![]() ![]() The functionality and pricing models are different, so I would have to know a lot more about your whole situation to say which would be better. But if they will be new purchases, then you might consider instead ControlMyNikon and Zerene Stacker. If you already have that, and probably Helicon Focus to go with it, then those will work fine. Cheap tubes are typically just mechanical extensions that will lose those controls. Regarding extension tubes, the high priced ones do retain aperture and focus motor control by transmitting the electronic signals that control those. See for example AF motor focusing with a microscope objective. This can give you the resolution of a microscope with more the flavor of a macro setup. ![]() One reason I ask is that very sharp images in the 2-10X range can be created pretty easily by using certain microscope objectives in front of ordinary lenses having focal length 100 to 200 mm. I assume you already have certain equipment and are looking at acquiring more.Įxactly what is it that you currently have? Please tell us about all your lenses, not just the ones you think are good for macro. Please accept in advance my grateful thanks for any responses. The final image may well be printed at 1,000 x 1,400mm for display as part of an art exhibition.Īpologies for the battery of questions and unfortunately I am sure there will be more. Even though I have access to PS and clever image size manipulation add-ons, large amounts of cropping of the image is to be avoided if possible. ![]() Perhaps that's something else someone could clarify for me.Īnother issue to throw into the mix is that I need to create images with as high a degree of resolution as I can achieve. Many forums talk about extension tubes but with my D5100 I believe either the Helicon Remote software would no longer be able to operate the focusing or I would lose any control over the lens aperture or both. I suppose another option could be both a teleconvertor and a Raynox 250 but I wonder about degradation in quality with so much glass in front of and behind the main macro lens. Instead of the Raynox 250 I would also consider using a 1.4, 1.7 or 2.0 teleconvertor but I am not so sure even a 2:1 ratio obtained with the 2.0 teleconvertor would be enough to see the scales effectively and there may also be issues using the Helicon remote software. Also how much cropping (if any) takes place to eliminate vignetting when using a DX camera? An alternative but a much more expensive option over the Raynox 250 is the Austrian made LMScope Macro 40 and LMScope Macro 80 - does anyone know if their cost is justified by their performance. I also intend to use Helicon Remote software for accurate focus control for stacking and it works well with my D5100 and my 105mm VR.ĭoes anyone have experience of using the Micro Nikkor 105 VR with a Raynox 250? What macro ratio is achievable? I would assume 2.5:1 but I may well be wrong. So would the scales still be visible and recognisable at 2x or 3X magnification. ![]() Something like this posted by forum member pwnell is kinda what I am looking for and it appears it was taken using 4X magnification. I am hoping that the image will be seen within context - i.e perhaps other parts of the moth or butterfly or background will be visible in the shot. I am hoping to capture the scales on the wings of lepidoptera - I am not looking for the (albeit wonderful) high magnification shots taken using a microscope as seen throughout these forums but for a macro equipment solution if at all possible. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |