PhotoForum.ru - free photo gallery for digital and film photographers

You must enable cookie in your browser.

You must enable JavaScript in your browser.

Photo "The Edixa Experiment"

photo "The Edixa Experiment" tags: technics, humor, Camera, EDIXA, Europe
50% 75% 100% EXIF
your vote

Voting is allowed only for registered users, you need log in.

info
photo:
The Edixa Experiment
section:
categories:
place:
notes:
As you can see, in this experiment, we set a superb Helios-44 lens on a beautiful Edixa body, using lots of extenders between them.
We exactly got 14 extenders, two were 3x, the others were 2x. This made a total focal length of 2138112mm or approximately 2 kilometers... (58*3*3*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=2138112)
This should be the world record, I suppose...
And the construction is very compact and cheap!
Well, we did not yet use this construction to take pictures, because there are some major disadvantages and physical limitations.
If you extend a f/1:2 - 58mm Helios-44 lens using two 3x and twelwe 2x, it results in a f/1:73728 - 2138112mm. You may see, that the maximum aperture in this construction is pretty low. And it is in fact too low. The diffraction forms picture points, which are bigger than the 35mm-film-image-format. Much bigger...
So, what will you see, when you could look through the viewer of this nice Edixa? Nothing! Absolutely nothing. That’s why we did not try to use this construction for taking real pictures. The image would show less than one pixel. In medium grey, if you expose correctly. Like the background. So: Practically, this item is not a practical camera. Because of the relation between focal length and aperture. That's why you will see absolutely nothing through the view finder or on the film. 
published:
mon 17 Feb 2014 18:33
equipment:
film camera Contax 167 MT
lens Contax Zeiss Contax Lens
comments (15 from 28)
all comments descending
This account has been deleted This account has been deleted #1 mon 17 Feb 2014 18:53

Улыбнули. smile
smiled smile


VICTOR UMRIKHIN VICTOR UMRIKHIN #3 mon 17 Feb 2014 19:12

чем снимали я понял... nerdy
.....
а снимок то, где?
wait giggle


Denis Petrunin Denis Petrunin #4 mon 17 Feb 2014 19:29

Es ist eine coole Linse auf Edixa - Schneider Xenar, suche es jetzt für die Sammlung, und Sie gewählt Helios TIP))) Bitte dieses Experiment die letzte? Ich glaube, das ist ein Super-Teleobjektiv, 500-700mm?)))


Bernd Ratfisch Bernd Ratfisch #5 mon 17 Feb 2014 19:38

Thank you, Denis. The focal length was incredible 2 km... Shortly after this shot, all the equipment items were sold... The experiment can not be repeated.


Гюзелев Гюзелев #6 mon 17 Feb 2014 20:00

Interesting experiment! smile


Wahid Nour eldin Wahid Nour eldin #7 mon 17 Feb 2014 20:48

Wow, was there any light left?!!


Bernd Ratfisch Bernd Ratfisch #19 Tue 18 Feb 2014 17:08

No..! But that doesn't matter, because the diffraction would form pixels, which are bigger in diameter then the 24x36 film image...
Thank you, Wahid


Sabirjan Kurmayev Sabirjan Kurmayev #24 Tue 18 Feb 2014 17:29

Bernd Ratfisch:
the diffraction would form pixels, which are bigger in diameter then the 24x36 film image...


And yet, what is the relation between a "pixel" formed by diffraction and a matrix pixel?


Bernd Ratfisch Bernd Ratfisch #26 Wed 19 Feb 2014 16:42

Sorry, that my answer didn't come at once. I had to read some physical guide and formula books again...
The resolution of a lens by diffraction is often messured in "Lines per Millimeter". The Helios-44 lens will at f:1/2 have a resolution of approximately 750 Lines per Millimeter. Theoretically. If you square the "Lines per Millimeter", you get a circle, the "Diffraction Circle". This circle is the smallest picture unit, it's a what the digital world calls "pixel"...
The resolution by diffraction gets lower, when the aperture is closed or the aperture is small. The Helios-44 lens will theorecically at f:1/16 have a resolution by diffraction of approximately 100 Lines per Millimeter.
(The resolution by diffraction differs on the wavelength of the light. That's why all resolutions are "approximately". if the wavelength is not defined...)
My Edixa Experiment used a lens system with the aperture f:1/73728. This results to a resolution of 0,02 Lines per Millimeter. So - you need 50mm for 1 line! The 35mm-film picture size 24x36mm has a diameter of 43,27mm. This is smaller than 1 pixel by this Edixa Experiment lens. That's why you will just see nothing as a result.
By the way: 1 pixel would have the size of 25 cm²... Do you know the size of a pixel in your digital camera?
-----
Edixa Experiment lens has more practical disadvantages: You might know, that a 1:1 macro size uses a distance between the object and the picture plane of four times the focal length. A focal length of about 2 Kilometers means: You need a distance of 8 Kilometers to get a 1:1 macro size. It means: The horizon is in a macro distance for this lens system! The earth is too small for this construction...


Sabirjan Kurmayev Sabirjan Kurmayev #27 Wed 19 Feb 2014 18:18

Bernd Ratfisch:
... Do you know the size of a pixel in your digital camera?


Interesting enough, thank you. As far as the size of pixels of my camera's sensor is concerned it's not a problem but just arithmetic. I have a Nikon D700. The dimensions of its sensor are 36.0 x 23.9 mm. There are 12.87 million pixels there. So 36.0 x 23.9 makes 860.4 mm2, then 860.4 / 12,870,000 = 6.685314685314685e-5 mm2. I believe it's a nice size.


Sabirjan Kurmayev Sabirjan Kurmayev #8 mon 17 Feb 2014 20:52

I liked your elaborate comment.


Red Vik Red Vik #9 mon 17 Feb 2014 22:27

Everybody says - the size doesn't matter!
Dont't trust them! wait


Aleksandr Nagaev Aleksandr Nagaev #10 mon 17 Feb 2014 22:33

Внушительно смотрица.


Reda Danaf Reda Danaf #11 mon 17 Feb 2014 22:46

Nice try smile wink


Tatyana Solenikova Tatyana Solenikova #12 mon 17 Feb 2014 23:54

Ох, ничего себе, какая ценность!:))