PDA

View Full Version : Bellows or lens reversal?


emirpprime
22nd December 2007, 05:40 PM
I'm thinking of playing with real macro - more than 2x. The only ways I know of getting into this really is through lens reversal, or using bellows.

Anyone have any experience?

As I see it I either look pick up an OM50 1.8 maybe, and an adapter ring, and mount it on the front of the 50-200 or 50 macro.
Or I look for some OM bellows and a OM50 1.8, and mount them on my OM adapter.

Does anyone know how to work out which will give the greater magnification? I think it would be the bellows at maximum extension but am not certain.

An advice would be great :)

Thanks
Phil

theMusicMan
22nd December 2007, 06:13 PM
Hey Phil - what about the Oly 50mm Macro, with some quality x filters as a first (and cheaper) first option...?

I have the 35mm Macro and find that great for my standard - the 50mm is a step up from this I gather and could yield you significantly better results that I have managed.

emirpprime
22nd December 2007, 08:07 PM
Thanks for the idea John. To be honest I always thought the results were pretty low quality and only really for P&S, but thats not based on experience! Have you tried or seen any results from them on DSLRs? Feel free to put me right :D
Meanwhile I'll go look at some online.

Cheers
Phil

R MacE
22nd December 2007, 08:46 PM
Hi,

I've used the OM 50mm f/1.8-OM Bellows on my E-1. You'll get up to 4.0 with the lens reversed.

http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/macrophotogroup/auto_bellows.htm

emirpprime
23rd December 2007, 12:29 PM
That looks quite promising, and it doesn't seem too expensive. How did you find the sharpness?
Thanks a lot,
Phil

Hiding_Pup
23rd December 2007, 12:45 PM
Another cheap alternative...

There's a trader on eBay who does stackable extension tubes for 4/3 cameras:

http://tinyurl.com/3bs2gy

Presumably, these wouldn't be great with a digital lens as you'd have no control over aperture or, for that matter, focusing - but with an adapter and some manual focus lenses...

R MacE
23rd December 2007, 01:51 PM
That looks quite promising, and it doesn't seem too expensive. How did you find the sharpness?
Thanks a lot,
Phil

I thought it was ok, I also used a 2 way focusing track (ebay #180196246118) The focussing should be easier on the E-3 using Live View.

R MacE
23rd December 2007, 03:12 PM
Hope you haven't bought OM Bellows to use on the E-3. I just tried to fit mine to the E-3, it doesn't fit as the Prism housing gets in the way. The lever on the bellows lens mount needs about 5mm cut off to clear the prism. It should be ok if you're prepared to do that.

[edit] I disvovered that if you remove the plastic covering on the Bellows lens lock lever (2 small screws) it just clears the prism on the E-3. Problem solved. :-)

R MacE
23rd December 2007, 11:26 PM
I've taken some shots of the E-3/OM bellows combo.


http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1597/ppuser/78

The lever circled is used to rotate the mount to lock it to the camera body. The OM>4/3rds adapter is also fitted. The lever just fails to clear the prism.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1598/ppuser/78

I simply removed the plastic cover from the lever and it can now clear the prism. The cover is attached by 2 small screws

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1598/ppuser/78

Lever at closest point to prism

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1599/ppuser/78

This is the adapter fully locked in position ready to be attached to the bellows.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1600/ppuser/78

Shown without the camera. The mount simply fits to the rear standard and is locked in position by the small thumbscrew.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1601/ppuser/78

E-3/OM Auto Bellows combo with an OM 50mm f/1.8 in the normal position and at full extension.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1602/ppuser/78

This shot shows the lens reversed.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/1603/ppuser/78

A 2 pence coin taken at about half extension. un-cropped but resized.

emirpprime
24th December 2007, 08:37 AM
Thanks :) That makes it much clearer, and thank you for clearing up about the lever. The magnification also looks very promising!
Something else to spend the pennies on... ;)
Phil

OlyFlyer
6th January 2008, 02:21 PM
A few links you may want to have a look for some ideas.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=261281

The highest magnification I could get with bellows and an OM 35mm lens reversed is so far 17:1. Not much light left to be used, so count on long exposure or a lot of flash.

http://olyflyer.blogspot.com/2007/05/general-macro-adapter-for-e-system.html

http://olyflyer.blogspot.com/2007/05/magnification-ratios-using-my-ex-41-and.html

...and the answer I gave in another thread.

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3847&postcount=26

Glyn R
6th January 2008, 04:07 PM
Why can't I just buy an OM bellows set and use it with my 50mm OM macro using an OM-4/3 adapter on the camera.

