MLU and Macro Photography

Mirror Lock Up and Close-up Photography.

 

In one article of Bob Atkins �Mirror Lock Up�

(http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/mlu.html) and in another article

of Fritz Poelking �Sharp Photographs�

( http://www.poelking.com/englisch/index.htm ) I found a lot of

interesting information about the effect of the MLU function upon the

sharpness of photographs made with long lenses (>=500mm) at shutter

times between 1/60 and ½ second.

 

My field of interest is close-up (1:3 till 1:1) Photography of

flowers, spiders and insects.

I use 50mm or 105mm or 180 mm lenses and the camera (a Nikon F100)

connected to a (Manfrotto) tripod. It is very pity that the Nikon

F100 doesn�t have the MLU function, but I have to live with that.

To realize enough DOF I often have to work with critical shutter

times between 1/60 and ½ second.

 

My questions are:

Has somebody real experience or test-results in this field?

Are test-results already available in a book, magazine or on

Internet?

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Bernard Fransen

At least based on my personal experience, MLU makes a big difference in macro photography. I have an F100 also, among other Nikon bodies. The F100 is unfrotunately the wrong body for macro photography, where the lack of MLU is a major disadvantage while its main strength such as fast AF isn't really applicable to macro work.

 

Obviously an F5 would solve this problem, but an old Nikkormat FTN/2/3 with real MLU would work very well too for a lot less money. Otherwise, an FM/FE(2) with pseudo MLU can work as well.

I am unfamiliar with the F100. But other cameras I've used will do MLU when you use the self-timer. I would set the timer at a few seconds delay, trip the shutter, up goes the mirror - pause as we hold our breath, and voila! the exposure happens. It always sucked when filming critters or on a windy day, but then using slow stuff for those subjects on windy days is not a great idea anyway. :-)

BTW: I had a N90 and used a MacroNikkor 105mm which worked great for little critters, but I hated the auto-focus issues and DOF tuning etc. I prefer manual stuff I guess.

I regularly use an F100 for macro work and have been more than pleased with the results. I have also directly compared it to an F3 with mirror lock-up and don't see much of a difference. However, you can find plenty of people who drone on about technical specs that can't make an image. Unless you're exhibiting large images of test targets, I wouldn't worry and just go shooting.<div></div>

Whether MLU makes a difference or not highly depends on your shutter speed too. If you use an F100 at 1/125 sec or 2 sec, the lack of MLU won't be a problem. However, for macro work, I often use f16 or f22 to gain depth of field, which means shutter speeds at 1/15 sec or 1/8 sec, where MLU makes a big difference.

 

I wish there were IS/VR type macro lenses. Of course, having SS (Subject Stabilization) would have been even better. :-)

Trying not to digress too far, but I find that, for moving

things like spiders, flash freezes things better than

ambient, regardless of MLU. And it's much easier to use.

<p>

This photo was taken handheld using an F3 that had MLU,

but I kept the mirror down. The spider was in constant motion,

and it was hard enough to try and keep her in the frame. I let

the flash freeze the camera shake. This was a bit closer than 1:1.<div></div>

I did not see any visual evidence that MLU makes a considerable difference in macro with short lenses. I tested this by shooting same target at same magnifications with same shutter speeds (around those critical speeds of course) with and without MLU with a 105 micro on an fm2n. My similar test with a 300/4 and tubes (longish and lightweight combo) showed a lot of difference. I assume physical length of the lens is a factor and when the lens-body combo is attached to the tripod via the lens, combo becomes more shake prone. BTW in the field, at those speeds biggest problem is wind.

My experience is similar to Umit's. I've been using a F100 with a 60mm macro and with a 300mm + tube(s). I have no problem getting sharp image with the 60mm but it's almost impossible with the 300mm, even though the magnification is greater with the 60mm. To me, it is clear that since the F100 + 300mm is attached by the lens and that the vibrations (mirror) is coming from on end of the set-up, those vibrations are amplified (is this clear??). It's even worse when shooting verticals.

