Mssimo: Very good deal since no one really wants autofocus for really high mag macro work anyway.
pulsar...I'm a bit confused about what you're saying.
If you're saying that by mounting the lenses face to face , it's only possible with an AF lens? As I stated above, I did this with old Olympus lenses, which are manual focus, so it simply isn't true that one has to be an AF for that to work.
If on the other hand you're saying that in order to use the Magic Lantern the lens has to be AF, then that's a completely different matter. Of course if you are using a remote program to operate the camera and do the focusing, then its obvious that it has to be an AF lens.
As I said before, unless you are using a touch screen , or a remote system with a touch sensitive focusing system, AF isn't going to work very well, but if you are using a touch screen, the touch system will only work by using AF.
But I'm not using Magic Lantern or any other kind of remote system. Not everyone can use Magic Lantern, in which case you'll have to shut auto focus off and do it manually.
Clint009; when this report first appeared I tried but could not access the sample images. Now that I've been able to se them , all I can say is this whole conversation is moot because those images are not sharp, not by a long shot.
I'm getting much better results with a 1:1 macro and extension tubes.
pulsar; I used that method long ago on an Olympus OM-1. I glued two step up riings together to reverse mount a 28mm to the front of a 100mm. I also had an adapter to reverse mount a lens to the body. But the best by far was an enlarger lens reverse mounted onto extension bellows.
Whenever I shoot a series for focus stacking I also shoot a few images stopped way down as a contingency. When comparing the focus stacked images to the stopped down images, I'm not really seeing that big a difference. The stopped down image may require a little bit more sharpening but not so much that is degrades the image.
I think the diffraction problem is being overstated.
Henrik Herranen: A macro announcement without any mention of the working distance? That's highly suspicious. My guess would be something between 0 and 2 centimeters at 2X magnification. I'd happy to be wrong, though.
EDIT: Went to the Venus Optics website which claims minimum working distance is 6 cm. Still not much, but better than expected. Fair enough, though I still think working distance is essential to any macro announcement.
While there may be differences in the working distance of different lenses, does it really matter if there is a couple of centimeters difference from one lens and another?
I think the differences between long lenses and short lenses is a more important factor.
A 60 mm meter lens is going to be close no matter what. whether the lens is optically 2:1 or is being used with extension tubes, it's going to be close.
As I stated before, working close provides the "bugs eye" perspective on the subject while working from a stand off distance yields a flatter perspective. Get far enough from the subject with a really long macro and the image looks more like an image that has been enlarged and cropped.
When photographing flat objects working distance has no effect on perspective , but when shooting 3D objects, working close yields a more dramatic perspective.
Working close is more difficult but I don't think a few centimeters matter that much. At 2:1, it'll be close no matter what.
While its intriguing that this lens goes to 2X, I’m already getting that with a 1:1 with extension tubes.
So the question is if the Venus lens is sharper than a 1:1 macro prime with extension tubes. If it is then I wonder how well it would perform with extension tubes at 4X. That would make it a very affordable alternative to the Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5X macro.
I also wonder how it is achieving 2X. Does it have internal optical focusing or is it just moving the lens further from the focal plane? If it’s the former them maybe it could be sharper than a macro with tubes. But if it’s only extending the focusing movement, then it’s really nothing more than a conventional macro with built in extension. In that case, save your money and buy some extension tubes.
I would reserve judgment on this until we see some test results. If it’s sharper than using tubes, then it’s a buy. If no,t there are other ways to achieve better than 1:1 without breaking the bank for a Canon MP-E 65mm macro.
Oh I agree with you completely that once you get beyond 1:1, manual focus is the way to go. But I wouldn't say you are the typical photographer. I think the typical photographer would be chasing bees and butterflies in the garden with their macro lens. Only the less typical photographer is going to bother with a tripod, much less focusing rails.
What exactly do you mean by the minimum working distance is "not enough"
Do you mean that the working distance should be longer at maximum magnification so you don't have to get right on top of the subject? Or do you mean the working distance should be closer so you can get that true "bugs eye" perspective.
Many people prefer the "stand off" position of a 100mm that won't disturb small creatures, is a safe distance away from things that could bite or sting like bees and spiders, and will enable you to get macro shots of things that you cannot get physically close to.
Other want to get as close as possible so they can get the bugs eye view that makes tiny creatures look like huge monsters!
I like to get as close as possible. I've had a few bugs and spiders jump onto me and was bitten by a none-poisonous snake...anything to get the shot!
But there are certain creatures from which I keep my distance. That's when the long working distance of a tele-macro comes in handy.
