MF Macro examples

[Justinr]

Has anybody done much in the way of macro work with an MF and do they have some results online to compare and contrast?  I've been messing around all day trying to get some decent images from the Mamiya/ZD with 120mm macro  lens and have not achieved anything that I am happy with. In fact this is the best I managed and it's just too soft to my mind. I'm trying to work out if it's me or the camera or whether I'm expecting too much.

[Hank Keeton]

Yes....I do lots.....largely with Hassy-V + Aptus-65, but I also use movements with my Sinar P2. My website has numerous examples. I commonly use Helicon-Focus to achieve the DoF I want...but movements also allow me to expand those optical limits. Natural lighting is a must....but I will sometimes augment that, to highlight certain features or provide a different "look."

It's a great compliment to my WA or tele work in general....

Cheers!

[amsp]

The Mamiya 120mm Macro is a stellar and painfully sharp lens, so there's something wrong either with your lens, camera or technique.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Yes, I agree, the 120mm f/4 Macro is a great lens, probably one of the best for the system. why don't you walk us through your shooting technique from the ground up.

[Justinr]

Yes, I agree, the 120mm f/4 Macro is a great lens, probably one of the best for the system. why don't you walk us through your shooting technique from the ground up.

I've attached a picture of the set up being used. The Mamiya is mounted on a tripod with a synch cable to the overhead flash unit, the second flash unit is on slave.

The subject is placed in a light tent as seen with a third small flash head situated down behind reflecting off the screen, so there is plenty of diffused light. The overhead lamp is the main source whilst I use a snoot on the fill to direct light at a slight angle across the subject to give the image some lift.

The photo of the lichen above was taken at 1/80th, f32, ISO50 and was the sharpest I had obtained.

I bring the camera as close to the subject as the lens will focus then back off an inch or two so I haven't got it pinned at its minimum focusing distance.

I have tried focusing both by eye and the manual focusing aid.

 

[synn]

Are you using mirror lockup and a remote shutter release?

[Justinr]

Remote release yes, mirror lock up no, that could be worth a try.

[synn]

f32 can't be helping. Mirror up is essential.

Yep, that too.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

f32 can't be helping.

That's putting it mildly ...

It will utterly kill all micro-contrast and significantly reduce overall resolution, is closer to what it does.

The f/32 aperture will produce a diffraction blur pattern with a 44 micron diameter, covering a huge number of sensels, and that's not even including residual lens aberrations and defocus (DOF is very shallow in photomacrography) blur. Diffraction alone will physically limit resolution to 55.4 cycles/mm for average luminance, equivalent to some 70% of the maximum resolution of a 6.4 micron pitch sensor array. Again, that's only the optical diffraction component, actual resolution will be even less.

Cheers,
Bart

[Justinr]

First of all many thanks for the input folk, it is appreciated.

I've just done some jewellery with the mirror locked up and the aperture at f29 and it does seem a lot better. I'll have another go at the lichen later for a true comparison but I think the mirror was the major problem. I had pushed the aperture to the limit in a vain attempt to gain sharpness so I'll be follow your advice Bart and try backing off that as well.

Have since given my forehead a good slap! 

[yaya]

With your 9 micron sensor and the 120mm you can get decent results at f16 or even f22 with a bit of sharpening. If you need more DOF I suggest that you use Focus stacking

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

With your 9 micron sensor and the 120mm you can get decent results at f16 or even f22 with a bit of sharpening. If you need more DOF I suggest that you use Focus stacking

Indeed.

With a 9 micron pitch sensor that will work out somewhat better than for smaller sensel pitches, but given the close-up nature of the subjects, it would be safer to stay at f/16 - f/18 as narrowest apertures. Depending on the actual magnification factor, that will give a DOF of about 3.5 millimetres, so stacking will very quickly become the only option for improved DOF and sharpness. This all assumes no down-sampling for output.

Cheers,
Bart

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Yes as others have said. There are a number of issues.

1.) f/32 is absolutely killing you. You'll be good up up to f/11 and possibly f/16 and then once your past f/22 diffraction is going to be absolutely killing any chance you could hope for of a sharp image.
2.) Selftimer for 5 seconds or so to reduce vibrations.
3.) mirror lock up further reduce vibrations
4.) cable release or tethered triggering with C1 or whatever.
5.) If you can bump the exposure up to 1/125 or something you might remove the risk of environmental factors causing vibration I.e people walking (including yourself) or house hold equipment. Etc.
6.) extended center column also destabilizes the tripod.