OlyFlyer
6th January 2008, 05:24 PM
Why can't I just buy an OM bellows set and use it with my 50mm OM macro using an OM-4/3 adapter on the camera.Indeed you can, just like I use my OM35 mm as well. I don't have that lens and I wanted to make a macro adapter for my digital ED50, but if I had an OM 50mm macro I would use that as well. I'd still have the modified EX-25 adapter anyway. The only thing you have to think about is that the Olympus bellows needs a piece of extension tube as well, unless you modify the bellows. Have a look at my link about the bellows I had. There are plenty other alternative bellows as well, you don't need to get the OM bellows, but of course you need the right lens and adapter for the camera.

R MacE
6th January 2008, 10:50 PM
An interesting post, the linked articles are very good.

I've just replaced the plastic lever on my bellows and added a 7mm OM extension tube to the lens mount to give me enough clearance for the E-3 Prism Housing.

Thanks for the Tip :)

lauriek
18th January 2008, 07:25 PM
Hi,

I've used the OM 50mm f/1.8-OM Bellows on my E-1. You'll get up to 4.0 with the lens reversed.

http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/macrophotogroup/auto_bellows.htm

Bit late on this thread I know but I only just found this site!

Don't forget the 4x magnification stated on this page assumes a 35mm sensor size in an OM camera behind the bellows. As the 4/3 sensor is half the size, the magnification should be 8x (on a 4/3 sensor cam).

Please see my gallery for some examples of what you can achieve with this combination... (using focus stacking for enhanced DOF).

OlyFlyer
18th January 2008, 09:01 PM
Bit late on this thread I know but I only just found this site!

Don't forget the 4x magnification stated on this page assumes a 35mm sensor size in an OM camera behind the bellows. As the 4/3 sensor is half the size, the magnification should be 8x (on a 4/3 sensor cam). That is wrong. Magnification is independant of which sensor size you have.

I think I have discussed this over and over again on every place I have been. Magnification factor is the same as if you take an image of a ruler in landscape mode and then divide the sensor size with the number of millimeters you see in the image, whichever sensor you have. If you for example take an image of a 1 mm part of a ruler, than divide 17.3 with 1 gives you 17.3:1 magnification. If you would take the same 1 mm piece with a 35 mm film camera you must divide 35 with 1, which will give you 35:1 magnification. Magnification factor has nothing to do at all with the sensor size, it is a ratio between the life size image and the size of the image on your sensor.

It is a common misunderstanding that Olympus falsely try to spread on unfortunately. The ED50/f2 macro is capable of 0.5:1 nothing else.

1:1 magnification is 1:1 magnification on ANY sensor. Period.

The image below is a ~1 mm part of an aluminum ruler, which in my case is equal to a magnification factor of ~17x since the E-system uses 17.3x13 mm sensor image area.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/olyflyer/Macro/Bellows/P2269043_800.jpg

Assuming the camera would be a 35 mm film camera, using the same setting would still give me ~17x magnification since the sensor would be further back and I would record about twice the image, ie. about 2 mm. Please don't mix magnification factor with the crop factor. Two different things and it will just create confusion.

Please see my gallery for some examples of what you can achieve with this combination... (using focus stacking for enhanced DOF). I will have a look tomorrow, but you have to tell me where to find it. I love macro as well, and really like to have a look at other peoples images as well.

lauriek
18th January 2008, 09:12 PM
I think I see what you are saying but will have to think about it a little further before I say anything else!! ;)

I've just uploaded a couple of pictures to the gallery on this site,just click the gallery link up the top then I suppose you look for my username? (Or maybe look at recent files for some bug close ups? Not totally sure as I only just got here!)

PeterD
18th January 2008, 09:16 PM
That is wrong. Magnification is independant of which sensor size you have.

I think I have discussed this over and over again on every place I have been. Magnification factor is the same as if you take an image of a ruler in landscape mode and then divide the sensor size with the number of millimeters you see in the image, whichever sensor you have. If you for example take an image of a 1 mm part of a ruler, than divide 17.3 with 1 gives you 17.3:1 magnification. If you would take the same 1 mm piece with a 35 mm film camera you must divide 35 with 1, which will give you 35:1 magnification. Magnification factor has nothing to do at all with the sensor size, it is a ratio between the life size image and the size of the image on your sensor.

It is a common misunderstanding that Olympus falsely try to spread on unfortunately. The ED50/f2 macro is capable of 0.5:1 nothing else.

