Thanks CH. I now remember, I was using the 25mm extension on the 90/2
in order to get higher magnification, so yes, DOF was definitely less.
Still, in my previous posted shot, the focus point was the drop of
water and was just not as sharp as I had hoped, or remember seeing with
my own eyes at the time. I thought it was due to motion at the time.
Now I'm questioning the lens.
Your shot also has a bit of softness to the in-focus part. Am I being
too critical? Below is the shot I was really trying to get sharper.
Again, 90/2 but speed and f-stop not recorded. I know it was a slow
shot, 1/4-1/2 or so, and probably F8 +-1 F-stop. Film was E100VS but I
don't think the film was the limitation here. No sharpening was done to
the scan, only levels. To me it just seems a bit soft. More than I was
hoping for. I don't see any evidence of camera shake (aperture pre-fire
was used).
http://www.zuik.net/om/e100vs_aug04_002.jpg (2.7mb)
If you look at the grain in this shot, is it as sharp as it should be
for a 4000dpi scan? Am I asking too much from my film shots? Is film to
the point now that it exceeds the performance of lenses from
yesteryear? Were we as concerned about this level of resolution before
the big digital push? hmmmm...
Does anyone have some good examples of using cross-polarization flash
with macro? The other problem with hand-holding, even with flash, is
getting focus at that critical moment. The best moment seems to come
right when I have moved ever so slightly out of focus (focusing done by
moving in and out from the subject). Digital or film it is the same
problem. I think such limitations with this type of photography puts
film on par with 5mp digital, where technique and other factors than
film or sensor limit the result. I hope someone can correct me and
point the way to shaper film macro.
(an aside: On the subject of flash and macro, one way I try to get a
more natural look is to move the flash further back away from the
subject. This gives more even illumination between the subject and the
background, assuming the background is not too far away. Sometimes it
is hard to do in the field, but if I could, I would also use a big flash
diffuser. Now if the dang critters would hold still and stay put while
I set up the studio...:-)
Wayne
At 12:36 PM 9/12/2004, you wrote:
>According to my experience and modern photography test result Zuiko 90/2 is
>not a very sharp lens at close distance and your sample has low contrast and
>very shallow DOF so very hard to judge. Here is an example at 4000dip no
>sharpen, looks a little better in sharpness (for the part in focus). Please
>also
>note it is a 4000dpi scan, you can't directly compare with your E-1 shoot.
>You should resample your E-1 shot to make it the same size as the 4000dpi
>one.
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/P_16.jpg
>
>BTW, I agree with your comment about my sample, it has obvious flash effect
>(reflections) but for this kind of shoots you cannot use tripod and there is
>not possible to shoot without flash unless you have confidence to handhold
>at less than 1/10s. For most insect shoots you need flash, that is life and
>it can be done better if you have a good setup.
>
>C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
