Lightweight RifleScopes with Parallax Adjustment

Lightest Rifle Scopes Ive found

Intro

My pursuit to find a super light yet capable scope has often resulted in the usual leupold ultralight being brought out & not much else. So I decided to spend some time & research manually, each of the better scopes with AO & list their weights, if they were comparable to the other ultralight scopes.

The goal is not just to find any old light scope, but rather one that has adjustable objective or side focus, & reasonably good picture quality.
The ultralight only has 1 model with AO, the efr 3-9x33mm, which frankly is just a tad short of the magnification I wish it would otherwise have, because Leupold scopes are inherently extra wide & overstate the magnification when compared to other brands. A 9x leupold really only is an 8.3x & a 6-18x40mm vx-2  is really only a 16.7x scope!

Those of you that have read my previous articles on shooting ergonomics will be aware of my personal belief the rifle weight balancing plays the most important role in your ability to shoot accurately, outside of the firearms technical capability.
I also look into factors such as reticle shape, thickness, & field of view.

In this article, I hope to share with you my findings around which scopes have worked best to aid that goal, & hopefully clarify some reasons as to why I tried them.

Parallax Adjustment is critical for shooting under 50 yards / 50 metres & upto 100 metres when using higher magnification say 16x. A lot of my accurate shooting is done with a 22 at shorter ranges, thus the Adjustabe Objective (AO) or Side Focus (SF) feature is the main thing I look for aside from the zoom magnification range.

I also assess the magnification to weight ratio, ie, if you can get a little extra zoom for hardly say 25 grams of extra weight, then that scope is worth considering.

Leupold

In most cases Leupold is quite pricy & there are equally nice scopes out there for cheaper.
Bushnell is one such brand that in my opinon has really given Leupold a run for its money.
At the lower end, Mueller seems to have hit the nail too with optics, though I must admit their build quality sometimes isnt enough.

But when you start looking at weight, Leupold scopes seem to be some of the lightest available, & not much else is easily found. I am told this is not necessarily a good thing, because they use lots of thinner aluminium, not one piece steel. Ill document many of the other contenders too.
In my pursuit to find a nice light parallax adjustable scope, I cant help but notice an array of light Leupolds on offer:

Leupold vx2 6-18x40 15.8 oz 447 grams

In my oinion, probably the best compromise of weight to magnification, this one sits on my Tikka & despite much searching, I doubt I will ever find a lighter one. Nice scope, but it wasnt cheap!

Leupold vx-2 ultralight 3-9x33mm EFR - 11.5 oz 326 grams

Note that you need the EFR version which has AO & is heavier than the other ultralight vx-2 3-9x power. The other one does NOT have AO & will appear as 8.8oz, we dont want that.
Lightest scope Ive ever found with AO, but sometimes, at 9 power, more is desirable.

Leupold vx2 4-12x40mm AO - 13.2 oz 373 grams

Lastly, the old favourite on many a 22s, who would have thought this one is probably the best choice when it comes to a compromise between enough magnification & light weight.
Stay clear of the non AO vx-1 model, which is cheaper & lighter.

Bushnell

Though not as light as Leupolds on paper, the Bushnells have made some pretty light scopes. The elite range given their full steel tube & 1000 round 375h&h tested construction are probably great for heavy calibres or bush use.
Heres a list of their best candidates:

Banner 3.5-10x36mm AO - 15 oz 425 grams - cheapest in the lightweight range

I plan to buy this scope soon so should be able to tell you more about it in a month or so when its here from the USA.

I have owned cheap bushnell scopes before as well as the elite & for the price I felt they were really nice, well made products.
Cheap ones had some distortion at the edges of the view, which can be a problem but remember this only happened in their cheapest scope.

The Elite 3200 4-12x40mm Rainguard is a really great scope, but I wont mention it as a lightweight one as there are better contenders in that regard.

Nikon

Top end optics but are usually heavy weight & long eye relief.
The long eye relief has often made Nikon scopes hard to mount of 22s with shorter length of pull due to the usually shorter stocks.
Lots of nice side focus scopes though, so the lighter ones need a mention.

Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 SF

Simmons

Ive thought of Simmons as being one of the first brands to provide excellent value scopes, the good old 8-point with AO were scopes we learnt to shoot using, & to date are serious contenders for beginners.
They possess excellent field of view, much like the Muellers, which really make life harder for the likes of the cheap basic leupolds vx1 or some redfields that cost twice as much.

Master Series ProSport 4-12x40mm AO - 13.8 oz

I would hope this pro sport series has reasonable image quality, but have never used it. Quite an acceptable weight for the price, anyone out there got this scope?

Vortex

I have never had dealings with this brand, but have heard the name recently with some good reviews. None the less, for what I want to achieve, I thin it will be more than adequate.

Diamondback 4-12x40mm AO - 15oz

Huntsman

This is not the BSA huntsman series, but rather a cheap brand that becoming popular in New Zealand.
The huntsmen scope is a ridiculously awesome cheap scope that offers better image qualtiy than you would believe. I have in the past dealt with garbage from NCStar etc only to confirm the obvious, but hey this Huntsman is different. This was the first time a cheap scope could actually be considered as usuable as an expensive one.
Not sure how well the reticle holds up to recoil, but works mint on my 22s, the CZ 452 & the Ruger 10/22.
The 4-12x40mm AO scope fails to disappoint upto the 12x range though.
With most cheapish scopes, it will be crappy at max power for very high magnification options, so maybe a 16x huntsmen is really only a 12x scope, dont know never tried the others.
Give it a try.

Sigma 8-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm F4 - Ultrawide lens showdown

The Sigma 8-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm

8mm focal length is awesome when compared to 12mm, take a look at these sample pics:



Sigma 8-6mm at 8mm - no editing except resizing

 

 



Tokina 12-24mm at 12mm - no editing except resizing.

 

The good:

I love the extra 4mm, it is really brilliant.
Image quality is quite sharp, at par with the well respected Tokina.
Very low distortion for a rectilinear lens, in my opinion beats the Tokina here
Unlike most sigmas, it thankfully focuses quite well!
- Or maybe Im lucky to have a good sample for a change, & my previous sigmas might have been duds... :o
F/3.5 at its widest end provides a slight advantage in low light scenarios, but not by much
Superb close focus distance of only 20cm is really nice for exagerrated perspectives

The bad:

The biggest problem is you cant use Filters at 8mm, at 16mm too its almost impossible & will vignette.
- Forget your ND8 for slow speed shots of water, even a cokin system isnt available yet :(
Non detachable hood, because with the 105 deg picture angle, the lens element has to raise outside themain rim & thus needs basic protection provided by the fixed petal lens hood.
No proper cap, you need to slide the clumsy cover on
 - Makes it too long un-necessarily
Heavier than the Tokina, but not too bad for the extra range
Minimum aperture only F/22
- No filters + super low close up focus distance often leaves you wanting more Depth of Field, & F22 sometimes doesnt cut it.
Focus override with the focus ring just doesnt work with many Nikons including the D90.

 

Tokina 12-24mm:

The good:

Very versatile zoom range up to 24mm
- this can be a one shop architecture destination travel lens because it lets you go up to 24mm when needed.
Constant F4 aperture
- great when you want to take that shot with a person in a scene at 24mm, in available light.
Light weight, easy to carry
- Not as light as a tamron, but good compromise in return for the decent image quality.
Goes down to F32 & allows filters to be used even at 12mm
- Grab your ND & go for some cool slow exposure scenic shots.

The bad:

More distortion in the edges/corners at 12mm than the sigma.
Doesnt go as wide as you might want to, when you think about the 8mm sigma.
Minimum focus distance is around 35 cms, which at 12mm isnt as much perspective exagerration as you sometimes like.
The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is a great lens too, but still, 8mm is hard to beat.
The oder versoin doesnt have an AF motor so screw drive can be a bit noisy, but still fast focus.

Shotshell caddy for 3 gun shoot

Shotgun Shell Holding Caddy

Check out these cool shotshell holders on trademe

Made by the same KiwiStocks people that make those ruger accessories from my previous article.

Excellent for the price, but they only work with 2 3/4 inch cartridges.
Something to incorporate in the next version Id say.

The clip holds quite well, & being made out of ABS plastic, its much lighter than one would expect.
The inherent flexibility of ABS is a good thing as it stops shell jamming when youre trying to pull them out.

