[ChrisJ]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread to show what the bellows can do when fully extended, the subject is a dead bluebottle I found on our windowsill.

[IMG] [/IMG]




Chris

[monochrome]

Damn!! (Uttered as Montgomery responding to Patton entering Montevideo first).

As I read threads I'm literally contemplating how to mount the Q>K, K>M42 then my elderly bellows, then my Soligor 180/3.5 to see what happens.

But you got first mover with a bellows.

That'll teach me to spend all day posting instead of using.

Neat shots!!

[barondla]

Excellent bellows work ChrisJ. Having used a bellows with the Q, I know how tough it is at these magnifications. Splendid results. Superb detail.
thanks
barondla

[ChrisJ]

Thanks barondla, do you have any of your images to show? It's occurred to me that the tiny sensor that everybody derided is the Q's best asset, high resolution, low noise (for it's size) it opens up opportunities for the 'extremes' in photography, very close and very far away like no other camera. For me as a born 'tinkerer' it gives me access to all sorts of imaging possibilities at a very cheap price.

Chris

[audiobomber]

Has anyone tried to mate a Raynox to the 01 prime?

[snostorm]

Has anyone tried to mate a Raynox to the 01 prime?

Hi Dan,

Diopter add-ons don't do much with any of the Q Quality line (AF) lenses because of their very low native magnifications (0.05x for the 01 and 02, and 0.06 for the 06). Compare this to native mag of the kit zooms with the DA18-55 at 0.34x, the DA 50-200 at 0.24x, and the DA 55-300 at 0.28x. The Q AF lenses, even with heavy diopter magnification (like +8 for the Raynox DCR 250) only get you to something that's appropriate for medium sized flowers or butterflies, and the working distance is relatively short, so it really doesn't work for live critters. Also, most of the good add-on diopters (achromats) are optically optimized for use on much longer FL lenses (usually 70mm and up in actual FL).

Dedicated macros are really the way to go IMO. The extreme crop factor gives a 1:1 macro an apparent magnification bump of about 3.8x over APS-C. The actual magnification is 1:1, but the subject image to the cropped frame gives the impression of greater magnification. With a Pentax APS-C body, 1:1 means that a 23.7mm subject fills the frame horizontally. With the Q, 1:1 means that a 6.17mm subject fills the frame horizontally, and at the same working distance. This gives a potential for a few advantages. You can shoot the Q at longer working distances to get equivalent apparent magnification in relation to the frame as APS-C, and this greater distance gives you increased DOF and less steep angles for camera mounted flash. Of course, at minimum focusing distances, you get the increased apparent magnification in relation to the frame, but no advantage for DOF, working distance or flash angle.

Zooms with "macro" capabilities (usually up to 1:2) can give you good apparent magnification, but working distances can be short, and these lenses are usually much larger than dedicated macros, so there's a tradeoff in usability.

Scott

[audiobomber]

I tried hand-holding the Raynox 250 on the end of the lens. Here's the 01 prime + Raynox 250 at minimum focus distance:



06 Zoom + Raynox 250:



Not bad! I have a D FA 100, but the Raynox is handy because it's so small. OTOH, I don't know think I want to hang the weight of a Raynox on the end of that plasticky zoom.

There are two more photos here, showing magnification of the lenses without the diopter:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bonhommed/QMacro?authkey=Gv1sRgCP-ZmZjTy6TtZA#

[lytrytyr]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread to show what the bellows can do when fully extended, the subject is a dead bluebottle

Chris, you give whole new meaning to thread necromancy!

Great shots, though.

[fotogenius]

audiobomber, how did you make the Raynox 250 fit the prime lens? Can you tell me which type of Raynox did you get? A pentax one? Any link where I can buy it online?
I am interested in Macro photography using the Q myself but I don't know DSLR lens.
Thanks.

[snostorm]

Hi fotogenius,

You have two possible ways to attach a Raynox DCR 250 to any of the Q AF lenses. The Raynox has a native 43mm thread on the lens. You can get a 40.5mm (the 01, 02, and 06 lenses use 40.5mm filters) to 43mm step up ring and screw it in directly, or get a 40.5 to 52mm (up to 67mm) step up and use the included snap on adapter.

As you can see from the examples, the 01 prime gives you a FOV of about 45mm or about 1.5" (@1:7.3) which isn't really even close to anyone's definition of macro magnification (the 06 gives about 1:2.4 which might be considered "macro" -- depends on your standards). In either case, you're hanging some weight on the end of the lens. With DSLR lenses, this is usually not an issue, but with the diminutive Q lenses it might be. . . your choice.

Scott

[baro-nite]

Did some maQro today so time to revive this thread. This is 2.5:1 on the original Q, using a 10x microscope objective with the Pentax-A 50/2.8 macro as the converging lens. Works well because the effective f-number of this combination is just over f/4 (including the magnification factor) so diffraction softening is minimal. This is the wing of a Tiger Swallowtail, showing the blue scales in one of the eye spots.

[barondla]

Absolutely spectacular baro-nite. Love the sharpness and colors. So hard to get sharpness at these magnifications. Great capture. Lets see more.

I am a little unclear on your set up. Did you mount a 50mm macro lens, to a microscope objective, on a microscope? I know very little about microscopes, but just bought an used Olympus stereo model. Haven't had time to figure out how to mount a camera to it yet.
thanks
barondla

[baro-nite]

Thanks barondla. I should have mentioned that this is a focus stack -- 22 shots stacked in Zerene Stacker. A stage capable of precise movement is essential; DOF here is under 20µm.

No microscope involved, just a microscope objective in front of the lens. Microscope objective are either finite (older ones) or infinity-corrected; a finite objective can be used as is on simple extension, while an infinity-corrected objective requires a converging lens to produce a good image. Turns out an ordinary camera lens focused at infinity works well as a converging lens. Nass has a site called Extreme Macro that explains all this succinctly. Microscope objectives are fixed aperture and tend to be very fast. The one I have is around f/1.8. If there's an ordinary camera lens sharp enough for high magnification work at an f-number below f/4 or so, I'm not aware of it. (For stacked lenses the effective aperture is the nominal aperture of the front lens multiplied by the magnification, so nominal f/4 would become f/10 here and be very soft on the Q.)

Objectives come in a bewildering array of specifications, so anyone thinking about buying one for photography would do well to pick a specific objective that has been tested and recommended for the purpose.

I did this stack as a bit of a lark; ordinarily I would have shot the more-or-less equivalent 7.5x on my K10D. But the Q has the advantage of no mirror slap and very little vibration from the shutter in the Adapter Q. Also the lower weight of the system makes the precise movements needed for the stack easier to do. So I'll be turning to this rig again, no question. Indeed, here's one more reason for me to upgrade to the Q7.

[baro-nite]

And here's the microscope objective mounted on lens and Q:

[Yos]

Not sure if I should write here or start a new post.
My wife have been asking for a macro lens for the Q and I am not sure which way to go.
Should I order the genuine Pentax k-q adapter and let her use my DFA 100mm macro lens?
Get some close-up/macro filters for a 02 lens. Try to get hold of a 01 lens and close-up/macro filters or is there more ways to go?

I know there is lots of knowledgeable folks out here so please give me some advice