Moose wrote:
> Or get a microscope adapter for the camera..........
Well, yes, but this is _stupid_ macro tricks, not "the right way to do
it" macro tricks.. :)
om2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> How could you increase the working distance? Have you tried it with
> something longer like a 90 or 135? Would a true macro lens like the
OM 20
> or 35 be better?
I suspect so -- I think that's the reason they're so short and squat,
so they can have the smallest distance between mount and end-of-glass so
that there's more practival working distance.
> Are you SURE that it was 1/10 mm? That seems impossibly close to
> actually use.
Oh, yes. As I said, I was pressing the leatherman onto the front
surface of the lens, and I had to watch out for it getting stuck on the
filter ring, that would push it out far enough it wouldn't be in "focus"
any more.
And no, actually using it on anything real wouldn't work -- aside from
the impracticality of hauling that set of kit around, light was
well-nigh impossible to get in there, that's why it's the _corner_ of
the leatherman. A flat surface pressed against the front of the lens
would be a much bigger pain to get light onto.
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|