Enough talk. Results please. ;) On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Jostein <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