Mssimo, while MF is preferable for maximum magnification work, you won’t always be using the lens at max. mag. When tracking bees and bugs in the garden, you’ll be surprised how quickly a foraging bee or a flower swaying in the breeze can move in and out of focus. AF can adjust much faster than you can manually focus the lens. AF isn’t foolproof, but in certain circumstances, you’ll get more in focus shots with AF than with MF. I’ve found that when shooting handheld in the wild, I will be switching AF on and off to see which way works best.
I’ve also found AF useful when positioning the camera in awkward positions, like when you’re using one hand to grab onto something while stretching out over water for a one handed shot.
While much of the macro work I do is precise manual focus work, AF and image stabilization have done more than come in handy, they’ve allowed me to get shots that would have been impossible without them.
pulsar123, unless you are using touch screen focusing control, which most people aren’t, I don’t see how AF can be used for focus stacking.
Assuming the camera is properly locked in place, which it should be for focus stacking, isn’t AF just going to lock onto the same point every time? How is AF going to know which points to focus on?
When working at max magnification, I find that AF can be balky and rarely focuses on the right point. While shooting a centipede on my wall (Canon EFS-60mm +20mm ext, handheld w/flash) I wanted the eyes to be the sharpest point and AF wasn’t working well. I switched it off, racked the lens to min focus and focused by adjusting the camera distance. I shot a few dozen images, all razor sharp.
When doing macro focus stacking, I rarely use internal lens focusing. I use a focusing rail which allows finer focus control. Focusing with the lens seems to cause greater shifts in magnification than with a rail.
So how do you shoot focus stacking with AF?
Dvlee: In 2001, Imacon used the sensor shift to produce a then astounding 22 MP. It was very slow and required the subject to remain perfectly still through all the shots.
So the question is how fast could this rumored camera capture four images? In real world conditions it would have to be very fast to avoid movement between exposures, which is not inconceivable given that IBIS works very fast. But the exposures would have to be at a very fast shutter speed and frame rate, necessitating bright light, wide open apertures and hi ISO.
I’ve been thinking that if the sensors could be shifted for image stabilization, then why not shift (vert and horiz) for perspective control and multishot panoramas and maybe even swing and tilts for focus control, like a view camera?
@pko. You’re forgetting that this discussion is just hypothetical, based upon a rumor. You can’t say “you can’t do that.” Maybe Oly has figured out a way that it can be done.
There was once a time when you couldn’t grab a good still from a video, until someone figured out how to do it and digital photography was born. At first digital cameras couldn’t do video, now they can. They said you couldn’t do video with CMOS, only CCD, but now you can. Now still cameras are using CMOS chips to capture 4K video, with electronic shutters and from that video you can pull a decent still shot. All this is being done on the very same chip used for high resolution still photography.
Then there are high speed videos camera like the 17,000 fps Edgertronic that will sell for less than $5k. Yes hi speed res is low but that’s just a technological limitation that is improving as we speak. Perhaps Oly has already overcome that limitation.
Don’t say it can’t be done, someone do it anyway.
I get what you’re saying. Capture rate could be no faster than the cameras FPS capability, and it’s obvious the shutter would have to electronic. When thinking in terms of still camera fps limitations, it does not seem feasible that the frame rate could be fast enough.But there are high speed digital video cameras capable of tens and even hundreds of thousands of frames per second, so by using high speed video technology, it’s entirely feasible to capture dozens of frames within 1/1000 sec or less.
Typically, the highest speed videos are captured at a lower resolution, but the data is recorded as a sequence of images. If instead of assembling the images into a motion picture sequences, the low resolution files could be composited into a single high resolution image.
Therefore, the limiting factor would not be FPS capability, the limiting factors would be the speed at which the sensor can shift and ISO high enough for the fast exposures that would be required.
If the sensor shift is based upon the same technology as IBIS then the shift of the sensor could take place in milliseconds.
The exposure time for each sensor position has to be equal to the time required to properly expose a single frame. So if the correct exposure time to stop action is 1/400, all 4 exposures would have to be 1/400 each.
The elapsed time to make all the exposures would be slightly longer than 1/100 sec., resulting in motion between exposures. That motion would be enough to obliterate the 40mp sharpness.
If the motion between exposures crosses as little as ½ pixel, the file will be no sharper than an interpolated 16mp.
So if the total X time to freeze the motion and create 4 identical exposures is 1/400, then each exposure would have to be faster than 1/1600, all taking place within the total 1/400.
