Fringer Canon to Nikon Z mount adapter

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Edwin Barkdoll, Nov 28, 2021.

  1. In theory maybe. In practise the D-o-F is microscopic - making stepping the focus sufficiently finely a challenging task - and lens aberrations might demand a smaller aperture.

    Whatever you do, diffraction is your nemesis at high reproduction ratios.

    I chiseled the top off an old I.C. to get a tiny subject of known size.
    Here's the highest RR I could get with my old 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, mounted reversed on a PB-4 bellows at full stretch.

    Maybe getting closer with a shorter focal-length gets us more detail?
    Here's a reversed 28 mm lens at 6.6x -
    Not really any more revealing.

    Going to a yet higher mag with a 28mm lens at full stretch on the PB-4 -
    The above were all shot on a DX format D7200, and the whole frame shown.
    In each case I found that f/5.6 was the optimum aperture in terms of playing off lens aberrations (mainly LoCa) and depth-of-field against diffraction. They've also all had some sharpening applied in PP to offset diffraction, and they're still not very satisfactory IMO.

    My conclusion? Fancy and expensive lenses are largely wasted at an RR much higher than 3:1, because cropping and digital 'zooming' probably get more worthwhile results. The reason being that you're effectively using a smaller format size.

    Uprezzing and Smart-sharpen are definitely your extreme macro friends - as well as an extremely rigid camera platform and a good speedlight!
    Fancy lenses? Not so much.
  2. Might be interesting mounting it on my J5. AFAIK, that's got the highest pixel density of all Nikon cameras, so less uprezzing I guess!
  3. I've always found small, shiny metallic targets are unsatisfactory for tiny/macro testing. There's something about the surface and certain chromatics that don't play nicely. They always look crap.

    Something similar can occur when taking high RRs of natural silk fibres. Each translucent filament behaves like a cylindrical prism. Can be a real PITA to get looking nice!
  4. Indeed. Those metallic surfaces are very revealing of LoCa, which is why I used the chip to show that even relatively cheap and 'normal' lenses could make a reasonable job of high RRs when reversed. It also has good sharp edges and contrast that reveal diffraction very obviously.

    Organic and non-specular subjects are much less of a harsh test. Plus I didn't have any dead moths lying around. ;)

    P. S. The more diffuse the lighting, the less of an issue specularity becomes. The 28mm Yashica lens shot used a harder light than the 28mm Nikkor shot, and accounts for the apparently greater LoCa. With the exact same lighting there's almost nothing to choose between the two.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
    mike_halliwell likes this.

Share This Page