rodagon 50mm without "N" is hardly visible worse in the corners concerning CA.

If I need a higher free working distance, I use the Rodenstock APO Rodagon N 1:4, f = 80mm.

For the object side image section of the same size, the full format requires a higher magnification according to the crop factor,
the resolution in this area (1:1 to 3.5:1) is higher according to the crop factor.

Kurt

[Macrero]

Hallo Kurt,

I have quite a lot of lenses, but the main problem is the coverage at sweet f/numbers. I have owned at least 2 copies of the Apo-Rodagon N 2.8/50 over the years, I was honestly not impressed with it, but I may give it another try. I own an Apo-Rodagon-D 4.5/75 2X. Nice lens, but I'm not too happy with its performance in FF.

Last night I tested the tiny Scanner-Nikkor 7 elements stopped down a tad, and it actually outperforms the AR-D 2X, though coverage is still not perfect.

The HR Digaron looks like a brillant lens, but its price is prohibitive... Also, its maximum aperture is quite conservative, especially for the upper mag range.

Will keep testing the lenses/combos I currently have. Maybe I'll find some that works well enough in FF.

Best,

- Macrero

[Guppy]

Hola Macrero

I measure the resolution of the objectives with the Zeiss resolution test object 3000,
it goes up to 3000 LP/mm and is therefore also suitable for microscope objectives with a high aperture,
color edges caused by CA can also be judged very well.
Decisive for me as a photographer is the sagittal and tangential resolution and strength of the CA in the corners at full format.
If this is good, then the lens in the middle is usually excellent.

Kurt

[Macrero]

Kurt,

I'm currently re-testing on FF all of my my lenses and combos for low mag, before spending money on more lenses. May give the AR N 2.8/50 another try.

- Macrero

[Adalbert]

Hello Macrero,

the Apo-Rodagon N 2.8/50 over the years, I was honestly not impressed with it

me neither :-)

But what about the mitties e.g. 10x, 20x and downsizing of the tube-lens if needed.

Best,
ADi

[Macrero]

me neither :-)

But what about the mitties e.g. 10x, 20x and downsizing of the tube-lens if needed.

Best,
ADi

Adi,

on MFT and APS I use tube lenses as short as 90mm (or even less on MFT). But on FF you can't push down an objective too much without getting poor corners. Actually most objectives will not cover perfectly even at nominal mag. That's the trade-off with sensor size... Even the Mitty 7.5, which has bigger image circle than the 5 and 10, with 150mm tube lens does not cover well the FF sensor, let alone with shorter TLs.

But I have optics for higher than 3.5X. My gap on FF is the 1-3.5X range. I am not aware of any low-power microscope objective (except maybe the Lomo 3.7 in combos at 3.5X, not much lower) that works well on FF.

Well, I still have some lenses pending tests on FF, maybe I'll find one that works well with the Panny.

- Macrero