Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 202

Thread: Macro

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Macro

    There have been a few threads recently. One of my interests is macro photography (ie 1x or greater magnifications). An year ago, I posted some shots with a Leitz Milar 10cm lens on G1.

    Extension tubes, focus mounts from salvaged lenses, bellows, anything and everything is used in my set-up.

    Lighting and stability (camera set-up as well as specimens) is a major issue.

    The intention is to share an image or two and to exchange any tips and tricks from everyone. So, post anything (images) you have got at or above 1X.

    Here is a recent capture of a live tick @ 8X. The insect was <2mm in length and was cleaning its legs while sitting on a piece of fruit. It was lit up by two fluorescent lamps. An ancient Leitz Summar 24mm f/2 on extension tubes mounted on a G1 was the imaging system. The camera was on a focus rail which was supported on a tripod (ISO100, 1/100s, cable release, ~f11).



    The set-up was not all that stable as I would have liked (something similar to an Aristophot set-up is available to me but that behometh was elsewhere.)

    Next time, the tripod would stand on concrete (and not wooden) floors.

  2. #2
    Irwell
    Guest

    Re: Macro


  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Irwell, Would you care to add any information on the gear/technique associated with that image?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Hi Vivek. I also have Macro as a favorite facet of photography.

    G1. Tokina ATX 90mm with Macro extender mounted. Fl360 external flash. Handheld.



    These were shot using G1 a FL/FD Bellows with a Canon 50mm F1.4 lens mounted. Fl360 Flash. Handheld.


    These guys are somewhat like .5 mm in size.


  5. #5
    Irwell
    Guest

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Irwell, Would you care to add any information on the gear/technique associated with that image?
    I didn't really want to upset the apple cart, but
    that shot was taken with a Sony W300 P&S, hand held
    using a 2x cheapo close up lens.

    I do own the Panasonic G1 with additional lenses also,

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    What apple cart?!

    BTW, the very reason I asked for the gear details was the quality of the image shown here.

    Any idea on the magnifications? Do you really think it would be 1X or over that?

  7. #7
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    There have been a few threads recently. One of my interests is macro photography (ie 1x or greater magnifications).
    ...
    So, post anything (images) you have got at or above 1X.
    Hi Vivek,
    I am getting a bit confused by the magnification issue. What is the meaning of at or above 1X Do you refer to the size of the image on the sensor of that particular camera? In that case the 1x would be different for cameras with different sensor sizes.

    On the other hand, if you look at a picture on screen or print, the apparent magnification depends on the dimensions of the screen/print. See for instance my pictures in the Macro options for m4/3 thread. There I stated the apparent magnification explicitely for my screen. A flower that is 12mm wide will appear different if you show a 900 pixel web post or an A3 print and/or a different crop.

    Could you please bring some clarity into this issue?

    Thanks
    Peter
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Peter,

    If an object of 17.3mm wide fills the frame in your G1 (horizontal) then the magnification is 1X. On a Nikon D700, the same object would fill only half the frame.

    The tick shown here was <2mm long hence 8X magnification.

    Enlargements made after the capture has nothing to do with the magnification factors during the shot.

    Hope this helps.

  9. #9
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    If an object of 17.3mm wide fills the frame in your G1 (horizontal) then the magnification is 1X. On a Nikon D700, the same object would fill only half the frame
    1. Not really. If you take a picture of the same object that will look identical (say with a 150mm lens and corresponding extension rings), it will fill a bigger amount of the sensor, say 34mm. Would it then become 2x although the final image, once developed and re-sized to the same dimensions will look identical? (Let's forget for the arguments' sake the other variables, like the difference in sharpness because it will use more pixels)

    2. How would you determine the magnification with a digital camera? If you open the file with one of the usual Raw Conversion or jpg viewing tools, you will not see the image at the actual size it had on the sensor. 100% (or 1:1) refers to the pixels and not to the sensor size.

    If you select a preview size of 1:5 in the raw converter, the 12mm orchid taken with the G1 will measure 110mm on my screen. 110/5 = 22. The object size being 12mm, the magnification factor would thus be 22/12 = 1.83? Is that correct? But if you use a bigger or smaller screen, you would get a different result.