Much depends on the camera body and your general setup (tripod head and other things that contribute to the mass of the system) as well. I find that on one older body that I have, MLU is a significant improvement for macro and tele work, but it is not necessarily much better than a newer body that doesn't have MLU, but is better damped.

 

For high magnifications (beyond 1:1), I'm usually using flash (and I suspect you are, too, for spiders and insects), so mirror slap is not really a factor.

I think the prior posts make alot of sense. The Nikon Sb 29 ringflash works nicely with the 60 Micro lens handheld, I use this combo on a daily basis with good results with no MLU. The longer the lens the more MLU comes into play. As you mention, much of macro is done stopped down for adequate dof. As exposure times increase I think that MLU becomes more of an issue. I use it routinely with my 200 micro lens. My suggestion is to do wahtever is possible to reduce vibration (cable release, good tripod technique, minimal wind condiitons, film speed etc.) and evaluate your results. If you're not pleased then MLU is about can be the last variable to add to your armamentarium. I think good macro stuff is really tough to do well. Good luck.<div></div>

According to tests made by Zeiss Germany, MLU is not really decisive. They compared different Contax bodies and found out that a Contax RX produces less total vibrations than the lighter Contax Aria, as was to be expected. But both cameras - offering no MLU - cause less vibrations than the professional Contax RTS III *with* MLU. Of course, its MLU reduces RTS III's vibrations; but for critical macro, micro or astronomical work, the better dampened cheaper bodies are more appropriate, even without MLU.

(BTW, I use my RTS III regularly for macro shots and it works just fine.)

Thanks a lot for the information you gave in your reactions. Still it is unclear if I have blurr problems with with my equipment or not.

Of course wind is another problem, but that makes the macro photographing so exciting.

I don't like to use complet flash light. I only use some flash light (Nikon SB28 at -1.7 stops) for enlighting the dark areas.

To find out what I can expect with my equipment I am shooting now some films with testpatterns with my F100, the 50-100 and 180 macro lenses, in the field of magnification of 1:4 till 1:1, in the critical times between 1/60 till 1/2 sec.

When succesful I will give the brief result in this forum.

Kind regards,

Bernard Fransen

This is an interesting thread. I might do some test shots myself with various set ups (different lenses where the body or lens is mounted on the tripod head). Usually I rarely use my F100 for close up work since I have bodies with real MLU, but I'll give various combinations a try. If you shoot macro with a (or multiple) flash as the main souce of light, then of course the whole discussion of vibration and MLU is moot.

 

As far as using mirror pre-fire with the self timer goes, I don't think that is a good solution because the subject could move within that short delay. With subjects such as flowers, there may be a gust of wind and all of a sudden your subject could be vibrating like crazy two seconds later. Incidentally, on the F100, the mirror does not pre-fire with the self timer, therefore that option is out anyway.

 

Finally, it may be worthwhile to carry out a test indoors to eliminate the wind factor to fully evaluate the effect of mirror vibration.

For those who do flower photos outdoors, there is a flexible clamp made by Wimberley (www.tripodhead.com) that attaches to the tripod, I believe, and can clip to the stem of the flower (gently, I presume) to hold it steady. I haven't tried it myself, since I don't do that much of this kind of work, but it looks like a nice solution.

<p><i>Popular Photography</i> did a test in their June 1999 issue. Check out <a href="http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/mlu.html">

the following link from the Medium Format Library</a> for a discussion of the article.

I did make a bunch of test shots since my last post in this thread. The slides are back and the result is different from what I thought.

 

First of all, the setup: I used a Nikon F5 and an F100, with the same 200mm/f4 AF macro mounted on an Arca-Swiss B1 on a Gitzo 1325 tripod. The lens is mounted on the head through its tripod collar. The cameras were mounted in the "landscape" orientation.

 

To eliminate the wind factor, I made close up shots of the trunk of a tree at 1/15 sec, 1/8 sec and 1/4 sec with both cameras. With the F5, I took two shots at each shutter speed, one with mirror lock up and one without. The result: everything looks sharp through a 10x loupe. MLU doesn't seem to help and the F100 works fine without MLU, at least in this one case.

