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.
