[evidone]

(categorizing as machinery as it seems closest)

Backstory: ever since I started being bothered by RSI in my wrists a decade ago, I've been more and more fond of trackballs over mice. Having used many, the only one I can really tolerate (and have come to love) is the poorly-named Kensington Expert Mouse.

Despite retailing for about $100, they don't seem to be QA'd very well before they ship. First, and this isn't necessarily bad design if done properly: the ball itself rolls on three plastic spheres which stay in place, rather than on ball bearings or something else that could roll with it; that's fine, I've had four of these and they've been smooth as butter. This one is different.

When I got it, it had a plastic ridge on one of the spheres, which caused friction when rolling, which led to inaccuracy with the trackball and general frustration.

So, being a camera, computer, AND knife nerd, I... used a sharpening rod to file down a tiny bit of the sphere. It was far from a perfect job but worked quite well. Tonight I found it starting to resist again, and it occurred to me that maybe I could get a macro shot that'd help me figure out which part I needed to make smoother.

These are the last three of 7 attempts at pictures of those spheres; using the A 70-210mm in macro and holding a mini maglite with the same hand that was steadying the lens so I could get a decent exposure...

ANYWAY - I thought I'd post these here since I found them interesting, and I'd like some hints on how to take macro shots that come out clearer than this. So I have some questions:

0) I know I need a tripod. Is there a good one that doesn't cost as much as a good lens? (seeing as tripods are far simpler machines than lenses, I find them overpriced. my opinion, of course)
1) How much does autofocus help, when you're aiming for something about 3mm in diameter?
2) I've found plenty of macro lenses that I want, but... I don't know what I need. I want something "better at macro" but I don't have a clue what I mean by that other than wanting it to be slightly easier to get an image of something like this.
3) Is there a lens that's made just for macro, that would be good for this sort of thing, and won't cost more than about $500? Macro on the A 70-210 has always pleased me, but as a zoom lens with a small macro slot in its rotation, I don't expect it to achieve whatever quality a dedicated macro lens could -- but again since I'm new to this I'm not sure what a dedicated macro lens can do, and whether it's better at all. For all I know the A 70-210's little macro mode could be the best macro lens out there

Please school me!

[edited to add: the scratches around the "bracket" holding the strange plastic sphere were caused by me missing the tiny thing with the sharpening rod. They don't contact the trackball itself, so they're cosmetic only]

---------- Post added 04-21-16 at 09:04 PM ----------

commenting on my own thread: from what I see looking at macro lenses, 1:1 magnification seems to be a selling point; if 1:1 is the best way to make a macro lens, then the only answer to getting a sharper image of something small would be a higher-resolution sensor, wouldn't it? Aren't there lenses which magnify at a short focal length? My uninformed thought is that optical magnification, provided sufficient light and an unmoving lens, would be better quality than simply adding megapixels. Have I missed something obvious? :-)

---------- Post added 04-21-16 at 09:10 PM ----------

Fixed, by a piece of a 12000 grit belt wrapped around a fingertip

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by evidone; 04-21-2016 at 08:56 PM. Reason: clarification

[UncleVanya]

Wow loads of questions.

Lets start with the tripod. What do you need it to do? Light, stable, cheap... Pick two. If you mainly need sturdy/stable, and cheap, it will be heavy but usable for around the house, out of the car trunk and short carry, but not something you hike with.

Loads of cheap tripod options, many are throw away, they work today but break easily and aren't stable. However for simple work a cheap tripod is better than no tripod.

Lens... A dedicated manual focus macro is pretty cheap and offers1:2 or 1:1 with high quality. Used DFA 100 or F/FA 100's are typically under your budget of $500. These are autofocus and extremely high quality.

You can also use extension tubes or high quality macro add on lenses like the Raynox 150 or 250.

Lastly you need Light; tons of it in many cases. Some kind of flash and a way to direct it where you need it is Very helpful.

Can you buy a quality tripod, a quality dedicated macro lens, and a flash on your budget? Maybe, but you will have to prioritize carefully.