And yes as others have said, you might want to look into focus stacking. That might help you out. Like a lot actually. I know there's lots of solutions out there but I learned about focus stacking mostly from the Helicon Focus website. Can't speak to their product. Never used it for macro.

[jerome_m]

Has anybody done much in the way of macro work with an MF and do they have some results online to compare and contrast?

Ghislain Simard is known for his insects photographed with an Hasselblad camera.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would agree with most things said.

I have shot some samples for another reader on LuLa forums, they are all here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MacroDemo_res/

The folder contains two layered tiff shot at f/8, f/16 and f/32 with a P45+ and a Zeiss Macro Planar 120/4 and also a Sony Alpha 99SLT and a Minolta 100/2.8 Macro. Bottom layer is f/32.

I also included two JPEG images that were stacked with Zerene Stacker, one from each camera, P45+ was shot at f/11 and Sony Alpha at f/8.

I also tried stacking with my very old copy of Helicon Focus but that did not work out well.

Best regards
Eik

Has anybody done much in the way of macro work with an MF and do they have some results online to compare and contrast?  I've been messing around all day trying to get some decent images from the Mamiya/ZD with 120mm macro  lens and have not achieved anything that I am happy with. In fact this is the best I managed and it's just too soft to my mind. I'm trying to work out if it's me or the camera or whether I'm expecting too much.

[EricWHiss]

When I had my Mamiya DF body and Aptus 12, I did a little test to measure useable DOF and also diffraction loss.   Here's a series of images from aperture f/5.7 to f/23 
Comparing these images to what you have, I'm wonder if you have more than just f/32 diffraction losses going on. 
btw - I think the 120 for mamiya is a good lens, but not the equal of the Rollei/Schneider 90mm APO macro or 150mm APO Macro.

First here is the full scene, followed by a crop of f/5.7, f/8, and f/13

 

[EricWHiss]

and crops from f/16, f/18/, f/20, f/23

and this is with a 80mp back with a 5.2 um sensor. I'd say with a 9um sensor you'd see diffraction one to one and half stops more closed down from these I am posting.

Erik K. Do you best to control yourself.  I'm not going anywhere else with this discussion other than posting these images.

[EricWHiss]

Here's a macro test shot from the Rollei 150mm macro at f/14 with the AFi-ii 12
The DOF is pretty thin here so I can see why you wanted to stop down more, but you really can't. Focus stacking as Yair suggested may be useful.  But I think you could go to f/20 with the 9um without taking too much of a hit and f/18 with the 5um backs, even further if your print size isn't large - as no one will notice.   

[EricWHiss]

I forgot to mention that in the mamiya 120 + Aptus 12 shots I posted the acceptable DOF appears to about 5 inches (again depending on print size / viewing distance) but my set up was further back from the bill than in your case.  You might try back up a bit and then using f/16 to catch the whole of your subject in DOF.   Even if you have to crop away a majority of your image, you may still have a sharper image with more of the subject within the DOF.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Eric,

I don't like your attitude in this case. The OP asked for macro samples and I posted macro samples showing a three D subject at three different apertures with tow different camera systems, I also posted the same subject with the two cameras using focus stacking, using Zerene stacker. So I am giving the OP what he asked for.

I don't think you checked the images I posted. You are just assuming that they contradict your views, which I don't think they do.

As it may be you and I have different views and different experience, but I would say that my views may be as valid as yours.

I also have two issues with the test shots you have posted. One is that those images are in no way macro, an $ bill is no good way to test a macro shot as it does not have detail fine enough, the other is that at macro the actual aperture is decreased, due to magnification. At 1:1 macro it is usually 2 stops, so f/16 is no f/32. My own shots take this into account (in part), as they are close ups. That said, I feel that f/16 holds
up pretty well.

As I shot a 3D image the OP can judge the effect of DoF and diffraction, which cannot be done from your shots. I enclose an actual crop from the P45+ f/16 image, which I feel shows very good sharpness although being stopped down. What is wrong with that?

So I don't really understand your attitude.

Best regards
Erik

Erik K. Do you best to control yourself.  I'm not going anywhere else with this discussion other than posting these images.