    Thanks for your patience. I am certain this issue will also interest other users.

    Peter
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Peter, Sorry. I tried.

  11. #11
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Peter, Sorry. I tried.
    Thank you anyway, Vivek. I was intrigued by the question in your previous post: Any idea on the magnifications? Do you really think it would be 1X or over that?
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  12. #12
    Member laptoprob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Haarlem
    Posts
    131
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Macro

    Magnification is usually referred to as related to the capture phase in photography, not the display or projection. So it is confusing, but related to sensor size.
    For more practical info in this multi-sensor era, the size of the subject is more illustrating.
    Macro photography is something else than projecting or printing big.
    "You live and learn; at any rate you live" (Douglas Adams)

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Peter,

    If you already do not have it, I would strongly suggest that you get a copy (can be found used, easily and is fairly inexpensive) of:

    Close-up photography & Photomacrography

    Kodak publication No.12

    ISBN 0-87985-206-2

    Though that one is from 1977, nothing has changed when in comes to definitions or techniques.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Just added the Kiron MD 105mm f2.8 to my Macro lens collection. Using a MD/m43 mount adapter it works beautifully together with my G1.

    Some first results...




  15. #15
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Macro

    I opened this thread and got scared the forum was being invaded by insects. You guys had me worried for a second. 3 Espresso's now and i feel much better. LOL

    Great thread Vivek
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  16. #16
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I opened this thread and got scared the forum was being invaded by insects. You guys had me worried for a second. 3 Espresso's now and i feel much better. LOL
    Guy, you haven't seen anything yet. The troops are just starting to assemble for the mother of all invasions. You will need 30 Espressos...



    Macro Switar 26mm/1.1 on G1 - ISO=100 1/30 @ F/5.6
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  17. #17
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    I inherited my dad's old Minolta kit containing 4 Minolta MC mount lenses. I have been playing around with them shooting macros using extension tubes on my Panasonic DMC G1. The 35mm/f2.8 is fairly sharp but requires me to be too close for insects, the 55mm/f1.7 is not as sharp but provides better working distance. However, the 100mm/f3.5 allows me to be back about 10" & still get decent magnification & IQ. Here I will provide an example from each lens; the camera is mounted on focusing rails on a tripod & the ISO set @ 400.


    1. Green Pepper seeds on black felt, shot @ f16 with 35mm




    2. Toothpicks, shot @ f16 with 55mm




    3. Black Peppercorn in gator clip, shot @ f3.5 with 100mm


  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    As laptoprob says, it has everything to do with capture and nothing to do with projection/viewing. So question 2 is out the window. I guess perhaps another way of looking at it, it is actually mainly an optical quality, and has little or nothing to do with even the sensor.

    For question 1, Vivek's definition makes lens focal length irrelevant. All that matters is the size of the original object, and the size of the image being projected onto the sensor (which depends on focal length, subject distance, etc.)

    Of course, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong...

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    1. Not really. If you take a picture of the same object that will look identical (say with a 150mm lens and corresponding extension rings), it will fill a bigger amount of the sensor, say 34mm. Would it then become 2x although the final image, once developed and re-sized to the same dimensions will look identical? (Let's forget for the arguments' sake the other variables, like the difference in sharpness because it will use more pixels)

    2. How would you determine the magnification with a digital camera? If you open the file with one of the usual Raw Conversion or jpg viewing tools, you will not see the image at the actual size it had on the sensor. 100% (or 1:1) refers to the pixels and not to the sensor size.

    If you select a preview size of 1:5 in the raw converter, the 12mm orchid taken with the G1 will measure 110mm on my screen. 110/5 = 22. The object size being 12mm, the magnification factor would thus be 22/12 = 1.83? Is that correct? But if you use a bigger or smaller screen, you would get a different result.

    Thanks for your patience. I am certain this issue will also interest other users.

    Peter

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Those are wonderful shots, Ron!

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I opened this thread and got scared the forum was being invaded by insects. You guys had me worried for a second. 3 Espresso's now and i feel much better. LOL

    Great thread Vivek
    Guy, Thanks.

    A Great forum deserves good threads.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Ron, Welcome and thanks for the shots.

    I had a 50mm and 100mm Minolta macro (bellows) lenses a while ago (part traded them for a set of Luminars). They are great.

    Unlike you, I like short WD lenses (especially for still subjects).

    Jerry, I thought I will also take my latest macro lens for a spin.

    Here is a test shot of a black pepper (Piper nigrum), the very thing that was the center of the spice trade.



    Piper nigrum, ~2.5X, G1, reversed Pana 20/1.7, f/11, 1/6s.

  22. #22
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by madmaxmedia View Post
    As laptoprob says, it has everything to do with capture and nothing to do with projection/viewing. So question 2 is out the window. I guess perhaps another way of looking at it, it is actually mainly an optical quality, and has little or nothing to do with even the sensor.

    For question 1, Vivek's definition makes lens focal length irrelevant. All that matters is the size of the original object, and the size of the image being projected onto the sensor (which depends on focal length, subject distance, etc.)
    This definition of the magnification factor seems illogical because it depends on sensor (or film) size, as I had explained in my previous message. It may stand mathematically but goes against all common sense. Where did you find this definition? Please give an exact scientific source citation. The formula of the magnification factor must be defined in some treaty on optical theory and we cannot re-invent it ourselves in this forum as it pleases us.
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    Where did you find this definition? Please give an exact scientific source citation. The formula of the magnification factor must be defined in some treaty on optical theory and we cannot re-invent it ourselves in this forum as it pleases us.
    Post #13.

    Peter, It is alright if you have doubts and such. Referring to standard photography text books would clear them up. If you need, there are always more advanced ones (as the Kodak publication and such). No one here has invented these. Yes, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    This definition of the magnification factor seems illogical because it depends on sensor (or film) size, as I had explained in my previous message. It may stand mathematically but goes against all common sense. Where did you find this definition? Please give an exact scientific source citation. The formula of the magnification factor must be defined in some treaty on optical theory and we cannot re-invent it ourselves in this forum as it pleases us.
    Vivek's definition is pretty much standard (sorry I don't have a link.) I am by no means an expert, but here is why I would say sensor size doesn't matter.

    A lens projects an image onto a sensor. The image has a certain size, that is what is important. If take a photo of a peppercorn that is say 2mm in diameter, the magnification factor is based on the size of the peppercorn in the image projected by the lens. So a 35mm true macro lens is a macro lens, regardless of whether the camera attached is 35mm film, 35mm full-frame digital, 1.6x crop digital, or a Micro 4/3 camera.

    Now of course there are a lot factors that influence resolution, quality, and other characteristics of the final image that you record to film or digital. But that is a separate issue than what Vivek describes as macro (1:1 or greater magnification) photography.

    When discussing equipment, we never talk about macro cameras, only macro lenses. So the definition of macro here is necessarily about the optics, and none of the rest. That doesn't mean you can't take a great close-up with a 'non-macro' (less than 1:1 magnification) lens.

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Actually, Wikipedia (FWIW) describes it very well, as both a definition and as a general term:

    Macro photography is close-up photography. The classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.

    In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 64 inch (1510 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. With 35mm film this requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, which demands less of lens quality than 1:1. With digital cameras the actual image size is rarely stated, so that the magnification ratio is largely irrelevant; cameras instead advertise their closest focusing distance.

  26. #26
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Thanks to all who helped to clarify the confusion about the magnification factor. I think the following paragraphs give a good summary of the confusion about the terminology.

    When you deal with the reduced field of view sensor in digital, you have a unique situation which has no film counterpart. This is one reason why there is so much "confusion" in the digital/film world about the term "magnification."

    Typically, people coming from a film background want to think of a reduced field of view sensor as identical to a simple film "crop" to like proportions. But it's decidedly more than this, which is why sports photographers love the crop factor sensor because it lets them shoot with much less glass and get equivalent results. The "magnification" is real, but it's not "optical" magnification, it's digital magnification made possible by vesting the full resolution of the sensor sampling "within" the reduced field of view.

    Lenses of a given focal length seem to produce greater magnification on crop-factor cameras than they do on full-frame cameras. It should be noted that the lens casts the same image no matter what camera it is attached to, and therefore produces the same magnification on all cameras. It is only because the image sensor is smaller in many DSLRs that a narrower FOV is achieved. The end result is that while the lens produces the same magnification it always did, the image produced on small-sensor DSLRs will be enlarged more to produce output (print or screen) that matches the output of a longer focal length lens on a full-frame camera. That is, the magnification as usually defined, from subject to focal plane, is unchanged, but the system magnification from subject to print is increased.

    We could discuss semantics all evening and agree or not, but the end result is that with the reduced field of view sensor there are advantages both to macro photography and to telephoto photography.


    How we choose to "define" these differences is generally at the heart of most disagreements. Ideally we would have terms specific to the actual process, but at this time we must use the language of optics and physics in a rather unusual way. The important thing is not to get bogged down in semantics and insist on a rather limited and stringent use of terms like magnification and the "proper" definition of 1:1, etc. The important issue is to understand the process rather than agree or disagree with the verbiage.


    Let us remember Viveks' question that started the whole discussion: “Any idea on the magnifications? Do you really think it would be 1X or over that?” I think this formulation is no longer meaningful in the digital age. A small sensor camera will hardly ever be able to produce an optical magnification factor of 1:1. It would probably be more meaningful to talk of the process or system magnification factor or of the FOV.


    Sources:
    Crop Factor, in Absolute Astronomy Encyclopedia ,
    Understanding Magnification factor, zoom range and focal length range of a lens ,
    Understanding the DSLR Magnification Factor, by Nick Rains
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  27. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Yeah, I would agree that magnification is not so meaningful in discussing photos. It is meaningful in discussing glass.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    A small sensor camera will hardly ever be able to produce an optical magnification factor of 1:1.
    Confusion is only on your part.

    So, what would you tell Panasonic when they brand their 45/2.8 Macro as capable of going to 1:1 magnification?

  29. #29
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Confusion is only on your part.
    Even the Astronomy Encyclopedia has an article on it.

    So, what would you tell Panasonic when they brand their 45/2.8 Macro as capable of going to 1:1 magnification?
    That they talk meaningless marketing lingo. on the same level as when cell phone cameras proudly brag about 12MB sensors
    Last edited by petermcwerner; 20th November 2009 at 17:41.
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    I tried to help you Peter.

    I do not know what Astronomy encyclopaedia says or some guy's book on DSLRs says (depends on how you read it, I suspect) but what you say here about magnification factors is simply untrue.

  31. #31
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I tried to help you Peter.
    And I am grateful to you. This does not mean that we must agree on everything.
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    One more learning experience for me. I think I will leave the explanations (of any sort) to others from now on. Sheer waste of time.

  33. #33
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Vivek

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    One more learning experience for me. I think I will leave the explanations (of any sort) to others from now on. Sheer waste of time.
    it can be, however I would say that many years ago I learnt quite a bit from lurking in threads on various usenet groups. It is possible (however remote looking at the posts I see) that someone in the future may find your post from a google search and find value in the simplicity of:

    If an object of 17.3mm wide fills the frame in your G1 (horizontal) then the magnification is 1X.
    so don't be too discouraged. In teaching (and I am not a good teacher) presentation style is important ... as is patience.

