philzucker
Forum Pro
As I posted in two other threads here already I acquired a set of extension tubes for my Q7 and got interested in trying out the different options they offer. A basic quick check using the screen of the Q7 in magnified view helped me to select the most promising combinations - you'll find all about that in this post: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58895821. I decided not to append that last post but give the best candidates their own thread (this one) for a dedicated visual workout – including full rez samples.
As subject I chose a 20 Euro banknote (with lots of very small print), flattened by a small glass pane. I placed the Q7 on a macro rail looking down on the banknote. Focus was adjusted using 6x magnification with focus peaking. Light source used was the modeling light of a studio flash (since the flash of the Q7 unfortunately can't be triggered when using a toy lens like the 05 or the 04), the camera was triggered with an IR remote. I was doing the single exposures carefully, but not scientifically – so all info has to be taken with a grain of salt – individual errors are a real possibility!
Let's start with a look at the test scene – I concentrated on the big "20" on the front of the banknote with a star in the middle. This star is included in all the test shots, even if its position changes somewhat.
The reference shot was taken with a K-1 (OOC JPG, default rendering) and a dedicated macro lens – a Tamron 90mm at 1:1 magnification. F7.1. It may show a tiny bit of diffraction (you have to add roughly two stops to the diffraction limit at 1:1 magnification with a macro lens like this), but all in all is a very sharp shot. Please forget about the lower border – the camera may have been a bit angled (the setup worked well with the lightweight Q7, but was a bit problematic with the heavy K-1/Tamron combo), this might've caused that.
Anyway: the reference shot shows our field of play – it's 36mm wide and looks like this:
All following Q7 shots were taken in DNG format, imported in LR and exported to JPG without any but the default capture sharpening applied.
First Q7 macro is taken with the 04 "Toy wide" - without any tubes attached, but with its barrel distortion corrected (and slightly cropped after that). FOV is similar to the reference shot – of course contrast and detail can't match the 36 MP of the K-1, but overall it's nice and sharp enough across the field at its fixed aperture of 7.1.
#2 and 3 show the 06@45mm with a 10mm tube. Magnification is only a bit larger, but working distance is much larger compared to the 04. The 04 has to be very close to the subject for macro work, the 06 here allows for a distance of about 150mm (measured from the front element of the lens) – a very comfortable distance giving room for all kind of light setups. As a bonus the 06 allows the Q7 to trigger external flashes via the hotshoe which is unfortunately not an option with the 04. But what about the sharpness you get?
I took a series with full f-stops at f2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 and threw in a f7.1. exposure. The sharpest were those taken at f2.8 (center) and f7.1 (overall). #2 is the f2.8 one with a sharp center and good contrast, but with visible softness at the borders and corners. f7.1 sharpens up those latter regions nicely enough, but the center seems to have a little bit less contrast (due to more diffraction, probably). But considering everything I'd take the f7.1 version anytime, especially having in mind the need for some DOF for non-flat objects in macro photography:
06@45mm, 10mm tube, f2.8:
06@45mm, 10mm tube, f7.1:
#4 and 5 show the 06@45mm with a 16mm tube again at f2.8 and f7.1. giving some larger magnification – this time center sharpness is IMO significantly better at f2.8, but again f7.1 is the winner if you don't want too soft borders and corners.
06@45mm, 16mm tube, f2.8:
06@45mm, 16mm tube, f7.1:
#6 and 7 repeat that with a 21mm tube with about the same results – and still with great detail.
06@45mm, 21mm tube, f2.8:
06@45mm, 21mm tube, f7.1:
I also stacked all three tubes with the 06@45mm, but pictures where so soft in comparison to those shown here that I don't include them in this post. Let's just say that you get good results and working distances with tubes up to 21mm for the 06@45mm ...
Now for the surprise candidate I somehow hadn't in mind for macro work before – the 05 "Toy lens tele" with a fixed aperture of f8.0 and a focal length of 18mm.