[LensBeginner]

Short of getting a dedicated macro lens, the poor man's macro is a macro teleconverter (or extension tubes) and a manual 50mm.
Total cash needed: under a hundred bucks

[evidone]

I saw the converters, and wasn't sure if I should trust 'em -- looked a little too easy. I wouldn't mind getting a dedicated macro lens, I just don't know how much I'll use it so I don't want to go crazy buying it

I do want a 50mm though...

[Giklab]

0) I have a Manfrotto 190XPRO3 which is very much overkill for my level of photography. On the other hand, it's built like a tank and could probably hold everything I may throw at it (and, interestingly enough, it was the reasonable choice at the time of buying). Look into Sirui tripods. I wouldn't trust Triopo (Dolica?) and related cheap carbon fibre tripods for macro - their normal ones may be OK though. Most of the usual suspects make more reasonably priced tripods - ex Manfrotto'd 29x series).

1) Forget about AF IMO.

2) Lenses? First, look into getting a set of macro tubes or a deglassed TC with aperture control. You should be able to work with the 70-210, but many lenses in the 50-100 range should work very well too. I use a M 40-80 and a Vivitar 70-210, the latter gets past 1:1 on extension tubes. There's any number of old 50-100mm macro lenses, and the beauty here is that macro lenses are relatively specialized and so even third party stuff is generally pretty damn good and may be cheaper.

On a related note: as a gamer, I dread the day when I'll have to use anything other than a mouse.

[evidone]

0) I have a Manfrotto 190XPRO3 which is very much overkill for my level of photography. On the other hand, it's built like a tank and could probably hold everything I may throw at it (and, interestingly enough, it was the reasonable choice at the time of buying). Look into Sirui tripods. I wouldn't trust Triopo (Dolica?) and related cheap carbon fibre tripods for macro - their normal ones may be OK though. Most of the usual suspects make more reasonably priced tripods - ex Manfrotto'd 29x series).

1) Forget about AF IMO.

2) Lenses? First, look into getting a set of macro tubes or a deglassed TC with aperture control. You should be able to work with the 70-210, but many lenses in the 50-100 range should work very well too. I use a M 40-80 and a Vivitar 70-210, the latter gets past 1:1 on extension tubes. There's any number of old 50-100mm macro lenses, and the beauty here is that macro lenses are relatively specialized and so even third party stuff is generally pretty damn good and may be cheaper.

On a related note: as a gamer, I dread the day when I'll have to use anything other than a mouse.

0) I was already planning to avoid the carbon fiber ones, as while I imagine a really spendy one would be just fine, they probably aren't as good on the low-end
1) good, i thought so; the extent to which I use AF when shooting with the 70-210 is just to get the red indicator as an extra confirmation that the target is in focus.
2) glad to know that the 70-210 isn't a bad choice for macro. I love that lens, and given the macro shots I've taken so far, it's done quite well by me. This is the first case where I've wanted something magnified beyond what it does.

One thing that still confuses me is crop factor/35mm equiv... the math is straightforward, but if I were to buy smc FA 50mm f/1.4 | Ricoh Imaging, would it still be a 50mm on an APS-C DSLR, or would it be a 75mm?

[LensBeginner]

I routinely use a Kenko Macro MC 7 elements converter (all manual, paid 15€ for it), paired qith a SMC M 50/1.7, with excellent result. Goes to 1:1 with a 50mm, even more with a shorter focal length (yes it's the reverse of what one would think at first).
Only caveat: all TCs magnify the features of the lens, good and (especially) bad... if you use a good prime, then it's not a problem, but don't try it with zooms or bad lenses because you'll be disappointed.

Note than the TC must be "macro", i.e. have an helicoid, not just the glass.

[Giklab]

One thing that still confuses me is crop factor/35mm equiv... the math is straightforward, but if I were to buy smc FA 50mm f/1.4 | Ricoh Imaging, would it still be a 50mm on an APS-C DSLR, or would it be a 75mm?