    So for Peter I will attempt to augment Viveks correct assessment with:

    keep in mind that your lens projects an image ... try it on a piece of paper with one. 1 to 1 (written as 1:1 often enough) means that the image projected onto the sensor (film or digital) measures one to one with the actual image. If I have a regular 28mm lens, place it 56mm from the sensor (say using bellows) any object in focus will also be 56mm from the sensor and be reproduced in the same dimensions as it has in real life

  34. #34
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post

    I am getting a bit confused by the magnification issue. What is the meaning of at or above 1X Do you refer to the size of the image on the sensor of that particular camera? In that case the 1x would be different for cameras with different sensor sizes.

    no, 1x would represent an increasingly smaller fraction of the image depending on sensor size. When I do 1:1 on my 4x5 inch sheet film it means that if I photograph a ruler that on the negative 1cm of the rulers markings will measure 1cm on the negative. If your sensor is only 1cm x 1cm its not a useful image I'll grant you.

    confusion comes probably from the fact that any man and his dog calls closeup as macro and just looking at images people have often no idea what is happening.

    Magnification is used distinctly from Enlargement where I take (say) a 36x24mm bit of film and make a larger print than a contact print ... common even if you're talking about "small prints"

    With digital and often no concept of sensor size all of this becomes lost and people think that stuff like this:



    is 1:1 ... when its just close focused ... the mother is about 2 or 3cm long

    perhaps this is useful reading too

    The image below was taken with 4x5 sheet film using a 90mm lens and it was extended to something like 140mm making it not quite 1:1. But if we pretend that it was 1:1 and if you took a small 36x24mm segment of that image (which is dimensioned at about 101mm x 127mm) you will get an increasingly small section and "what appears to be" in closer.



    It happens that 35mm film / lens systems (and 4/3) can often render more detail per square cm of film than 4x5 can so you can then "enlarge" that segment better. If I was using my G1 with the lens at 1:1 I would likely see only the stamen in the flower there.

    With a smaller sensor you can take the same "view" with much less magnification (and therefore enlarge it more). If you are not after "photo-micrographs" of your subject (eg the pepper corn above) then 1:1 is most often required with larger film formats. Of course it is interesting to pursue investigations of the micro world ... and small formats help that



    HTH
    Last edited by pellicle; 20th November 2009 at 23:38.

  35. #35
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by petermcwerner View Post
    The important thing is not to get bogged down in semantics and insist on a rather limited and stringent use of terms like magnification and the "proper" definition of 1:1, etc. The important issue is to understand the process rather than agree or disagree with the verbiage.
    not if you want to have a meaningful discussion ... if I say potatoe and you think cabbage we are going to have trouble cooking together...

    just because kiddies on the net write in L33T does not make it English. r u kl3r on [email protected]?

    but I understand what you mean and it can be an impediment to a discussion if you simply get bogged down in detial.

    but to address one of your questions, yes, small format cameras can get to 1:1 and it does have usefulness

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Wow what a dicussion on magnification... If a picture is beautiful I love it.

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro



    Actually, I think the smilies outdo any (of my) pictures.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro


  39. #39
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Macro

    As with MOST things these days, concepts and definitions can be skewed or muddied by marketing spin, and also by benign attempts to explain things in terms others will understand.

    What I personally EXPECT:

    a) 1:1 means that a 5mm long grain of rice is imaged 5mm long on my sensor or film. In other words, LIFE SIZE. This doesn't matter if I'm using a Point and Shoot, or a 4 x 5" view camera. If I could make CONTACT prints from any of these cameras, the image of the 5mm grain of rice would be 5mm long.

    b) That a lens labelled as "macro" should provide at least 1:2 magnification (that is, the 5mm-long grain of rice is imaged 2.5mm long on the sensor or film). Bear in mind that this is just a long-standing marketing convention that I consider acceptable.

    What I sometimes ENCOUNTER (and must interpret):

    a) Marketing claims of 1:1 that are based on the "crop factor". The actual magnification is less.

    b) Marketing labels of "macro" that are nowhere near 1:2 (e.g. 1:4, 1:6 or even less), or that are based on other criteria such as standard print sizes.

    c) In addition to MACRO, the term MICRO has also be used to describe a VARIETY of magnifications (e.g. Micro-Nikkor at 1:1). As with MACRO photography, one must similarly look beyond the label.
    Last edited by JBurnett; 21st November 2009 at 06:54.
    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  40. #40
    Member Ron Evers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    A little north of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Vivek, that peppercorn shot of yours made me revisit my set-up to see if I could pull in the subject with more extension tubes on the 100mm. I have two sets of tubes & had all three of one set on for the first shot & decided to add a couple from the second set. I added another 32 mm of tubes that really hung the lens out a long way & took this shot still using the lens wide open @ f3.5. Still not as large an image as you got unless you cropped tour shot. I took the set -up down quickly for fear of doing damage to the lens mount.


