Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,513   Posts: 1,598,178   Online: 871
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    A good suggestion, Manfrotto magic arms.

    But i find i need to use two to get a stable camera platform. The first one holds the camera, and is positioned as needed. The second then clamps the first one, stabilizing it as a brace.
    Else, the arm resonates too much with any movement that finds its way to the arm.

    You get to haul a lot of stuff, doing photomacrography...


    Yes, Lee, using the calculator to compile tables - though a lot of work, but only once - you then print out and carry with you is the easiest way to go about it.

  2. #12
    daleeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,031
    Images
    17

    Mounted the 55 tube last night

    After reading a lot of great stuff here I pulled out the tube, still in the original box that someone had sold me with the 500CM years ago but never used it. It is a 55 tube. I mounted it and the dead meter prisim with the 80mm CF. The WLF was then on the table and it gave me my first visual target.

    The WLF was just about the size of the field of view and as others have shared it was all about the distance to the object as far as focus goes. depth of field while viewing at f2.8 with the 80mm was like spitting in the wind. I did not get out the tripod and try some stop down viewing, but did go about the house looking at things to get a sense of what it will cover.

    Well today after work I will stop at the florest and "get the wife some flowers" for the house. Will practice on them to see what I can do there. Figured it would be good to do some controlled first shots before venturing out without a notebook with information about using the 80 and the 150 on the tube.

    Keep the ideas flowing.

    Any one know of a X,Y,Z kind of mount that I could refine the position of the camera on while mounted to a tripod? We are talking cheap here, or at least I am.

    Lee

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,610
    Images
    91
    I have a Manfrotto arm similar to this one, though without the camera mounts, that works ok. An X/Y mount is better, but much more expensive.
    Here is a view of it in action, the flower was shot with an 80 and the 55 mm tube;
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails setup.jpg   morning glory.jpg  

  4. #14
    daleeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,031
    Images
    17

    nice work

    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    I have a Manfrotto arm similar to this one, though without the camera mounts, that works ok. An X/Y mount is better, but much more expensive.
    Here is a view of it in action, the flower was shot with an 80 and the 55 mm tube;
    Very nice. Love the soft tones. Looks like the 80 with the 55 tube can turn some nice results.

    Lee

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by daleeman View Post
    Any one know of a X,Y,Z kind of mount that I could refine the position of the camera on while mounted to a tripod? We are talking cheap here, or at least I am.
    Well, what is cheap?

    I use Manfrotto rails. Two of them, one mounted on the other at 90 degrees.
    The Z-axis the tripod must provide.
    They are not ideal, but quite usuable. The alternative (moving the tripod) is far worse.
    And they are not too big. Though not small either.

  6. #16
    daleeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,031
    Images
    17
    Cheap to me is under $ 200.00 for a platform that can help me move in and out in fine increments. It is comes in really cheap then that is good. Otherwise I'll keep nudging the tripod.

  7. #17
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    If you decide to get seriously into 6x6 macrophotography, then by all means look for an auto bellows and a longish lens (180 or more). The longer lens will reduce distortion (the source of many old "guess what this is?" pictures of match heads and the like) and the large extension is in proportion to the lens focal length, so the magnification won't be unwieldy. The dedicated macro lenses are, of course, superb optically, but I found that there is at least one macro combination (C lens and variable extension tube) that is mechanically incompatible; a C lens and automatic bellows works fine.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    If you decide to get seriously into 6x6 macrophotography, then by all means look for an auto bellows and a longish lens (180 or more). The longer lens will reduce distortion (the source of many old "guess what this is?" pictures of match heads and the like) and the large extension is in proportion to the lens focal length, so the magnification won't be unwieldy. The dedicated macro lenses are, of course, superb optically, but I found that there is at least one macro combination (C lens and variable extension tube) that is mechanically incompatible; a C lens and automatic bellows works fine.
    ?
    There is no lens that can't be used on the variable extension tube.

    The variable extension tube was intended to be a focussing mount for the 135 mm S-Planar/Makro-Planar (C and CF version respectively).

    The other macro lens in the range is the 120 mm S-Planar/Makro-Planar (C, CF and CFE/CFi versions).

    135 mm would be the longest lens i would use for photomacrography, because the extension needed is indeed proportional to the focal length. (An 80 mm lens on a bellows covers a range from 0.8x to 2.6x. The same extension combined with, say, a 180 mm lens will cover 0.3x to 1.3x.)
    So for 'serious' magnifications, shorter lenses are preferred.

    However, the shortest lens in the Zeiss/Hasselblad range that produces good image quality in the macro range is the 80 mm Planar.
    (Planars also are the lenses that keep performing well over a wide range, into the macro-zone, so a 120 mm or 135 mm Planar would also be the lens to use if you want a lens that's a bit longer.)

    Longer lenses do not keep image quality up when getting close, and also not evenly over the entire field of view. The center sharpness is less than that of lenses like the Planars, and they produce colour faults and unsharpness towards the edges and corners of the frame.

    For 'really serious' magnifications, special lenses even shorter than the Planars are used, such as the great Zeiss Luminars (the most used on MF for macro are the 16 mm, 25 mm and 40 mm ones. They don't have a shutter, so require a camera that does have one, or mustbe mounted on a shutter. With the long exposures you will run into, the rear auxillary shutter in 500 series cameras will often do.)

    True distortion is something that also depends on lens design, and again the Planars are the best to use.

    Perspective does indeed vary with working distance, which given a chosen fixed magnification varies with focal length.
    But we are not used to see tiny things in any particular perspective, so you will not run into an exaggerated perspective situation, the way you do when photographing something from too close that we do see everyday in another perspective.
    And even using longer lenses, lens to subject distances will still be small.

    So all in all, longish lenses would be the worst choice for macro:
    - too much extension needed for the same magnification
    - not the best image quality in the center of the frame
    - uneven image quality across the frame
    Last edited by Q.G.; 06-01-2010 at 06:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,383
    There are some relatively inexpensive(Hah) X-Y rails around. I believe Novoflex may still offer something. Manfrotto, Kirk, RRS?
    Peruse the *bay. I've been able to pick up a Velbon with gear drive on both axis for less than $100. Velbon isn't known for higher quality stuff but this is much better than most of their stuff.
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  10. #20
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    There is no lens that can't be used on the variable extension tube.

    With all due respect, yes, there is. I have one.

    The older macro lens (C-type) has a protrusion at the back which interferes with the variable extension tube; on the CF that I have, this ring has a cut-away portion which allows it to be mounted. All conventional wisdom seems to be that the Hasselblad components are fully compatible with each other, so I was greatly surprised that I couldn't mount the C-type lens.

    If there is a way around this that does not involve machining of the lens mount, I would be interested in knowing what it is.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin