Helicon FB Tube reviews?

Looks pretty good Dennis! Don't be afraid to go to ISO 200, or F8 (or both). Might allow your flash to keep up with the camera.

Dalantech wrote in post #18559220
Looks pretty good Dennis! Don't be afraid to go to ISO 200, or F8 (or both). Might allow your flash to keep up with the camera.

Thanks - I'll try those settings and experiment further over the next couple of days. This is quite an exciting product given its small size, portability and functionality that it brings to focus stacking.

Cheers

Dennis

9 years on - - and I am still looking for reviews - how is your experience now ?

wouldn't you normally want to set aperture at the sweet spot for this lens ie around f5.6 to get maximum benefit from stacking?

racketman wrote in post #18791555
wouldn't you normally want to set aperture at the sweet spot for this lens ie around f5.6 to get maximum benefit from stacking?

Not sure if this is related to my post shooting at F11, but if it is, I use F11 when shooting with my OCF Speedlite at ISO100 so I can kill the daylight, leaving the Speedlite to provide all the illumination.

But yes, if I were shooting in with just natural light, if F5.6 is the sweet spot and the conditions allowed it, then I would shoot at F5.6 rather than F11.

Cheers

Dennis

Well, I finally got around to trying the Helicon FB Tube on my Canon (EOS-R) + (EF-RF Adapter) + (Extender EF x1.4 Mk III) + 180mm F3.5 L Macro lens.

The results are quite amazing given that the Sacred Bamboo Shrub was being shaken by breezes and the Wasps were moving slightly between frames.

Cheers

Dennis

Very nice! Stacked in Helicon or PS?

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19051131
Very nice! Stacked in Helicon or PS?

Thanks.

PS as the version of Helicon on my PC cannot open CR3 Files from the EOS-R, so I just ran the stack in PS CC and it did a decent job. I'll probably save the files as TIFs out of Canon's DPP and try Helicon later today.

I just wish the Wasps wouldn't move and the breezes would halt, as the berries were gyrating in the field of view.

Cheers

Dennis

Well, regardless of the movement you did a hell of a job. Just curious about the software because I downloaded the trial versions of Zerene & Helicon & I already have PS CC. I was impressed by Helicon but if I can get results like yours out of PS why pay for Helicon.

Thank you.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #19051242
Well, regardless of the movement you did a hell of a job. Just curious about the software because I downloaded the trial versions of Zerene & Helicon & I already have PS CC. I was impressed by Helicon but if I can get results like yours out of PS why pay for Helicon.

Thank you.

After I had EDIT-ALIGNED the 9 Frames in PS CC, I exported them as TIFs and then used Helicon 7 to Align and Stack them.

The Helicon 7 results was slightly cleaner than the PS CC but remember, it used TIFs already aligned by PS CC.

Just for info, here is a Helicon FB Tube Stack vs a single frame to show the dramatic difference in DOF.

Cheers

Dennis

Helicon FB Tube 9 Frame Stack

The stack IS awesome. But I have to say the single shot can stand alone. You got enough in focus & you got the right bits in focus.

Here is a stack of 10 shots under pretty ideal conditions. The Wasp remained fairly still and even the gentle breeze only wafted the main subject (berries + wasp) within the confines of the frame.

I noticed that when comparing the stacking results between PS CC and Helicon Focus V7, they were very similar although Helicon Focus V7 tended to reveal the detail in the berries located in-between the legs of the wasp, whereas PS CC tended to smooth the detail into featureless blobs of reddish colour. Helicon also produced a much tighter "blur" envelope around the antennae whereas PS CC extended further, like a ghostly blur.

This one was taken with the Canon (EOS-R) + (RF-EF Adapter) + (Helicon FB Tube) + (EF II Extension Tube 25mm) + (EF Extender x1.4 Mk III) + (180mm F3.5L Macro lens).

Cheers

Dennis

I like the results your getting -really nice!

Depth of field: If you shoot from a "poor angle" that wastes a lot of the depth of field then the stacked version is always gonna have more depth. Find a "magic angle" that makes the most out of the depth in a single frame and you'll start to question why you're spending a lot of time in post to stack images. I've experimented with stacking, but always end up posting single frames.

I think that you're doing well, but if you're really concerned about detail then you need to improve your light. It's not diffused enough, and you're losing detail in the specular highlights and to a lot of micro contrast (small blown out pixels throughout the image). Strong micro contrast will make your photos seem really sharp right out of the camera, but it will limit how much you can sharpen an image in post cause the scene will very quickly look over sharpened. Either use a larger diffuser, get it closer to the subject, or both. Make sure that however you diffuse your flash that it's actually forcing the light to spread out and not just block the light. When designing a diffuser I try to lose only two stops compared to the bare flash.

Dalantech wrote in post #19051519
I like the results your getting -really nice!

Depth of field: If you shoot from a "poor angle" that wastes a lot of the depth of field then the stacked version is always gonna have more depth. Find a "magic angle" that makes the most out of the depth in a single frame and you'll start to question why you're spending a lot of time in post to stack images. I've experimented with stacking, but always end up posting single frames.

I think that you're doing well, but if you're really concerned about detail then you need to improve your light. It's not diffused enough, and you're losing detail in the specular highlights and to a lot of micro contrast (small blown out pixels throughout the image). Strong micro contrast will make your photos seem really sharp right out of the camera, but it will limit how much you can sharpen an image in post cause the scene will very quickly look over sharpened. Either use a larger diffuser, get it closer to the subject, or both. Make sure that however you diffuse your flash that it's actually forcing the light to spread out and not just block the light. When designing a diffuser I try to lose only two stops compared to the bare flash.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.

I had ordered a set of diffusers for my Canon MT-26 EX RT from the UK, but sadly, the package never made it out of the UK due to the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on international freight. I'll try again later when the dust settles.

Cheers

Dennis

nardes wrote in post #19051520
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it.

I had ordered a set of diffusers for my Canon MT-26 EX RT from the UK, but sadly, the package never made it out of the UK due to the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on international freight. I'll try again later when the dust settles.

Cheers

Dennis

I've been working with a couple of diffuser makes in that area to help them improve their designs. But none of them are making diffusers full time, and the process was incredibly slow before the world changed. Now it may be a lost cause.