Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > BUG RIDERS LOVE THE 20D !!!

Reply
Thread Tools

BUG RIDERS LOVE THE 20D !!!

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
>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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-04-2005
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-05-2005
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-05-2005
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-06-2005

"Paul Furman" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Love love love imuaplease@gmail.com C++ 0 06-03-2009 02:53 AM
I love my Xeon, I hate my Xeon, I love my Xeon... wewa Windows 64bit 9 11-10-2005 06:39 PM
HARD DRIVES LOVE THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 15 10-22-2004 12:32 AM
BRIDES LOVE THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 11 10-19-2004 12:46 PM
Win a love actually Love Pack MaG DVD Video 0 05-05-2004 04:48 PM



Advertisments