Not a 3 gun shooter myself so only use these for convenience, but would be interesting to know what those who do rapid & timed shoots think about this caddy...

The thing is being in New Zealand there arent a hell of a lot of places you can get these from, & when you do, they cost a hell of a lot more!

Got this one? Any thoughts?

Sako vs Tikka - Is the sako worth the extra?

Sako vs Tikka - Is the Sako truly better

Both Sako & Tikka have a great reputation, & quite often those that could afford either will just buy a sako & be done with it. Those who cant easily afford it, will need to justify the extra.
Currently, Tikka is less than half the price of a Sako in New Zealand. Im told Tikkas are cheaper here than most of Europe, where the difference is only a few hundred dollars apart, not thousands.

Ive owned both, & would like to share what I believe is the naked truth.

Is the Sako worth twice the Tikka price?

In my opinon, NO, its not. Please see my list of reasons below.
Probably emphasised by the fact that Tikkas are so under-priced here in NZ thanks to Beretta NZ being competitive I guess, but that just means more buying opportunity for us kiwis, we benefit for once! :)

Should you buy a sako even if you could afford it?

This might shock some of you, but, again, in my opinion, NO, get a Tikka & use the rest to buy a good scope, good ammo, get the barrel professionally fluted if you want to, customise your rifle in other ways, etc etc.
Or get 2 tikka rifles! :)

Im not specifically comparing each of the models, but my comments should hopefully help anyone trying to make that all important decision of whether to spend the extra dosh on a Sako or NOT.

So its not about comparing a Varmint to a Hunter to Finnlight to a T3 to a Tactical etc, its more of a general guide on the brand's perceived vs real value in price. Ive never owned the A7 etc so wont comment on them, which though cheaper in price seem to be even more of a waste given I dont quite see what they cost extra for, they look like Tikkas in a Sako stock.

Reasons why I believe Tikka wins over Sako:

1) Identical barrel & chamber quality

The grunt of your accuracy is in the barrel, both Tikka & Sako barrels have the same quality of hammer-forging done in the same factory with the same materials right there in Finland.

2) Bolt face is matched to breech with the same accuracy

The bolt sits to the same 0.01" accuracy for each Tikka or Sako rifle & is factory matched for that particular rifle. So a tikka locks in the cartridge just as well as a Sako.
Yes, a Tikka bolt has more plastic in it, & Sako all metal, but for this so called 'better quality', the Sako is twice the price. If they both shoot the same & pretty much last longer than an average barrel, then would you worry about the plastic in the bolt?
I dont, & it works fine.

3) Identical Trigger assembly

Plastic or metal, the basic trigger assembly is the same. Contrary to opinoin, the trigger breaks just as nicely & I swear if you tried both groups you couldnt tell them apart.

4) Weaver Picatinny style mounts

Generic rings can be used on Tikka rifles, & tikka rings are cheaper. The sako rings cost more & generic rings cant be used on a sako, you have to buy very expensive rings if you need something that your rifle didnt come with. Are the tikkas rings 'bad'? No, they hold fine. The sako rings might be theoretically better, but the point is, they dont actually make any difference, so why pay more?

5) Lighter in weight for the same price

The finnlight is the lightest rifle, & hey well done to Sako, but when you look at your average hunter & varmint models, the Tikkas are actually very light in comparison. So if you wanted something light, you have to buy a Finnlight for Sako, OR a Tikka for half the price!

6) Out of the box grouping guaranteed

The sako's guaranteed grouping is smaller than a Tikka, agreed. But hey, how many brands of ammo have you had to experiment with your rifle to select the ammo that gets you your 'guaranteed grouping'?

Now here is the point:
Until you have found the correct ammunition for your rifle, you cant assess the guaranteed grouping performance of your rifle. So it doesnt matter how badly your rifle shot with the bad shooting ammo, because when you find the rightt ammo, both the rifles shoot equally well.

Arguably, not so favourable ammo would shoot better in the sako than the equally 'not so favourable' ammo would in your Tikka, if that makes sense... which is really impossible for you to ever compare or evaluate.

