Slashdot Mirror
Macro Lens from a Pringles Can
isharq writes "In a cool little feat of extremely low-tech hardware hacking, Photocritic has created a macro lens out of a Pringles can. According to the article: "with less than £1 worth of equipment, a little bit of sweat and tears, you can build yourself a surprisingly good macro lens". The results are astonishing."
And the chips aren't half-bad either.
Don't piss in my ear and tell me its raining!
Next, you are going to tell me that you can make some sort of 802.11 antenna with a pringles can.
And whats with this "do it yourself" building projects? My fingers are too greasy and fat to perform such feats.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Maybe they should have taken the money they saved on their macro lens and upgraded their server/connection.
Their server seems to have been reduced to rubble. Anyone got a mirror?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
He built an extension tube from a Pringles can and stuck a Canon lens on the front. This is not "building a lens".
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
What he really built was an extension tube to allow an ordinary
lens to focus closer.
http://mirrordot.org/stories/a6cd3d2482ab26fa99636 acc4d255044/index.html
/. tech monkeys include a Mirrodot/Coral Cache link as part of the story template? It would help defray the /. effect (smoldering servers and whatnot).
Why don't the
http://www.networkmirror.com/AodpyYLsgUIgSIiH/www. photocritic.org/2005/macro-photography-on-a-budget /index.html
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
http://www.photocritic.org.nyud.net:8090/2005/macr o-photography-on-a-budget/
And what is a "macro lens"? How does it differ from a normal lens?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Sshh.. they were just testing thier Pringles can server running on a Pringles can amplified wireless network while beating Pringles can drums.
Once you pop the fun don't stop, oh wait...
...was probably constructed of a Pringles can, too.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
...or you will end up looking like that biggest nerd on the planet.
It is also great for viewing microscopic flakes of potato chip residue. Paper towel rolls, in all their inadequacy, are known to be suffering from lenses envy.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
But this is the first /. I've read that is totally, wrong. Sure you can make a cool macro lens out of a Pringles can for less than $1 but you forgot the important part you need a lens slash full normal 35mm camera already to pull this off.
Totally misleading summary. Mod me down if you want, I'm not trying to flame but seriously this is just hitting a low for /.
Aw Frell this
Otherwise, it's a swell idea.
And a pox on the editor that approved this trash. Sure, it's neat that you can use a Pringles can as a lens mount. I've used them as coil winding cores, waveguides, insect traps, drums, cookie cutters, and even food storage containers before. Doesn't make it news!
Of course, if I wrote up the cookie-cutter application as "Pringles can provides limitless food supply", it'd probably make the front page.
However it is a bit frustrating to see all these post lately 'build $$$ device at peanut cost' which then usually involve having all kinds of stuff in advance, e.g. "cannibalising a few of the lens- and body covers that most of us have laying around."
Slashdot, where everyone is so american that no one has any idea what Freedom of Speech is, and how it doesn't apply to private websites you read in your underwear and never pay for.
...when I show you how to construct: ... from a Pringles can.
- A working fusion reactor
- A 3" mortar
- A simple teleportation device
AND
- A cat
http://www.photocritic.org.nyud.net:8090/2005/macr o-photography-on-a-budget/
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
Next, someone's gonna discover that these cans make convenient containers for chips.
What this guy built is an extension ring, not a macro lens. He used an existing lens, he chose non-macro lens, a macro lens would provide more precise focusing and flat focal plane but otherwise would work the same.
What he built is called extension ring, it fits between the camera and the lens and allows extremely close focusing of any lens. Extension rings go for $20-$40, sometimes you can find them used for less, or you can by a set of 3 for around $100. Factory-made rings usually preserve automatic functions of the lens, at least aperture control, sometimes even autofocus. They are usually much shorter than the pringles can, anywhere from 9mm to 45mm (and you can stack them).
So this little contraption does save you some bucks, just not as much as you might have hoped if you read the title and priced a macro lens.
I use velcro to temporarily attach a $1.99 jeweler's loupe to the front of my point and shoot digicamera. Cost is similar to a box of Pringles, image quality is fine for web pics. By buying the $3.99 set of 5 loupes, I get a variety of magnification levels, down to a 2mm object taking up the full frame.
A very nice way to do macro photography is to place that 50 mm (or similar) lens reversed in front of your lens. You can buy a reversing ring for the purpose. It is easy to do if you only have threads for the reversing ring on your camera (many point and shoot digital don't). Just zoom in (to minimize vignetting) and stop down the lens you are mounting the (wide open) normal lens on.
If you are serious about doing macro photography but don't have to budget to buy a macro lens for your SLR, best would be to use a lesn reversing ring to put the lens backwards on the camera. That way you can use your regular lens as a very good macro lens. Focusable, zoomable, what ever... won't even cost you much more then a box of pringles and no risk of geasing up your SLR.
"Just think of what the Professor could have done with these cans!"
Ginger's or Mary-Anne's?
Adventure City Tours
A foot away is just tremendous distance for a modern mid-priced digital camera. I have a Minolta-Konica Dimage Z5 whose "super macro" mode, while somewhat depth-of-field challenged, can take pictures within a centimeter of the lens. That's on a camera with an image-stabilized 12x optical zoom, too, so it's not like it's the intended strong point of the model. IIRC there's a slightly more recent Canon, also with a longer-than-normal optical zoom, that can take snaps of stuff that's essentially touching the face of the lens.
That's on your $500-USD tier of cameras. Granted, the DOF is not perfect, and I'm sure it's less than a flat field, but the newest midlevel consumer digicams are lots better than a reflective Pringles can...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The RIAA has not granted you a license to use your CD in this manner. Why do you hate America??
2: Using a dremel tool grind out the sheet steel bottom. Leave metal swarf and dust inside tube.
3: Glom this mess onto your camera and lens.
4: Wonder why your camera develops problems later.
Seriously, read the article. The complete carelessness is horrible. This article is like a sick joke on people who don't know or think about the implications of getting salt and metal dust into their camera.
I saw this and went down to the camera store to get a lens and body cap to mount it, and the owner, showed me something else that works better. I use a pentax k mount so there are a lot of old teleconverters and only for about 20 bucks. All you have to do is tap the lens elements on the edge to unscrew them. Then you have a very sturdy mount and about 25mm of extension.