Finally got my hands on the MP-E!

[Bios.]

The images are really good. Can't give the lens all the credit - the lighting is very good. Can you share your shooting setup? With the very thin DOF, I'm pretty sure you were shooting on a tripod with a rail system - am I guessing right?

Thanks, nope I was shooting handheld, if you have done much +1x macro then the lens isn't much more difficult to use than anything else. It just takes practice, a steady hand and a few techniques such as the left hand brace and holding breath. I think this lens would be a nightmare to use on a tripod even with macro rails as even handheld it is sometimes very difficult to locate your subject. Here's my setup: Mp-e/mt-24ex diffusion setup by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

 

[TheFantasticG]

It's not that hard. I use mine on rails attached to a tripod. Next time I'm home I'm going to purchase a new ball head because this 11# ball head isn't cutting with the rails attached.

 

[mjhoward]

The images are really good. Can't give the lens all the credit - the lighting is very good. Can you share your shooting setup? With the very thin DOF, I'm pretty sure you were shooting on a tripod with a rail system - am I guessing right?

Thanks, nope I was shooting handheld, if you have done much +1x macro then the lens isn't much more difficult to use than anything else. It just takes practice, a steady hand and a few techniques such as the left hand brace and holding breath. I think this lens would be a nightmare to use on a tripod even with macro rails as even handheld it is sometimes very difficult to locate your subject. Here's my setup: Mp-e/mt-24ex diffusion setup by [[BIOSPHERE]], on Flickr

Are you focus stacking or just using a small aperture? For the magnification, you seem to be getting pretty deep DOF.

 

[mjhoward]

well.. you magnify it even more with crop sensor.

No. Magnification is a property of the optics, not the system (which includes the sensor). FOV is different between the two, even at high magnification, but the actual magnification remains the same. Let's say you took a photo of something that is 23.6mm wide. At 1:1 magnification, on a DX sensor it will fill the entire width of the frame since that is the width of the sensor. On a FX sensor, however, that same subject AT 1:1 would only fill ~2/3 the width of the frame. This is because the FOV is different, NOT the magnification. To fill the frame of an FX sensor with the same subject, you would need a magnification of ~1.5:1

 

[Bios.]

Mjhoward: No stacking, I'm pretty sure most of these were taken at f11. I try to find "magic angles" to maximise the depth of field, see here: No Cropping Zone: Magic Angles

 

[Buckster]

Mjhoward: No stacking, I'm pretty sure most of these were taken at f11. I try to find "magic angles" to maximise the depth of field, see here: No Cropping Zone: Magic Angles

So, you're using a tilt/shift?

 

[AndaluzMirlo]

Really love your photos!

 

[unpopular]

Mjhoward: No stacking, I'm pretty sure most of these were taken at f11. I try to find "magic angles" to maximise the depth of field, see here: No Cropping Zone: Magic Angles

So, you're using a tilt/shift?

I think the idea is the same Scheimpflug, only that instead of the lens plane being adjusted to meet the subject, the subject plane relative to the lens plane is being adjusted. While the idea of "Magic Angles" seems valid, it's not terribly sophisticated. It's more just skewing the DOF over the area of the subject area.

It's important to note that the amount of DOF does not change, but rather how the subject falls into that area. So if you imagine acceptable sharpness as a cube, you could fit the subject into that cube a number of ways. If you put the subject in at a diagonal, you'll get more of teh subject in sharp focus than if you fit the subject in perpendicular to it's face.

It's an interesting approach, and until I can get T/S bellows worked out It's something I'm deff going to investigate.