In my case, I tried 4 ammo brands for my Sako. The Remington shot like crap, at around 2 inches 100 metres. The winchester was aceptable at 1-1.5" with the occassional flyer which was probably me. The Lapua did well with 0.5-1" & Federal did well with the expected consistent 0.5"

For my Tikka, I only had to try 2 brands due to sheer luck, turns out I started with the right brand so I got the rifle to group its best quicker. The Winchester shot 0.5-1" out of a brand new rifle, first 3 shots after bore sighting & I couldnt believe how lucky I was, smack bang easy peezy.

So both my Tikka & my Sako gouped 0.5 inches with their respective ammunition.
Both are capable of grouping better than their so called 'guaranteed grouping'

The Tikka groups just as well as the sako with the right ammo, so how can one justify the Sako as being the better grouping rifle?!?

One might argue the Sako will group better with a wider range of ammunition, I cant be sure of that, it could be true, but how many of us have tried every single brand out there to compare?

Better long distance performance from Sakos, I hear you say. Hmm, well, maybe you have a point there. I havnt tried 600 metres with either but I doubt it will matter because MOA varaince stays constant, it shouldnt matter any more than your own handshake at such long ranges. The wind, the projectile, & your own shooting skills matter more in those cases I think.

7) Better Build quality & longer life ?

Actually, my Sako started rusting & kept rusting in very specific places, before my CZ did. Weird isnt it?! Now its minor rust mind you nothing to worry about, but hey, it happened. Well I tried everything, the whole lubrication, storage space, moisture, cleaning, checking for scratches, no nothing. Internal bore was fine, just the outside had small particles developing rust. Its just the way it was. The tikka didnt rust outside but I could see slight loss of bluing marks, & was told there might be some slight pitting in the barrel. Given both rifles were different calibres & different amounts of use, I agree its not a fair 1 to 1 comparison, but thats not the point.

The point is, the Sakos rust too, & a cheap CZ didnt. If the sako is so damn indestructible, why did it start to rust, you know what I mean... I had not taken it out hunting at that stage, the CZ infact had already been! Dud piece you think, well, ok, lets say its a faulty piece, but then hey what about all that 'consistecy' we get promised, either way its a bit of a shame dont you think ??

8) Good resale value despite cheap price, ie. less overall depreciation

Despite being a cheap rifle, the Tikka holds value incredibly well. I can prove to you with numbers that you are actually financially better off owning a Tikka, should you want to sell it.

Average price for a new Sako is currently NZ$3400. A new Tikka averages $1300.
Used 10 year old Sako in good condition is currently averages $1800.
Used Tikka in good condition around $800.

Depreciation on Sako is close to 50% value & you lost 1600 bucks! With the Tikka, you are only loosing $500.
And here is the kicker, even if Tikka looses its value down to 50% & is worth $650, you still loose $650, & not $1600 - Big Difference aint it! :)

Yes, there are 'differences' between the 2, but is it worth it?

'Differences' dont automatically make something better. It can be better for you for a different reason though. For example, I find the Stainless Synthetic Finnlight to be the most comfortable rifle for my body. The stock is super light, beautiful nice rubberised grip, fits naturally. Barrel balances brilliantly, the length is just right & its just a dream to hold up, like a part of your body.

But how much more comfortable than the Tikka is it for me? Well, not twice as comfortable, so I wont pay twice the price, & then loose half the money if I do choose to sell it!

Yes, if you felt the finnlight was out of this world & everything else was just not close, then by all means go get a finnlight & fork out the cash. But dont be so certain that youre paying for 'a much better rifle', thats my point.

The Tikka is a very capable rifle, & you would be hard pressed to find a better rifle in its price class, in fact, I doubt you will succeed in finding a better rifle than a Tikka for what it offers at its price point.

Please dont think I hate sakos; Im sorry if the post sounded that way, that was not the intention. Im merely trying to make some points in the Tikka's favour. Both rifles are very good, but I feel Tikka offers way more.

Please share your thoughts...

If you have had both, please tell us what do you think worked? Do you agree with my opinion re the Tikka being a better buy, or do you think the Sako at twice the price truly is a better quality rifle for reasons I havnt yet found? Please post your comments here.