1:1 magnification is 1:1 magnification on ANY sensor. Period.

The image below is a ~1 mm part of an aluminum ruler, which in my case is equal to a magnification factor of ~17x since the E-system uses 17.3x13 mm sensor image area.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/olyflyer/Macro/Bellows/P2269043_800.jpg

Assuming the camera would be a 35 mm film camera, using the same setting would still give me ~17x magnification since the sensor would be further back and I would record about twice the image, ie. about 2 mm. Please don't mix magnification factor with the crop factor. Two different things and it will just create confusion.

I will have a look tomorrow, but you have to tell me where to find it. I love macro as well, and really like to have a look at other peoples images as well.

Hi OlyFlyer

You will find LaurieK's images under L of the members gallery. Only one person under this letter. At least it was the last time I looked. Hope you don't mind me butting in but I know how precious your time is.

Kind regards

PeterD

OlyFlyer
18th January 2008, 10:04 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood, since I somehow assumed my gallery means outside this forum, like pbase or something similar.

I had a look and I must say I love the wasp image. Would love to know some details about the how to... and with what gear part.

OlyFlyer
18th January 2008, 10:20 PM
I think I see what you are saying but will have to think about it a little further before I say anything else!! ;) Hi again,

I hope you don't mind that I continue. Since dpr is now up again (six days posts are gone due to a RAID 5 dual failure :mad:), I looked up one of my last arguments about the magnification. This is an exact quote of my post over there:

" 'Macro' is a general term applied to lenses for close-up photography and low power photomicrography - conditions under which the image is larger than the subject. They are generally of short focus and corrected for close subject distances. Maximum field is usually of a diameter matching the focal length. When using these lenses care has to be taken to establish the effective - as opposed to engraved - f-number, as this will vary with subject distance."

The above is a word for word quote from one of my college books, Advanced Photography, written by M. J. Langford. Old book (printed in 1977), but still stands, light has not changed since, lenses are still used and calculated the same way.

Any other serious book I read, define macro similarily. Nowhere is the 36x24 mm mentioned, because as soon as you mention that, you commit an error. The error is than you *cannot* blend *any* size into a general definition, since it has absolutelly nothing to do with sensor, or film sizes. 36x24 mm is just *one* of many available sizes, there has been, there are, and there will be others as well. As soon as you mention 36x24 mm, you specialize the definition to one single format only. 36x24 mm is *not*, on the contrary to what many would like to believe, a reference measure to anything else than 36x24 film format. It is not meant to be used as anything else.

Macro image starts at 1:1, which is the same size (= life size = 1 mm in real life is equal to 1 mm on image sensor surface), regardless if you use an A4 size film or a tiny P&S sensor. The quality of that image is up to the lens quality. A macro lens can be used to take non-macro images, just as well a non-macro lens can be used to take macro images. Now, if you can come up with a better, but still a general definition I may agree and change my learned in definition, but as long as you mix sensor sizes into the definition, that definition is wrong. The day the 36x24 mm format dies you have to redefine your definition of macro. On the contrary to my old definition above, which still will be valid for *any* given image sensor format.

This is only an academic discussion, probably not nay are interested of. I don't think we must agree on anything. I personally don't care if people call their images macro, when in reality they are only close-up, that is up to them, but for me, macro starts at 1:1. That is the only way one can compare object size with image size.

This is the link to the whole thread (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=26256292&page=1) including all the usual arguments there, in case you want to have a look. I also posted a few images myself over there.

OlyFlyer
18th January 2008, 10:23 PM
Hi OlyFlyer

You will find LaurieK's images under L of the members gallery. Only one person under this letter. At least it was the last time I looked. Hope you don't mind me butting in but I know how precious your time is.

Kind regards

PeterDThanks Peter for the pointer. As for my time, don't worry, I always use time if I find something interesting.

Cheers

lauriek
19th January 2008, 01:37 AM
I had a look and I must say I love the wasp image. Would love to know some details about the how to... and with what gear part.

Equipment - E1, MF1, OM Auto Bellows, Reversed OM50/1.8, STF-22 twinflash. White card fairly close behind subject.

Method - Shot around 12 focus slices (well actually shot more but only used 12 in the stack). Used the OM auto bellows built in focus rail for repositioning the plane of focus through the bug... Stacked with Combine ZM. Bit of levels/curves work and a small amount of cloning 'bad' background!

My current rig uses a tripod/ball head for the camera and is far from optimal, I'm currently working out the next version, which will be a low level rig holding the camera setup and the subject holder...

