Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 16, 2005, 11:52 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

I have just received a Nikon 5T yesterday, which is now stacked to the 6T I already have for some months.

In Italy the price is the same, but I took the 5T rather than another 6T in order to retain some good focussing distance, which is important not to scare the subjects and not to block the flash light.

My setup on the FZ20 is sketched below in the drawing (with the standard Lumix converter).

[When using the 6T alone, the magnification doesn't change depending on the way I thread it to the step down ring (i.e. making it stay inside or outside the adaptor).
But Iobviously set it inside, for the closest to the distance from the main FZ lens, the least any possible reflections].

I have read the tables which are within theNikon T lenses boxes.

- Why they don't mention any magnification ( + 2,9, + 1,5?).

- Minimum breadth (horizontal larger side) captured with 6T at 12x zoom with FZ20:
(focussing at 29-30cm) = 2,7cm

- Minimum captured horiz. frame with 6T + 5T, always 12x/ 432mm eq.:
(focussing at 19-20 cm) = 1,8 cm
(Tested with my photos of a stamp and agreeing with the Nikon intruct. paper tables).

1) Whyis there a 33% increment adding the 5T (which is 50% the power of 6T) instead of a 50% increment?

2) Will 2 6T lenses thus provide a 50% increment (thus an horiz. frame of 1,35 cm)?

3) When the "reproduction ratio" of the lenses (cf. the Nikon instructions paper) is given as 1/1,2, or 1/0,5 (=2) what this means (what is the reproduction compared with/related to)?

4) Any suggestion by the few userso of 6T+5T and the one or two who I know to have two 6T?

Nar

Attached Images
 
Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 16, 2005, 1:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
seemolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,255
Default

Hi Franceso,

+ 2,9, + 1,5 diopter is ok.

there are others, which will be able to answer your questions better.
I had a test of achromats some time ago (of how boring....).
For my personal needs I just summarized the results.

First is the (minimum) long axis in cm FZ5 12* telezoom compared to diopter

This is an exponential curve, this will answer one of your questions.

Next the distance front lens to object:


again an exponential relation.

I took the diopters published by the manufacturers, they are not reliable.
The curves would be better with measured diopters.
22 diopters is a reversed SLR lens.

with kind regards
Sven



seemolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 3:02 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

Dear Sven

Thank you: I thought it could have been a logaritmic or exponential curve.

In the first graphic, the blue dot at 4,4 diopter has a 'long axis' capture of 2 cm, whereas I measured it at 1,8 with FZ20+6T+5T (+ 4,4). Is it an error ? (FZ5 and 20 have the same lens f) or a different dipoter than the two nikon stacked?

So 2 stacked Nikon 6T (+5,9) would focus at nearly 13cm and give a min. of around 1,5 cm (more probably a couple of cm less, despite the graphic).
This means very scanty gain in magnification and a large decrease in focus distance (steep curve , there) which would probably cause a block of the built in flash light.

A tip from me for your (only macro) galleries:
very nice
http://www.macrophotography.org/modu...p?name=Gallery

My own Macro gallery there
http://www.macrophotography.org/modu...view_album.php

Also a good Forum inside...

Sincerely
Francesco


PS I read your diopters test forum with images of screencrystals magnified numbers

PS 2 - I hope you won't get as far:

http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/galle...&imageid=1

Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 3:27 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

A further tip for a site with good MACRO articles and galleries

http://www.oncloserinspection.com/Ph...macro_home.htm
Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 6:14 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
seemolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,255
Default

sorry Franceso,

this was just a fast answer, there could be a difference of 10 to 20%!

These 4.5 - 4.2 diopters were my canon 240d - a bad lens (with wrong diopter, as you can see with the second curve). I had no time for exact measurements, but there will be a (logarithmic) regression analysis. Sorry I haven't got a nikon, ebay was so kind to offer elpros and olympus lenses at a lower prices. But only diopters count!
If there were more measurements/answers to my thread the curves would be better!

Thanks for the links - the stink bug is spectatular!

But I have to disappoint you, my FZ has to get closer:
this is the mouth of a fly (cropped) - freehand olympus life size +7,7 diopt. My first shot with this unknown - fantastic lens! It has a larger diameter than the raynox drc-250.



I am just starting with apochromatic lenses now, to get a little bit closer.
But up to now my digiscoping with the canon A70 and a leitz microscope is better.
This is amber business, not freehand macro.

Where are the answers of the nikon/raynox fans?

Sven






seemolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 7:38 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
LoveLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,288
Default

I cannot believe you are getting results like this from your set up. Why not buy a 62mm adapter and get a closer fit then your examples indicates.

Nikon 4T on a CRing adapter.


LoveLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2005, 6:14 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Narmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,813
Default

Thank you again, Sven

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Don't be sorry, just go on having have fun.


style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Francesco

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"
Narmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2005, 11:58 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
seemolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,255
Default

Hi Franceso,
this one is more precise:
using your two parameters too (they fit so well)...

I will not trust the manufacturers and check the diopters (but I need sunlight for this measurement). But I can recalculate the diopters by this curve :-)
This curve is very close to your observations!

Sven



seemolf is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:38 PM.