Happy Shooting :)

Macro Photography Basics - Part 2

Macro Photography Part 2

Hello, this is the second half of my blurb on macro photography. If you are familiar with the concept & please read on. If youre a beginner wanting to get a better understanding of the basics, please feel free to read the part 1 of my macro photography article.

In this part, we cover more on Lenses, Accessories, lighting, & basic Techniques around aperture selection, iso, shutter speed etc.

Macro lens vs Front Adapter Rings vs bellows units vs Lens Extension Tubes

So a big question Im asked is, whats the best option.
The fact is that it really depends upon your budget, how much of your photography is macro, & analysing your cost vs benefit, like everything else.

I recommend you start by using the lens reversal idea, see if it sparks an interest, & if it does, go for a cheap macro lens.

Screw on macro adjustment rings:

The screw on front objective rings are great if you want just a little bit of magnification on your average cheap kit 18-55mm lens, but dont expect anything significant.
Be very careful of using these on internal focus lenses lenses where the focal point throughout the focal length. I read a long article on it & got myself confused, but basically, avoid using these little rings on lenses like the popular 18-200mm VR etc. It will not work well at most focal lengths & often have focus errors etc

Macro Extension tubes

Extension pieces come in 2 variants, the cheaper ones that dont support exposure metering/AF, & the more expensive ones that are supposed to support metering.
Increasing the distance between your lens & camera reduces the minimum focus distance thus allowing you to go closer to your subject, simple as that. You can try it out by holding the lens in your hand to get the idea.

I feel that if youre buying extension tubes, you might as well buy ones that support exposure metering, otherwise, why not just use the lens reversing & make do.
In my opinion, no point spending on tubes that dont have metering support.

Saying that, some extension tubes come in sets & can cost about that same as a cheap prime lens.
That brings us to our next idea:

Lens on Lens reversal:

One of the oldest ways to do macro is to take 2 50mm prime lenses & reverse one onto the lens on your camera.
You can just hold the lens, or buy a $20 filter thread objective reversal ring off eBay.
You get full AF & metering.

Best to ick an older style lens that has an aperture so that you can keep the aperture open as big as possible, say f1.8.

It is best to do this on a prime that has no extension of the front objective during focus, otherwise AF will not work.
But even if it is the cheaper type which does extend in & out, the metering is there & you get more magnification from this technique than any tube or lens reversal ring.

But, it potentially is prone to aberration or other optical issues in the picture, distortion, fish eye etc tend to happen. Still not bad though.

I prefer the simple single lens reversal as its more manageable, not too heavy, inexpensive & very good image quality.

How to select a macro lens:

Magnification Ratio - Maximum Reproduction Ratio - How Ratios work:

The terms magnification ratio & maximum reproduction ratio for any lens are the same thing.
Its nothing more than the actual size of the object vs the size it will be when measured on the image sensor.

1:1 means that the image on the sensor will be the same size as the object itself.
1:2 means the image will be half the size.

It is common to confuse the second number & assume that 1:2 means double, it doesnt.
Remember 1:2 means half. You should divide the first number by the second number to get your actual magnification.
Some lens models were more user friendly & stated the magnification as a number like 0.25, or 0.5.
0.5= 1:2 & 0.25 = 1:4, etc

These numbers are listed all along the barrel on a macro len, pretty usually in a similar way as the focus distance numbers. You will usually see them start around 1:10, & then work their way down to 1:1 or so.

What you should look for:

1:1 magnification is considered bare minimum for a 'macro' specification, ie, a lense that will re-produce the image of the object on the sensor thats the same as the real object thats visible in your photo.
But cheaper macro lenses can be 1:2. These are not to be dismissed, & you can screw on an adapter that will bring them to 1:1 performance with minimal image quality change.

You can also connect any of these to a teleconverter, a 2x doubler which also provides a noticible increase in image size.

Digital SLR technology has come a long way, & a good sensor means you can crop & achieve a resultant image size with the crop ratio that will provide you comparable detail to 1:1 magnification or better.

But, do not confuse dslr sensor crop ratio & image cropping manually done as being 1:1 magnification.

This brings us to the next topic on focal lengths.

What focal range & f-stop lens should I buy - 100mm 60mm 40mm 200mm!?