 

By no means I am suggesting that MLU is useless or never makes a difference. I need to re-test my set up, and as it is pointed out earlier, if you shoot with a 300mm + expension tube, it could be a totally different story.

MLU and Macro: The Test results.

 

Recently I did some experiments with my Nikon F100 and my Macro lenses inside my house to avoid wind effects.

 

I used a modified test chart with a combination of the Siemens-star pattern and the EuropeanPhotoPress test chart pattern as the object.

 

I used the following equipment:

Camera Nikon F100, tripod Manfrotto 190B, Novoflex Universal MagicBall and the Novoflex Castel-L as focussing slide. The camera was mounted on the tripod with the Novoflex MiniConnect system.

 

The lenses I used for these test, were: a Sigma 50mm/2.8 Macro, a Nikon 105mm/2.8 Macro and a Sigma 180mm/5.6 Macro.

 

I used the same aperture of 11 for all the experiments. As can be seen in the table, I used for the experiments the following exposure conditions: 1/250s with TTL-Flash (Nikon SB28) and 1/20s, 1/8s and 1/3s with available light from a bulb light source.

 

I examined the slides with a 4x loupe and used the slides at 1/250s as reference and gave every picture a appreciation number.

 

My Conclusions:

1. With the 50mm and the 105mm at 1:2 and with the 180mm at 1:4 no blur can be seen.

2. A very slight blur can be seen with the 50mm at 1:1 and with the 180mm at 1:2.

3. A significant blur can be seen with the 105mm at 1:1.

4. In general the blur is less for the longer exposure times (compare 1/20 and 1/3s)

5. A large blur can be seen when using extension tubes with the 105mm and the 180mm.

Even with the Nikon F100, a top camera, the vibration of the camera is too large for Macro in the field of 1:1 and 2:1, so a MLU function on such a camera would be very useful.

 

Bernard Fransen<div></div>

MLU and Macro: The Table with results.

Read this toghether with my previous respons.

 

Table with results

Lens Magnification exposure times

1/250F 1/20s 1/8s 1/3s

 

50mm 1:1 Landscape 9 8/9 NM 8/9

Portrait NM 8/9 NM 8/9

50mm 1:2 Landscape 9 9 NM 9

Portrait NM NM NM 9

 

105mm 2:1** Landscape 9 7 NM 7

105mm 1:1 Landscape 9 7 7 8

Portrait 9 7 NM 8

105mm 1:2 Landscape 9 8/9 9 9

Portrait NM 8/9 NM 9

105mm 1:4 Landscape 9 9 NM 9

 

180mm 1:1** Landscape NM 5 NM 6

180mm 1:2 Landscape 9 8/9 8/9 9

Portrait NM 8/9 NM 8/9

180mm 1:4 Landscape 9 8/9 NM 9

Film Fuji Sensia II 100ASA

** with extension tubes

NM not measured

F Flash light

 

Bernard Fransen

MLU and Macro: The Table with results.

See JPG-file<div></div>

Bernard, thanks for sharing all the effort. I must add one thing though, you made the comparision with a flash at 1/250, this way you didn't consider the vibration of the shutter's contribution to image blur at these slow speeds. Sharpness at 1/15 and 1/250 will not be the same (even with MLU) because of the shutter vibration. When I mount a big lens (ie 300/4), wind self timer up and press shutter release, mirror locks up and I can see the reflected image on the front element of the lens shakes, after a few seconds when the shutter opens I see the same movement again, which I am sure affects sharpness to a degree. MLU's contribution of the improvement in sharpness would be more objectively observed with a camera having MLU I think. Flash eliminates all the shake be it from mirror or shutter.

Umit,

You are right the effect I observe is the combination of mirror and shutter vibrations. But I have only the Nikon F100 so I couldn't do the experiments with and without MLU with this camera.