With a 10mm tube its working distance is a good 40mm – and its magnification then even larger than the 06@45mm with the 21mm tube. Edge sharpness isn't as good as with the f7.1/06 shots, but it isn't that bad either. For a lot of objects sharpness should IMO be absolutely okay.
With a 16mm tube the 05 exhibits again great detail and center sharpness (not so at the borders), the 21 mm tube works also quite good, but working distance gets problematic.
05/16mm tube:
05/21mm tube:
As a bonus here a shot with the 07 showing some not so bad center sharpness; considering the construction of the lens (f9, 11.5mm, a single optical element only) it really is excellent. The borders are of course what the borders of the 07 intentionally are – soft …
To have a more comfortable look at the per pixel sharpness here a row of 600 by 600 px 1:1 crops of all those nine pics shown in a row (load original size):
Now the question is: How much detail do the different lenses really deliver? To find out that I magnified all other shots to the same crop the 05 with the 21 mm tube was showing at 1:1 – giving this row (again, look at the original size):
I think the most details are visible at the shots done with the K-1, the 06@45 with 21mm tube and the 05 with the 16mm tube, so here only the three "finalists" together:
For me the winner showing most resolved detail is the 05 with a 16mm tube – YMMV.
As I said at the beginning take those finding with several grains of salt, because user errors like inadvertently introduced shake during the long exposures or less than perfect focusing could be a real possibility for some or several of the pics.
But altogether I think it's safe to say that you really have some options for surprisingly good and printable macro work with the Q7:
And what's the benefit of using a Q7 for macro work compared to a FF or APS-C DSLR with a dedicated macro lens? Size and especially weight! The Q7 and any of the tube / lens combinations mentioned here weigh next to nothing compared with DSLRs, and using combinations of macro rails and tripod heads with a Q7 is much easier – especially if you use unusual angles and positions and want everything to be stable and easy to handle in spite of that.
That's it. Any questions welcome!
Phil
--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com
As subject I chose a 20 Euro banknote (with lots of very small print), flattened by a small glass pane. I placed the Q7 on a macro rail looking down on the banknote. Focus was adjusted using 6x magnification with focus peaking. Light source used was the modeling light of a studio flash (since the flash of the Q7 unfortunately can't be triggered when using a toy lens like the 05 or the 04), the camera was triggered with an IR remote. I was doing the single exposures carefully, but not scientifically – so all info has to be taken with a grain of salt – individual errors are a real possibility!
Let's start with a look at the test scene – I concentrated on the big "20" on the front of the banknote with a star in the middle. This star is included in all the test shots, even if its position changes somewhat.
The reference shot was taken with a K-1 (OOC JPG, default rendering) and a dedicated macro lens – a Tamron 90mm at 1:1 magnification. F7.1. It may show a tiny bit of diffraction (you have to add roughly two stops to the diffraction limit at 1:1 magnification with a macro lens like this), but all in all is a very sharp shot. Please forget about the lower border – the camera may have been a bit angled (the setup worked well with the lightweight Q7, but was a bit problematic with the heavy K-1/Tamron combo), this might've caused that.
Anyway: the reference shot shows our field of play – it's 36mm wide and looks like this:
All following Q7 shots were taken in DNG format, imported in LR and exported to JPG without any but the default capture sharpening applied.
First Q7 macro is taken with the 04 "Toy wide" - without any tubes attached, but with its barrel distortion corrected (and slightly cropped after that). FOV is similar to the reference shot – of course contrast and detail can't match the 36 MP of the K-1, but overall it's nice and sharp enough across the field at its fixed aperture of 7.1.
#2 and 3 show the 06@45mm with a 10mm tube. Magnification is only a bit larger, but working distance is much larger compared to the 04. The 04 has to be very close to the subject for macro work, the 06 here allows for a distance of about 150mm (measured from the front element of the lens) – a very comfortable distance giving room for all kind of light setups. As a bonus the 06 allows the Q7 to trigger external flashes via the hotshoe which is unfortunately not an option with the 04. But what about the sharpness you get?