The lesser the focal length, the closer you will need to go to the target subject to achieve the big image size on the sensor. It is important you understand this because it impacts your picture angle & field of view much the same as you would think of in any application of photography.

If you have a very wide macro lens, youre going too close so the parallax of whats behind the object is significant. The narrower lens, the less you need to get closer, so your object may look more uniform.
But then you wont get the effect of feeling 'sucked into' the macro photo.

Get this right, for it will impact every photo you take. There is no right or wrong answer, it just means your images will look a certain way everytime.

My recommendation for macro is that if you want a lense thats macro as well as versatile, then a 60mm is ok. If you want a lens that is really for close up macro, go with at least 100mm.

If you want something for specialist medical photography etc, people use the 200mm all the time. Thats when you need to read an article written by an expert in that field :)
If you want to do specialist macro but are a beginner, I suggest you start with basic macro ideas like those in this article, but then work your way up.

How to start off:

People usually start with the usual suspects, flowers, small insects etc, but really, its whatever captures your fancy.
Having seen my attached photos, some will make you wonder what they are.
You too can try to capture subjects where the viewer would wonder what it is that youve captured!

Common Myths which are incorrect:

Personally, I use 100mm on a DX sensor camera. Again, remember, this doesnt mean that the magnification of my macro lens is 1.5x of the number shown on the barrel, thats incorrect.
The magnification always stays the same no matter what format camera you use with a lens that is compliant to your crop sensor.

Some people like to take a photo at a certain magnification, then crop say 50% worth of  the image off, & argue that the results are the same as a lens that would have twice the focal length. In digital, cropping & pixels have opened up the avenue for greater actual image size in pixel, but this must not be confused as being greater macro magnification.

Greater magnification in reality should be measured by how close a lens lets you go to the tinies of subjects, & then how much that tiny subject is magnified.

Enlarging large subjects & getting relative large image sieze is not the point of macro photography.
As I said before, if I take a photo of an animals head with a zoom lens & then crop it so that only the eye is visible, I cant argue that its 2:1 macro magnification, even though there is good resultant magnification, that is NOT macro by any measure.

To conclude, as long as you go close to the subject & take a photo, you are in the macro world.

Thanks for reading :)

Was this tutorial useful, & was it easy to understand?

I write these articles in the hope of them being better than other complex content out there so please let me know if this was useful, or not so that I can make them bettter in the future.

Happy Shooting :)

Macro Photography Basics - Part 1

The basics of  Macro Photography - An introduction 

What is Macro:

Macro or Micro, whatever you call it, is about capturing subjects that are small.
Essentially, for something to be classified as a macro photo, the usual impression is that the camera was brought quite close to it.
Though its not mandatory that the lens be in the subjects face, that is what the usual implmentation of macro photography starts off as.

Thats why, if you take a photo from a good distance & then crop it to death, that 'zoom' doesnt necessarily qualify as macro photography.

Forget about zoom, cropping & dslr crop ratio, true macro is about getting your hands dirty with the subject from as close to it as possible in most cases :)

Its about capturing detail that would otherwise be impossible with other techniques or equipment.

How do I start - Macro Equipment

Do I really need a macro lens:

Well folks, the great news is, No, you dont!
You dont need a macro lens, but it makes life easier than using other contraptions.
I recently came across cheap lenses like a Promaster Spectrum 7, which provide excellent image quality for an entry level price.

AF is not always that big a deal. Its nice to have but quite often useless.

f2.8 on a macro lens is practicaly useless for true macro.
With closeup macro photography, your depth of field is already not deep enough, because you're so close to the object that at any given point, almost everything behind the focal plane is significantly out of focus.
So more often than not, you will need to stop down to f10 or lower, even f16, before you get sufficient depth of field to capture details.

Yes, f2.8 lenses are great because you can then use them as your everyday prime lens instead of carrying your other prime lense around, but personally, I would not be overly concerned by a macro lenses maximum aperture.

A good macro lens will give you a sharp precise picture, especially when its closer to the minimum focus distance of the lens.

