i would love to see whatever you come up with in the end. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Jostein Øksne <p...@alunfoto.no> wrote: > No results yet. Only work in sporadic progress. Not publication worthy. > > Den 21. juni 2017 04.44.20 CEST, skrev Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com>: >>Enough talk. Results please. ;) >> >>On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Jostein <p...@alunfoto.no> wrote: >>> I've tried the Q7 some more for stacks now, and noise doesn't seem to >>be a >>> problem at ISO 100. That's one of the pros. >>> >>> Another pro is what I observed to begin with, that at the extreme end >>of >>> magnification, certainly at 10X, the low vibration and high pixel >>density >>> makes it possible to produce very detailed images. With the extreme >>crop, >>> however, it also means that one needs several stacks to cover the >>surface of >>> even a small subject, and then mount them like a mosaic to a complete >>> picture afterwards. Lots of work, but it's nice to know that a method >>is >>> workable for those smallest of critters when vibration becomes a >>showstopper >>> with SLR-style cameras. >>> >>> A big con is that whatever chromatic aberrations are present in the >>optics >>> are spread over more pixels when pixel density is higher. >>> >>> For more conventional macro stuff, I can only speculate yet. I >>suspect there >>> is a sweet spot in the tradeoffs between magnification, DOF and focus >>range >>> that justifies its use. >>> >>> Jostein >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Den 08.06.2017 21.55, skrev Mark C: >>>> >>>> With the demise of my original series Q I ordered a Q7, so I might >>try >>>> some macro work with it. The original Q was good for single shot >>macros but >>>> not for focus stacks - too much noise compounding in the stack. >>Since a 1x >>>> lifesized shot on the Q is more like a 5x shot on APS its much >>easier to >>>> fill the frame with something small. >>>> >>>> I was tempted to abandon the Q system but my Q lenses would not >>fetch much >>>> on the market and Q7's seem to be pretty affordable. And it is a fun >>system. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On 6/4/2017 4:48 PM, Jostein wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quick conclusion, it's quite a capable little beast, at least at >>low ISO. >>>>> >>>>> What I've tested so far is to hook it up to a macro slider, and do >>>>> extreme macro tests with microscope optics in front of it. >>>>> >>>>> At any given magnification it naturally produces a much tighter >>crop, but >>>>> the amount of detail preserved per surface area of critter is a lot >>better >>>>> than in images produced with eg. the K-3 and the same optics. The >>tightly >>>>> packed pixels of the small sensor is a good thing from this >>perspective. >>>>> >>>>> Vibration issues are, as expected, virtually nonexistent. >>>>> >>>>> Am optimistic about this now. :-) >>>>> >>>>> Jostein >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>and >>> follow the directions. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