A 50 is a 50 is a 50
It's only for comparison's sake that we say a 50mm on apsc is like a 75mm on FF - those are the focal lengths that give the same field of view on their respective formats.

[evidone]

Then I'm reaaaaly leaning towards that FA 50mm f/1.4. time to read reviews and decide whether or not I want beer money for the next month

[Giklab]

Then I'm reaaaaly leaning towards that FA 50mm f/1.4. time to read reviews and decide whether or not I want beer money for the next month

Hah
That 50 may not be very good for macro (I don't doubt it's great for normal shooting) because of the focus ring and focus throw. I'll leave this for someone who actually owns one though.

[evidone]

What problems does the focus ring present?

I was looking specifically at that one for two reasons:

1) f/1.4 vs f/1.8 on many of the other K-mount 50s i've looked at
2) intended for 35mm, so no cropping if I decide someday to get a K-1*

*: I am far from being skilled enough for my gear to be a limitation, but my evil father in law who got me into this habit (thanks steve!) didn't sufficiently warn me about how addictive it is. :P

Maybe I should quit drooling over lenses and get the damn tripod first. I can say this, though: duplo bricks make a perfectly adequate poor man's semi-adjustable camera mount.

[excanonfd]

FA50/1.4 plus a macro converter should work as well as any other 50mm lens. I have both but I haven't combined them together to shoot macro - I use dedicated macro lenses. FA50/1.4 is soft wide open but stopped down to f2.8-f4.0, it's sharp as any other Pentax nifty-fifties.

If you are thinking of getting a FA50/1.4, I would suggest you spend a little more money and get a Pentax D-FA 50/2.8 macro lens. It's an AF, dedicated macro lens capable of 1:1 magnification and probably the sharpest lens ever produced by Pentax.

[LensBeginner]

If you're thinking like "I'll buy an f/1.4 because it's a swell lens", then ok.
If you're thinking like "I'll buy an f/1.4 because I need the light", well, for macro you'll be at f/16-32 (including the converter) most of the time and still cry for DoF...
A 2x TC doubles both the FL and the f-number denominator.

[Giklab]

What problems does the focus ring present?

It's *tiny*.
Also, macro lenses have a much longer turn of the ring to focus close, which means it's easier and more precise to focus.

1) f/1.4 vs f/1.8 on many of the other K-mount 50s i've looked at
2) intended for 35mm, so no cropping if I decide someday to get a K-1*

If those are your reasons then go for it

[pepperberry farm]

0) I know I need a tripod. Is there a good one that doesn't cost as much as a good lens? (seeing as tripods are far simpler machines than lenses, I find them overpriced. my opinion, of course)
1) How much does autofocus help, when you're aiming for something about 3mm in diameter?
2) I've found plenty of macro lenses that I want, but... I don't know what I need. I want something "better at macro" but I don't have a clue what I mean by that other than wanting it to be slightly easier to get an image of something like this.
3) Is there a lens that's made just for macro, that would be good for this sort of thing, and won't cost more than about $500? Macro on the A 70-210 has always pleased me, but as a zoom lens with a small macro slot in its rotation, I don't expect it to achieve whatever quality a dedicated macro lens could -- but again since I'm new to this I'm not sure what a dedicated macro lens can do, and whether it's better at all. For all I know the A 70-210's little macro mode could be the best macro lens out there

Please school me!

firstly - I love my Kensington Expert Mouse; so much so, I have a backup in it's OEM packaging stashed in a desk drawer...I have one at home and at my desk at work...

tripod - buy used, post a 'Wanted' ad here, scour your local shops, etc - you don't need a glitzy, lighter than air tripod; you need sturdy and dead-dog reliable...

autofocus - not for macro; you want to have as much control as possible

check out the lenses used in this forum for macro - not all are 'macro' lenses, but a lot of extension tubes, etc...

the A70-210 is really more of a 'close-focus' lens, rather than an actual macro lens..