Macro lenses have very small minimum focus distances usually, ie the closest your lens can be to your subject in focus with average lenses today is around 50cm, with a macro lens, its often close to 5cm. Thats just an example, because back in the old days when most lenses had minimum focus distance of 200cm, a lens with 50cm was considered macro too! How the times change... :)

If not macro lens, then what

My favourite is the lens reversal concept.
Investment cost: 0 You dont need to spend any moey.
Almost every photographer has at least 1 lens that can be reversed & will act like a very simple macro lens.

The best option for that is a 50mm f1.8 type cheap simple prime lens.

For a start, just detach the lens from your camera, turn it around, & hold it against your camera.
Viola!

Yes its manual focus, manual metering, manual everything - welcome to the 1950s.
But hey, its free & works a treat :)

Find macro interesting, please read more in my Macro Photography Part 2 article here.

Was this first part of the article useful, & was it easy to understand?

I write these articles in the hope of them being better than other complex content out there so please let me know if this was useful, or not so that I can make them better in the future.

Happy Shooting :)

3d photo printing with lithopane stereolithography

How to print 3d photos from plastic

The main idea:

3d printers let you create anything out of plastic, once you have a 3d model for it.
Any photos have bright & dark edges in it. So the idea is to scan that photo & create thicker vs thinner regions of plastic, such that whern printed & light is passed through them, the photo stands out. Once you get the settings right, the results can be pretty cool.

Stuff like this is available on sites like trademe, for example look over here for some practical stuff you can buy.

What you need:

- 3d printer (I use an AM based up! plus 3d printer you can buy from 3d printing systems here)
- White plastic (preferably bright white, colours arent really suited for this stuff)
- Photo2PMesh software

And how the bloody hell do you make it look as good as it should:

Well, not to worry, thats what this post is about.

We cover 2 main areas here., photo 2 mesh software settings, & UP 3d printer quality settings

Please be aware that within reason, each photo will be better with certain specific settings for best effect & what I recommend is not the best for every single photo. but more so a good basic 'default' setting that will do a very good job of most photos you throw at it.

Photo to mesh software settings:

The most important settings are Z height & Mesh height.
My recomendations:
Z Height:                    1.5
Mesh Height:              2.5

Up printer quality settings:

The most important thing is to ensure your orientation is set such that the photo is printed vertically on its thin side edge NOT flat straight, else it will fail.

My recommendations:
Resolution: 0.25 (250 micron)
Fill:            Least density
Speed:       Normal

B&W LM1s as surrounds with 6 series speakers

Reviewing the LM1s as fronts as well as surrounds

The B&W LM1 may very well be a great starting point for hifi on a budget, but frankly if you're on a budget & want fronts, get the inexpensive B&W 601 S2/S3. Please read my last post here to get some more details on that.

If you want to place them on the wall, direction them, & want a great overall speaker with a tiny foot print that doesnt sound like a tatterbox bose satellite, then the LM1 is probably your best choice.

Its not that the the LM1s wont do a good job as fronts, but the 601 will outperform as its a true full range front bookshelf rather than a small speaker that was basically designed for those that have to work with smaller sapces & cant have its bigger brothers. So LM1 would be your only real choice if you couldnt afford the smaller 686 bookshelf (which I havent owned but have been impressed by)

The LM1 has a few advantages:

1) Easy to mount & orient with built in rotating mount cum stand mechanism

Though its not impossible to buy speaker mounts that can do the same, its just nice to have a speaker that comes with one of these, so that you dont need to make holes or modifications of any kind & can simply find a suitable place to hang them off.
The wall mounts rotate to become stands, so any flat surface is ok, & you can rotate them for a beautiful lineup to the listener ear.

2) Extremely good bass for what is a small speaker

Do not under-estimate this baby. Those small drive units have a fair bit of power. They will like your grunty amp dont you worry, & they will deliver that low end nicely. The mid bass is not as smooth, but the deep end of the bass is superb & clean. Yes, you will need a sub when you get serious, but my point is that this speaker isnt a clatter box tweeter inside a piece of plastic. This is a REAL speaker!
It doent roll-off as nicely with a small sub like the b&w asw608 that I was using, but since I wasnt going to use them for fronts on the long run, it didnt matter too much.

3) Beautiful timbre matching with the new 6 series speakers - even the floor stander 683/684!