The point of the sensor shift is to increase image sharpness at the pixel level, so any degradation at the pixel level defeats the purpose of the sensor shift.
Mais78: I shoot Canon but I know that some day the time will come to switch to Sony. Waiting for better lenses (fast zoom, 24-70 f2.8 and fast primes).
So is this another "floating" sensor that cannot be cleaned DIY, like the EM5, without damaging the IS?
helltormentor, let me put it another way...I've had two Canon cameras with auto sensor cleaning and I have never...NEVER...had to clean the sensor. I kid you not. What can I say , the system works!
But even with the previous camera, which did not have sensor cleaning, I rarely had to clean the sensor, even though I was doing a lot of shooting in dusty, dirty environments like construction sites and factories.
One trick I rarely hear mentioned is to use the mirror up function for cleaning the camera interior on a frequent basis. The shutter will remain closed so you can safely clean it with air.
I think years of shooting 4x5 transparencies made me obsessive about dust avoidance.
The Canon auto sensor cleaner reduced my sensor cleaning from rarely to zero. But I still use the mirror up method to prevent anything sticky from making its way to the sensor.
In 2001, Imacon used the sensor shift to produce a then astounding 22 MP. It was very slow and required the subject to remain perfectly still through all the shots.
Paul Kersey Photography: Smoke and mirror(less)
Edgar..this technology was successfully used in still camera's nearly 15 years ago. NASA developed the concept decades ago for the Mars landers. Hasselblad still uses it for the ultra high resolution(200mpx) system. It has been mostly superseded by high resolution sensor chips.
I've had two canon cameras with auto sensor cleaning and over seven years never had to clean the sensor.
A dedicated infrared, ultraviolet, ultra low light camera with ghost detection technology so we can see the impossible...with an 18 mpx sensor and a $6000 price tag.
Dr_Jon: Though you could argue that the Moon is peppered with rockets that landed just like this...
All of the packages we've landed on the Moon and other planets were short and stout, with a low center of gravity. The gravity on the Moon is less than Earth, the Moon has no atmosphere, therefore, no crosswinds to knock it off center.
And landing, then taking off from the moon is a much different operation than taking off and landing. All the vessels that have landed and launched from the moon have left the landing platform on the moon. It takes a lot less fuel to launch the assent module from the Moon than it takes to launch all the components to the Moon. Most of the weight is fuel and most of that is burned getting into orbit around the Earth.
Tall rockets are inherently unstable and it's difficult enough to keep them stable going up; hovering and descending is much more difficult. Early tests were unsuccessful so the concept was abandoned long ago. All of the moon landers have had control rockets to stabilize them, but this rocket uses thrust vectoring.
Lee Jay: "While the F9R hovers at about 250m (820 ft), future tests will go much higher. Hopefully the drones will be able to keep up. "
Not likely, since some of the planned tests are exoatmospheric (out of the atmosphere - > 300,000 feet), and even the lower ones will require the rocket to climb out at hundreds of mile per hour.
They'll just have to make rocket drones.
They already have space drones as many satellites have small rockets and the capability to move around and re-position themselves. The dragon space capsule that delivers supplies to the ISS is essentially a big cargo drone.
But if you want to film a rocket through the complete launch all the way to orbit, all you need to do is launch another rocket next to it with a camera on it.This was done quite regularly in the nuclear missile testing programs during the sixties and seventies.
Simon97: What are the advantages of the larger sensor? Some I can think of:
Larger Pixels for low noise. The old 645D wasn't that impressive at high ISOs, but this new sensor sounds very interesting.
Smaller DOF for artistic effects. Hopefully Pentax designed the new lenses carefully concerning Bokeh quality.
Smaller apertures before diffraction blurring is noticeable.
Probably others I'm not thinking of.
@ Carlos; Shooting aerials from a helicopter. Clients frequently want giant prints to hang on their walls and viewers of aerial images tend to get up close to the pictures to scrutinize the details. They need to be tack sharp, which means using a camera with high mpx to capture the details and fast shutter speeds to counter the high frequency vibrations. When the light starts fading at dusk, slowing the shutter speed and opening the lens wide open will reduce sharpness, so I start pushing the ISO up as the light fades, until I reach the point at which noise become unacceptable.
If the maximum ISO at which noise is acceptable is higher than it is on FF DSLRs, then I should be able to keep shooting longer into fading light without having to slow shutter speed and opening up.
How useful this will be will depend upon the maximum ISO with acceptable noise. I would expect that on a MF sensor, hi ISO noise would be better than a FF.
But I’ll reserve judgment til we see test results.