PeterD
19th January 2008, 09:42 AM
Equipment - E1, MF1, OM Auto Bellows, Reversed OM50/1.8, STF-22 twinflash. White card fairly close behind subject.

Method - Shot around 12 focus slices (well actually shot more but only used 12 in the stack). Used the OM auto bellows built in focus rail for repositioning the plane of focus through the bug... Stacked with Combine ZM. Bit of levels/curves work and a small amount of cloning 'bad' background!

My current rig uses a tripod/ball head for the camera and is far from optimal, I'm currently working out the next version, which will be a low level rig holding the camera setup and the subject holder...

Hi Lauriek/Olyflyer

Fascinating stuff. Can either of you point me to further information. Particularly of your mrthod description Lauriek?

Best regards

PeterD

lauriek
22nd January 2008, 07:02 PM
Peter,

It's basically a case of;

Shooting:
Get the subject lined up in the viewfinder, get the magnification you want by setting the bellows extension, focus on the part of the bug closest to the lens. Stop the lens down (using the aperture ring on the lens and the aperture close switch on the bellows). Shoot. Adjust exposure if necessary, and possibly background. Reshoot. Move the plane of focus slightly forward 'into' the bug, using the focus rail on the bellows. Repeat until you have focused and shot the furthest part of the bug you wish to keep in focus.

PP: RAW:
Process the RAW files - if you do any adjustments, make sure you do exactly the same to all images in the set of slices. Save from RAW processing as TIFFs.

Do Stack:
Load the TIFFs into Combine ZM, tell it to do-stack, save the output.

PP:
Further curves/levels tweaks as required in your image editor of choice, trim off oddities which occur around the edge of the frame due to the camera movement. Resize for web and save out as JPG.

Notes:
There's a bit more finesse to it to get good results but that's the kind of stuff which is down to your specific setup and I can't really comment on unless you have any specific questions?

Cheers

Laurie
--
ps you can see my current rig for this work here;
http://www.photomacrography2.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4132

Graham_of_Rainham
22nd January 2008, 07:26 PM
Hi,
I use the bellows and got over the problem of the lever interfereing with the Mirror box by using the 7mm extension tube. I also experimented with my 80 - 200 f2.8 zoom, before buying the OM 80mm Macro Lens. This combination gives me a good working range and acceptable magnifications

Hope this helps

Graham

PeterD
22nd January 2008, 07:31 PM
Peter,

It's basically a case of;

Shooting:
Get the subject lined up in the viewfinder, get the magnification you want by setting the bellows extension, focus on the part of the bug closest to the lens. Stop the lens down (using the aperture ring on the lens and the aperture close switch on the bellows). Shoot. Adjust exposure if necessary, and possibly background. Reshoot. Move the plane of focus slightly forward 'into' the bug, using the focus rail on the bellows. Repeat until you have focused and shot the furthest part of the bug you wish to keep in focus.

PP: RAW:
Process the RAW files - if you do any adjustments, make sure you do exactly the same to all images in the set of slices. Save from RAW processing as TIFFs.

Do Stack:
Load the TIFFs into Combine ZM, tell it to do-stack, save the output.

PP:
Further curves/levels tweaks as required in your image editor of choice, trim off oddities which occur around the edge of the frame due to the camera movement. Resize for web and save out as JPG.

Notes:
There's a bit more finesse to it to get good results but that's the kind of stuff which is down to your specific setup and I can't really comment on unless you have any specific questions?

Cheers

Laurie
--
ps you can see my current rig for this work here;
http://www.photomacrography2.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4132


Hi Laurie

Thanks for your explanation above and also to your description. Fascinating stuff. I note that the subject unit and camera unit are two separate items. does this cause alignment difficulty when taking slices?

Did you make the x-y-z adjustment plates.

Kind regards

PeterD

lauriek
22nd January 2008, 07:37 PM
If you move the camera on the focus rail then there's no problem with alignment. If you need higher magnification, then it becomes difficult to do small enough focus steps with the focus rail. That's where I'd like to use the fine movement on the subject mount. This does lead to some alignment issues which I'm currently working on!!

I got the X-Y-Z thing on eBay, it's called a micromanipulator. It's possible to put something like this together with individual linear stage plates, and right angle brackets, but that looks like an expensive route. Having said that these manipulators don't seem to come up very often...

Graham_of_Rainham
23rd January 2008, 06:15 PM
Hi,
I use a 7mm OM extension tube between 4/3rd adaptor and Bellows to get over the problem with the bellows release lever interfering with the Mirror Box.

I used zooms to find out which lens length gave me the best working distance and ended up buying an OM 80mm Macro. I havn't tried reversing a lens yet so would be very interested in seeing how you progress with this.

OlyFlyer
23rd January 2008, 09:07 PM
The image in my post #16 above, and the ball point pen (top images) in this thread (http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=642) are both taken with a reversed OM 35 mm lens. Reversed lens gives better results than used normally, due to the fact that the image subject is almost where the film plane is whne used the 'right' way. The shallow DOF demands a flattened image area, which is best done that way. I am however convinced, that using any of the OM macro lenses, or (a dream) the OM bellows lenses would give even better results. The problem with using the 4/3 macro lenses is the actual physical sizes they have. Just too large and the working distance becomes minimal at arond ~7:1 magnification already when a macro adapter and some tubes are used, or like ~4-5:1 on bellows.

The OM bellows are designed for 49 mm filter thread lenses and are extremely easy and convenient to reverse, since you can select the aperture in advance and still focus wide open. The lever on the side, or a separate trigger wire can be used to close the aperture just before taking the image. If a wire is used camera shake is prevented as well.

lauriek
23rd January 2008, 09:38 PM
I am however convinced, that using any of the OM macro lenses, or (a dream) the OM bellows lenses would give even better results.

I just picked up a 20mm/3.5 OM bellows lens + the mount, will let you know how it goes!! ;)

OlyFlyer
23rd January 2008, 10:00 PM
I just picked up a 20mm/3.5 OM bellows lens + the mount, will let you know how it goes!! ;):rolleyes: Why couldn't that be me? I envy you for that lens, but honestly wish you luck with it. One day, it will be my turn...

Right now, I must post my camera to Oly to get a good wet clean or whatever else needed to get it fixed. As you can see on my ballpoint pen images, there is something there (more than a few 'something') which not supposed to be there. :mad: I sent a few images to Oly Sweden and the rep said he never seen anything like that and asked for the camera. So, come Monday, and off it goes to Stockholm, then probably to Portugal if he is not giving me a new camera instead. Yes, I know, fat chance to that, so it is probably a Portugal two weeks holiday for my camera. I am lucky my camera is still under warranty, even if only for a few more months.

lauriek
24th January 2008, 12:58 PM
Had a quick play with the bellows lens last night - things certainly get more tricky as magnification goes up! In my gallery there's a picture of a little spider, taken with my setup using a reversed 50/1.8. The same spider taken with the 20/3.5 is significantly larger than the frame...

Incidentally I've rethought your comments about magnification, and you are of course absolutely correct; The magnification does not change. The 'apparent' magnification is double due to the crop factor, but as magnification is the ratio of the size of the subject to the size ON SENSOR this makes no difference...

Incidentally hard luck on the camera. If you were in the UK and I had a spare body I would offer to send it over, unfortunately I have one E1 body and I have a feeling you're not in the UK!! At least it's under warranty!

OlyFlyer
24th January 2008, 02:03 PM
It's great that you have fun with your new lens. I understand you get more out of a 20 mm bellows lens than a 50 mm normal, not only IQ wise, but also magnification wise. That is one reason why I mostly use a 35 mm lens and no longer have an OM 50 mm. The 35 mm gives me much more magnification as well. But, the drawback is the DOF and the focusing is even more difficult to handle.

I was wondering where in the UK do you find all those spiders now? No spiders here in Sweden now. I realized, you must have saved the same spider somehow. I did some similar thing once, kept the same bug for a while, but they dry out and becomes dead looking after a while.

Thanks for feeling sorry for me and for offering me a spare camera you don't have. :) Sounds funy, isn't it? Well anyway, don't worry, at least during the service, while my camera is in Portugal I will have some time to finish off some projects I have, update my blog and maybe do some cleaning of HD space as well. Not to mention the backlog on developing my images. So, maybe just as well that I live in Sweden and you only have one E-1 body. ;)

Cheers and have fun.

lauriek
2nd February 2008, 08:36 PM
I find it best to keep them in the fridge once dead, to keep them in reasonable condition for longer. As you say they can dry out quite quickly - spiders quicker than insects generally...

Good luck with the repairs!!

OlyFlyer
3rd February 2008, 11:11 AM
If I'd put dead spiders and flies in my fridge my wife would kill me...

PeterD
3rd February 2008, 06:13 PM
If I'd put dead spiders and flies in my fridge my wife would kill me...

Well at least they will not walk/fly arround contaminating food:eek:

PeterD