Not often will a little bookshelf do justice to a front thats way out of its league. This little bookshelf is a different story. In HT setups, for almost any movie, the LM1 is more than adequate with a well crossed over sub. For hifi music, a bigger bookshelf is slightly better, but not by a lot.
Its nice when your surrounds dont sound a world apart to your fronts & center.

If you can afford it & have the sapce to use the 685/686/601 for surrounds, then they are definitely better, its all about what you can have in the LM1 for its small size.

I havnt yet auditioned the new M-1 & Lm-1 side by side, but I doubt they will be as good at delivering the bottom end. Most people have agreed the M1 is a tatty speaker. I hope it doesnt remind me of something from a typical Sony 5.1 HT in a box stuff.
Do you own a M-1? What do you think? What amp/sub do you use?

B&W 601 S2 vs B&W 685

Bowers and Wilkins DM 601 S2 S3 vs 685

If you are out for a bookshelf, & dont know if the Bowers & Wilkins 601 is a good buy compared to the newer 685 then I have good news.
Get the cheaper older speakers!!

I would go so far as to say that even if you can afford the new 685s, save the dosh & buy the older 601 S2/S3.
If you have a good floor stander like the 683/684 & want to use the 685s for surrounds, the you might have some marginal benefit in going with 685 as there is the probability of better timbre matchting, but I personally doubt you would tell them apart in surround use anyway...

Advantages of the older B&W 601:

1) Better bass

I think its the bigger cone that helps, but the bass out of the 601 sounds quite smooth.
It has a particularly nice roll over with the B&W ASW 608 subwoofer.
If you're using bookshelves for mains, I highly recommend the ASW 608, its one awesome sub & often a tad under-estimated due to its small size, but dont let that micro footprint fool you.
Have a read of my article on the Bowers & Wilkins ASW608 sub woofer here.

2) Better Vocals

Contrary to what a moajority of reviews seem to find, I felt the newer speakers actually had an unpleasant sharpness in the vocals. You want frank sinatra to sound crisp, but not shrill, if you get what I mean. The older speakers were significantly mellow & had the signature bowers and wilkins sound of warmth that we usually like. Maybe the older bigger cone was more mellow, but there is definitely a lot about the new 685 vocals that I wasnt impressed with.

4) Cheaper to buy now!

The older speakers are cheap, & being quite under-rated are often selling for a couple of hundred dollars on trademe & eBay. They are the best bargain hifi speaker for anyone on a budget, or new to hifi.

I cant say if the 601 S3 woulc be the same as the S2, but given they both share the newer tweeter & what looks like the same bass/mid drivers, I would hope they sound similar.
The 601 Series 1 has older drivers & I havt tried those.

Any of you folks tried the 601 with the golden tweeters? Are they as good as the newer 601 Series 2 & series 3?

Let me know what you think, & what amp you were using.

3d printing prices - shapeways vs ponoko vs iMaterialise vs sculpteo

Comparing the price to 3d print a tiny 20mm x 14xmm x17mm model

Just a quick post as a heads up for those that want to know which service is overall the cheapest.
I havnt tried any of them, just researched it so giving you the info without you having to sign up & upload models, & check out & go through all that jazz, & then get rubbish emails for the rest of your lives potentially.. kidding.

All shipping costs are to New Zealand. Currency is mostly USD, unless otherwise specified.

I do my own platic 3d printing so Im mostly interested in metals or other materials, more specifically shiny glossy silvery looking ones.


www.shapeways.com - $12 for a tiny gold coloured glossy metal part, sounds a lot but its the cheapest service provider overall & even has the option of pure silver, not bad.
The white plastic version was only $2.5
Shipping $20, but its practically flat no matter how many small items I added to checkout, weird, but well, it prboably has the brains to check weight etc

www.ponoko.com - cant make small stuff from metal!

http://i.materialise.com/ - no login necessary yay! - but 12.5 freakin Euros for white plastic are you kidding me?! They also provide pure gold but coudlnt price it on the spot, interesting if you wanted something made to that standard.

www.sculpteo.com - $8 for white plastic - shipping costs $30!


Thats it folks.

Any of you out there tried these services?
Is the cheapest of them, shapeways good enough, or is iMaterialise something out of this world??

Happy Shopping :)