    Panasonic G1 & GF1 bodies, Panasonic 14-45, 45-200mm, various Minolta, Pentax, Canon FD, M39 & M42 mount lenses.

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    The pepper shot was not cropped.

    (neither did I crop the tick shot)

  42. #42
    Dave Abbott
    Guest

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Ron, Welcome and thanks for the shots.

    I had a 50mm and 100mm Minolta macro (bellows) lenses a while ago (part traded them for a set of Luminars). They are great.

    Unlike you, I like short WD lenses (especially for still subjects).

    Jerry, I thought I will also take my latest macro lens for a spin.

    Here is a test shot of a black pepper (Piper nigrum), the very thing that was the center of the spice trade.



    Piper nigrum, ~2.5X, G1, reversed Pana 20/1.7, f/11, 1/6s.


    Brilliant idea, Vivek

    It took me almost two days to figure out how you got the Reversed 20/1.7
    stopped down to f11.

    WD is very short - maybe 25 - 30mm.

    Dave

  43. #43
    Member btrancho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Abbott View Post
    Brilliant idea, Vivek

    It took me almost two days to figure out how you got the Reversed 20/1.7
    stopped down to f11.

    WD is very short - maybe 25 - 30mm.

    Dave
    Dave and/or Vivek -

    I just logged in to post this very question. How did you you get it to stop down?

    I'd really appreciate some help with this.

    EDIT - 20 minutes later -
    Okay, I only needed to stop and think for a few minutes to answer my own question...

    - Set the 20/1.7 to f/11
    - Press & hold Shutter Speed Effect button
    - remove lens

    Now all I need is a reverse macro adapter
    Last edited by btrancho; 22nd November 2009 at 09:37.
    Bob Trancho

  44. #44
    Dave Abbott
    Guest

    Re: Macro

    Bob, Here's how I did it (on my GF1):-

    1) Fit lens normally and turn power on.

    2) In manual mode select reqd. aperture

    3) Press and hold DOF Preview button.

    4) Remove Lens

    Voila! - it stays at the selected aperture

    Dave

  45. #45
    Member btrancho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    32
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Got it Dave - Thanks!
    Bob Trancho

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Abbott View Post
    It took me almost two days to figure out how you got the Reversed 20/1.7
    stopped down to f11.

    WD is very short - maybe 25 - 30mm.

    Dave
    Hi Dave!

    Welcome.

    Not that hard to figure out and isn't that challenging as some other things. I did not want to take the fun out of the process.

    Focus is also frozen as Bob or you describe how to do it.

    WD (from the tip of the lens to the subject- as I measure it) is shorter than the camera registry. A lens rear cap with a hole in the middle serves well as a hood.

    This lens is sharper than the Oly-D 17/2.8 reversed.

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    By seeing the black peppers I was curious what my setup(s) would do. So I did a shooting with 1 black peppercorn as my model :-). These are the results (all pictures uncropped):

    G1 Kiron 105mm f2.8 full extend


    G1 Kiron 105mm f2.8 full extend + Canon 250D + Canon 500D


    G1 FD Bellows full extend Canon 50mm f1.4


    O yes, because my model did not had that much time :-) all these were shot handheld, I was just curious about the magnification level.

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,056
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Macro

    A new pepper record!

  49. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    This is very reminiscent of Horton Hears a Who!

    Next I want to see a nice full frame shot of the debris that is stuck in the recesses of the peppercorn.

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by madmaxmedia View Post
    This is very reminiscent of Horton Hears a Who!

    Next I want to see a nice full frame shot of the debris that is stuck in the recesses of the peppercorn.
    I think that should be possible... let me adjust my setup a little

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •