I'm just curious, but not about to use any automated rail, etc. I am dedicated to the process of stacking focus manually. Using automation to speed things up interests me not at all. What I say to those folks is:
“If you are in such a hurry, on your way home why not pick up some fast food.”
And let’s not forget the old chestnut “No wine before its time,” and all that. In grandma’s time, they cooked all day. It can be a slow process. And “process” is the keyword here, attention to the process. I’m not against progress and even doing things faster, but if in that process, quality is lost, then that loss of quality is not worth the gain in time saved. As they say, “what’s the hurry?” People are not in a hurry to get to the end of the line. LOL.
The only reason to hurry would be on a stack of a live subject, which may move before you're able to finish a slower, more deliberate stack.
For flowers and such, I agree, there is no reason to hurry.
Economy only interests me when nothing of equal quality is lost. The moment it is, something by definition is lost. This is why digital sampling, like MP3 files, don’t sound as good as the finer .WAV files, and on and on. Any kind of sampling means something is sacrificed. We can talk about the fact that most people can’t hear the difference, but many can, and you would not catch a recording studio working with MP3s and I own one. It’s the same with DVDs or any sampling.
I run across this every day with storing photographic image files. I am happy to have image files compressed as long as it is “lossless” compression and not “lossy” compression, etc. I would not give up my corrected lenses for all the speed in China. Just curious. Careful attention to the process of photographing, IMO, is the way to go, and the best results come from that as well.
Agreed.
Interestingly, when you and I debated the CV 125 f/2.5 vs. Sigma 180 f/2.8 a few years ago, according to OToole's tests, the 180 is actually preferable to the Sigma 150,
sharpness-wise. While the topic of his (and your) thread was lack of CA, what his images showed me was the
lack of sharpness in the Sigma 150, wide-open, although it is better-corrected. The Sigma 180 is easily on a par with the CV 125, at f/2.8 (2.5), in both sharpness
and correction (@1:1). So, while the 150 is better-corrected wide-open, it is nowhere near as sharp:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=219441http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35405In the end, therefore, the Sigma 180 would probably suit you better than the 150 (paired with the D850 for in-body stacking), offering comparable results to the CV 125. The trouble is, it is a bigger, more cumbersome lens.
Thanks to you, for nature-stacking, I personally love the CV 125's 630° of focus throw, which removes the need for programming a D850 on a live subject (as well as the need for a manual rail), both of which take time to set-up and implement. A CV 125, and a tripod, can capture wildlife/arthropod stacks quite easily on their own.
For flower stacks (in nature or in studio) I agree the StackShot and WeMacro rails are superfluous. Most flower shots are @ 1:4 to 1:2, mostly, so a good manual rail is all you need. Even for 1:1, an automated rail isn't that important, because any movement at these non-critical magnifications can be compensated-for with stacking software.
However, where these automated-rail offerings become invaluable is in
greater-than-1:1 extreme macro, where the limitations/subtle movements of manual rails are unacceptable ... and the
precision (not the speed) of automated rails becomes mandatory.
Jack, thanks for answering. Here is an old manually-stacked image, not sure what camera body or lens.
You bet ... and very nice.