I took a series with full f-stops at f2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 and threw in a f7.1. exposure. The sharpest were those taken at f2.8 (center) and f7.1 (overall). #2 is the f2.8 one with a sharp center and good contrast, but with visible softness at the borders and corners. f7.1 sharpens up those latter regions nicely enough, but the center seems to have a little bit less contrast (due to more diffraction, probably). But considering everything I'd take the f7.1 version anytime, especially having in mind the need for some DOF for non-flat objects in macro photography:
06@45mm, 10mm tube, f2.8:
06@45mm, 10mm tube, f7.1:
#4 and 5 show the 06@45mm with a 16mm tube again at f2.8 and f7.1. giving some larger magnification – this time center sharpness is IMO significantly better at f2.8, but again f7.1 is the winner if you don't want too soft borders and corners.
06@45mm, 16mm tube, f2.8:
06@45mm, 16mm tube, f7.1:
#6 and 7 repeat that with a 21mm tube with about the same results – and still with great detail.
06@45mm, 21mm tube, f2.8:
06@45mm, 21mm tube, f7.1:
I also stacked all three tubes with the 06@45mm, but pictures where so soft in comparison to those shown here that I don't include them in this post. Let's just say that you get good results and working distances with tubes up to 21mm for the 06@45mm ...
Now for the surprise candidate I somehow hadn't in mind for macro work before – the 05 "Toy lens tele" with a fixed aperture of f8.0 and a focal length of 18mm.
With a 10mm tube its working distance is a good 40mm – and its magnification then even larger than the 06@45mm with the 21mm tube. Edge sharpness isn't as good as with the f7.1/06 shots, but it isn't that bad either. For a lot of objects sharpness should IMO be absolutely okay.
With a 16mm tube the 05 exhibits again great detail and center sharpness (not so at the borders), the 21 mm tube works also quite good, but working distance gets problematic.
05/16mm tube:
05/21mm tube:
As a bonus here a shot with the 07 showing some not so bad center sharpness; considering the construction of the lens (f9, 11.5mm, a single optical element only) it really is excellent. The borders are of course what the borders of the 07 intentionally are – soft …
To have a more comfortable look at the per pixel sharpness here a row of 600 by 600 px 1:1 crops of all those nine pics shown in a row (load original size):
Now the question is: How much detail do the different lenses really deliver? To find out that I magnified all other shots to the same crop the 05 with the 21 mm tube was showing at 1:1 – giving this row (again, look at the original size):
I think the most details are visible at the shots done with the K-1, the 06@45 with 21mm tube and the 05 with the 16mm tube, so here only the three "finalists" together:
For me the winner showing most resolved detail is the 05 with a 16mm tube – YMMV.
As I said at the beginning take those finding with several grains of salt, because user errors like inadvertently introduced shake during the long exposures or less than perfect focusing could be a real possibility for some or several of the pics.
But altogether I think it's safe to say that you really have some options for surprisingly good and printable macro work with the Q7:
- The 04 works really good without tubes (and sadly without flashes) for "FF-1:1-style" magnification shots – if you enlarge them moderately. A3 sized prints should work well, as with the other combos mentioned here.
- The 06@45mm gives good and comfortable working distances with 10, 16 and 21mm tubes and delivers a solid performance stopped down to f7.1. If you want a sharp center only you can also use brighter apertures without problems. Use of external flashes is possible, which is a great bonus.
- The 05 works surprisingly good for macro shots with large magnifications, if border regions are not of utmost importance – but as with the 04 it sadly doesn't allow the use of an external flash.
- Even the 07 can be used with a 10mm tube for macro work – if only the center of the shot has to be reasonably sharp.
And what's the benefit of using a Q7 for macro work compared to a FF or APS-C DSLR with a dedicated macro lens? Size and especially weight! The Q7 and any of the tube / lens combinations mentioned here weigh next to nothing compared with DSLRs, and using combinations of macro rails and tripod heads with a Q7 is much easier – especially if you use unusual angles and positions and want everything to be stable and easy to handle in spite of that.
That's it. Any questions welcome!
Phil
--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com
Last edited:
