Re: Macro mode
David J Taylor
[]
> Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is
> smaller. With a DLSR instead you have to buy an expensive dedicated
> lens.
Not so. Yes, they can focus close, but often the distortion (e.g. barrel
distortion) is very bad, and the field in nothing like flat. With an
SLR-class macro lens, you could expect zero linear distortion etc., such
that the lens could be used for making accurate copies fo documents etc.
It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
image". Oh, and a "macro" lens might be expected to produce a 1:1
magnification, so the field of view might be about 24 x 16mm. On a
small-sensor camera, a true 1:1 macro might be a field of view of about 6
x 4.5mm.
Cheers,
David
tony cooper
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>
>And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
Depends on what you call a "close-up". This image
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/weidlichb.jpg
is the maker's mark on the back of teaspoon. It was taken with a
Nikon D40 with the standard 18/55mm kit lens that came with the
camera. The camera was not set to the "Macro" mode. I use a copy
stand and let the camera automatically focus at 15".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Alfred Molon
And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Cynicor
> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>
> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
It really just puts more distance between the lens elements and the
sensor, decreasing both minimum focusing distance and total light
entering the sensor. It will often design some compromise in the overall
lens design.
The best way to do this is to buy extension tubes. You can get miniscule
focusing distances (some lenses work better than others with them), but
you lose the ability to focus to infinity while they're mounted.
David J Taylor
> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>
> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a
> lens which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
Which camera?
Usually macro lenses have better performance than "standard" lenses in the
1:1 reproduction region as they are designed to work at that ratio,
whereas standard lenses are designed for typical "near infinity" subject
distances. Another example: field flatness may be better in a macro lens.
David
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> Which camera?
>
> Usually macro lenses have better performance than "standard" lenses in the
> 1:1 reproduction region as they are designed to work at that ratio,
> whereas standard lenses are designed for typical "near infinity" subject
> distances. Another example: field flatness may be better in a macro lens.
Well, all cameras I've used so far had a macro mode and to be fair even
the Sony A350 has one. But the CZ 16-80 lens for instance is not marked
as macro, while instead the Tamron 70-300 has a macro mode available
between 180 and 300mm focal length. I'm wondering what on earth this
macro mode means and why it's only available between 180mm and 300mm.
Neil Harrington
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22dec011d...@news.supernews.com...
> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
I'll assume you're asking about a compact digital camera, not a DSLR, since
setting the *camera* to macro mode suggests the former type of camera.
Typically, macro mode rearranges the elements of the zoom lens to give good
performance while focusing much closer than when it's in its normal mode.
How this is done exactly varies from one model to another.
>
> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not?
Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e. interchangeable
lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly designed
to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal plane.
The term "macro" has also often been used to describe zoom lenses which
focus fairly close, typically 1:4 magnification, but these are not true
macro lenses. Generally speaking, true macro lenses are fixed focal length,
not zoom.
> Can a lens
> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
On an SLR, yes, with the use of extension tubes between lens and camera body
or by various other methods. The results may or may not be as satisfactory
as with a true macro lens, however. A real macro lens is designed to keep
good corner-to-corner definition, a flat field and absence of distortion at
very close focusing distances. An ordinary lens used for extreme close-ups
is not likely to do these things as well, but with some subjects it may not
matter.
Neil
David J Taylor
[]
> Well, all cameras I've used so far had a macro mode and to be fair
> even the Sony A350 has one. But the CZ 16-80 lens for instance is not
> marked as macro, while instead the Tamron 70-300 has a macro mode
> available between 180 and 300mm focal length. I'm wondering what on
> earth this macro mode means and why it's only available between 180mm
> and 300mm.
Alfred,
I think that there are several different things here:
- cameras with a "macro mode" usually mean: (a) the focus range is
extended to include nearer objects than normal and perhaps (b) a slower
focus speed is used.
- The Tamron, i suspect, allows a slightly different internal arrnagement
of its elements, but one which only works in the focal lens range you
stated. It will allow you to focus much close than normal.
- a true "macro lens" is likely to be an expensive fixed-focus lens,
optimised for excellent performance in the reproduction range 1:2 (half
scale) to 1:1.
Cheers,
David
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> - The Tamron, i suspect, allows a slightly different internal arrnagement
> of its elements, but one which only works in the focal lens range you
> stated. It will allow you to focus much close than normal.
I read the minimum focus distance for this lens in macro mode is around
1.20m.
> - a true "macro lens" is likely to be an expensive fixed-focus lens,
> optimised for excellent performance in the reproduction range 1:2 (half
> scale) to 1:1.
Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is smaller.
With a DLSR instead you have to buy an expensive dedicated lens.
Cynicor
> In article <Dn3dk.23629$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> - The Tamron, i suspect, allows a slightly different internal arrnagement
>> of its elements, but one which only works in the focal lens range you
>> stated. It will allow you to focus much close than normal.
>
> I read the minimum focus distance for this lens in macro mode is around
> 1.20m.
>
>> - a true "macro lens" is likely to be an expensive fixed-focus lens,
>> optimised for excellent performance in the reproduction range 1:2 (half
>> scale) to 1:1.
>
> Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is smaller.
> With a DLSR instead you have to buy an expensive dedicated lens.
Or a $100 50/1.8 and a $169 set of Kenko extension tubes, which can then
be reused on other lenses. This combo allows you to take shots like this:
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824734_LQr7A#36825916_4UQLG-O-LB
Paul Furman
> In article <Dn3dk.23629$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> - The Tamron, i suspect, allows a slightly different internal arrnagement
>> of its elements, but one which only works in the focal lens range you
>> stated. It will allow you to focus much close than normal.
>
> I read the minimum focus distance for this lens in macro mode is around
> 1.20m.
That's darn close for 300mm (450mm equivalent).
>> - a true "macro lens" is likely to be an expensive fixed-focus lens,
>> optimised for excellent performance in the reproduction range 1:2 (half
>> scale) to 1:1.
>
> Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is smaller.
They have more DOF by default but with a DSLR you can stop down with
high ISO, flash and or a tripod & get better.
> With a DLSR instead you have to buy an expensive dedicated lens.
The larger sensor does mean you need a bigger lens. As mentioned, many
lanses can be used for good results with extension tubes including most
telephotos, or the cheap 50mm which are quite sharp. Cameras with macro
mode do the same thing (extension 'tube' built in).
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Jürgen Exner
>What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
It enables auto-focussing to a very close range, which is normally
omitted from the autfocus range in order to speed up the focusing
process for normal photos and avoid focus hunting.
Depending on the camera model it may also select certain exposure
parameters that the manufacturer deemed optimal for macro photography.
>And why are some lenses "macro lenses"
Because they can focus so close that the sharp image of the object on
the film/sensor plane is the same (traditional), half (DX), or ~1/4
(modern marketing speak) of the object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_lens has a pretty good explanation.
> while others are not?
Because they cannot be focussed to such a short distance.
>Can a lens
>which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
With proper attachements: yes.
Again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_lens describes the option.
jue
Jürgen Exner
>In article <Dn3dk.23629$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>Taylor says...
>
>> - The Tamron, i suspect, allows a slightly different internal arrnagement
>> of its elements, but one which only works in the focal lens range you
>> stated. It will allow you to focus much close than normal.
>
>I read the minimum focus distance for this lens in macro mode is around
>1.20m.
Then Tamrom is honest about the magnification: below a focal length of
180mm at 1.2m you don't get the 1:1 or 1:2 magnification required to
call it 'macro'.
>> - a true "macro lens" is likely to be an expensive fixed-focus lens,
>> optimised for excellent performance in the reproduction range 1:2 (half
>> scale) to 1:1.
>
>Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is smaller.
No, they don't. The marketing departments excel in redefining the
meaning of 'macro'.
>With a DLSR instead you have to buy an expensive dedicated lens.
If DSLRS suck so badly then why don't you stick with a P&S?
jue
Neil Harrington
> In article <Dn3dk.23629$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> - The Tamron, i suspect, allows a slightly different internal arrnagement
>> of its elements, but one which only works in the focal lens range you
>> stated. It will allow you to focus much close than normal.
>
> I read the minimum focus distance for this lens in macro mode is around
> 1.20m.
>
>> - a true "macro lens" is likely to be an expensive fixed-focus lens,
>> optimised for excellent performance in the reproduction range 1:2 (half
>> scale) to 1:1.
>
> Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is smaller.
> With a DLSR instead you have to buy an expensive dedicated lens.
There you're talking about two entirely different meanings of "macro." Some
compact cameras will indeed focus very close in macro mode, but I doubt that
any will come anywhere near the 1:1 or 1:2 image magnification of a true
macro lens.
It may not matter for your purposes. Maybe you don't need anything like that
much magnification, and a compact camera's macro mode will suit you well
enough.
For that matter, the standard kit lens on a DSLR might suit you well enough
too. Nikon's least expensive kit lens, the 18-55mm, is exceptionally close
focusing -- though not a macro lens by any reasonable definition of that
term.
As a practical matter it isn't really the lens to focal plane magnification
ratio that matters, it's the final image size. So in a sense you're right,
the compact camera's smaller sensor has the advantage that it can achieve
the same final image size with a smaller in-camera magnification, since more
magnification is necessarily applied *after* the on-sensor magnification.
How effective this will be depends on the camera model and its lens. Trying
it just now -- my cheap little Coolpix 4600, at its longest focal length
that works in macro mode, will nearly fill the frame with a cased
CompactFlash card in sharp focus. That's pretty good. Coolpix cameras have
generally been highly regarded for their macro performance.
To get roughly the same final image size with a macro lens on my D80, I have
to go to about 1:3 magnification.
Neil
Alfred Molon
says...
> >Well, compact cameras excel at macro mode because the sensor is smaller.
>
> No, they don't. The marketing departments excel in redefining the
> meaning of 'macro'.
Because the sensor is smaller P&S cameras can more easily capture small
things. They don't need an expensive dedicated macro lens.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> Not so. Yes, they can focus close, but often the distortion (e.g. barrel
> distortion) is very bad, and the field in nothing like flat. With an
> SLR-class macro lens, you could expect zero linear distortion etc., such
> that the lens could be used for making accurate copies fo documents etc.
A non-issue. Use the PTLens filter to correct the distortions. Besides
there are P&S cameras with good lenses
> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
> image". Oh, and a "macro" lens might be expected to produce a 1:1
> magnification, so the field of view might be about 24 x 16mm. On a
> small-sensor camera, a true 1:1 macro might be a field of view of about 6
> x 4.5mm.
Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots of
people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were surprised that
they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
Alan Browne
> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>
> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
Macro is not a "mode".
Any lens can take a closeup within its limits.
A true macro lens, as others have pointed out, is usually 1:1 (or at
least 1:2).
That is to say that the subject image on the sensor will be the same
size as the subject itlself (or no worse than 50%).
As an example, a photo of a grain of rice that is 8mm long will make an
image on the film (or sensor) of 8mm.
There are various techniques to take a simple lens and make it into a
closeup/macro lens:
-tubes
-bellows
-reverse lens couplers
-diopter add ons.
For the long haul, nothing beats a macro lens. For your Sony 350, the
Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro (or Sony SAL whatever equivalent) is one of the
sharpest macro lenses out there. Works best with MLU of course.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Alfred Molon
Harrington says...
>
> Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e. interchangeable
> lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly designed
> to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
> 1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal plane.
A magnification of 1:2 means that if the sensor is 24x36mm an object of
the size of 12x18mm fills the frame? Or perhaps an object of a size of
48x72mm?
Alan Browne
The real deal is (however) with a macro lens:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046438&size=lg
Cheers,
Alan
Neil Harrington
> In article <H7GdnQfPDNTHnOjV...@comcast.com>, Neil
> Harrington says...
>>
>> Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e.
>> interchangeable
>> lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly
>> designed
>> to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
>> 1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal
>> plane.
>
> A magnification of 1:2 means that if the sensor is 24x36mm an object of
> the size of 12x18mm fills the frame? Or perhaps an object of a size of
> 48x72mm?
The latter -- 1:2 means half life size. If it were 2:1 that would be twice
life size on the sensor.
Neil
Alan Browne
> In article <H7GdnQfPDNTHnOjV...@comcast.com>, Neil
> Harrington says...
>> Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e. interchangeable
>> lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly designed
>> to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
>> 1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal plane.
>
> A magnification of 1:2 means that if the sensor is 24x36mm an object of
> the size of 12x18mm fills the frame? Or perhaps an object of a size of
> 48x72mm?
1:2 would mean an object 8mm in length would be 4mm on the film or sensor.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>
>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>
>Macro is not a "mode".
I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
the "macro mode" setting.
If you set the camera to "Automatic", "Aperture Priority", "Shutter
Priority", etc, is this not setting the camera "mode"?
If "mode" is not the correct term, please supply it and a red felt-tip
pen so I can make the necessary corrections in my owner's manual.
Alan Browne
It is not semantics nor nit picking. Macro photography is a singular
subject and requires the right equipment to do it. It is not a 'mode'
for the equipment (though it could be for the photographer...).
The various camera co's use the term a loosely in their marketing and so
it comes down to:
-the uninformed (and generally not very interested) thinking they have a
capability that they do not; and as long as they're happy it doesn't
matter too much.
-the informed who want to make macro photos and who conclude that the
only way to get there is with proper technique and tools.
I've tried the shortcuts such as "macro" zoom lenses (though never
bought one, a blessing) and diopter lenses. The results were indeed
"bigger", but poor in contrast, color and detail. Not what macro really is.
Indeed, real macro lenses are often exceedingly sharp in the macro focus
range while not so sharp at 1:10 towards infinity. They are optimized
for macro shooting.
One could also take an ordinary lens like a 50mm and add an extension
tube to get magnification. This too is macro if one gets close to 1:2
or better.
Cheers,
Alan.
David J Taylor
> In article <%B5dk.23703$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> Not so. Yes, they can focus close, but often the distortion (e.g.
>> barrel distortion) is very bad, and the field in nothing like flat.
>> With an SLR-class macro lens, you could expect zero linear
>> distortion etc., such that the lens could be used for making
>> accurate copies fo documents etc.
>
> A non-issue. Use the PTLens filter to correct the distortions. Besides
> there are P&S cameras with good lenses
No - once the edges of a subject are out of focus, the information is
lost. It's not /just/ about geometric distortion.
>> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
>> image". Oh, and a "macro" lens might be expected to produce a 1:1
>> magnification, so the field of view might be about 24 x 16mm. On a
>> small-sensor camera, a true 1:1 macro might be a field of view of
>> about 6 x 4.5mm.
>
> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots of
> people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were surprised
> that they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
.. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
David
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:31:56 +0200, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>
>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>
>> Depends on what you call a "close-up". This image
>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/weidlichb.jpg
>> is the maker's mark on the back of teaspoon. It was taken with a
>> Nikon D40 with the standard 18/55mm kit lens that came with the
>> camera. The camera was not set to the "Macro" mode. I use a copy
>> stand and let the camera automatically focus at 15".
>
>The real deal is (however) with a macro lens:
>
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046438&size=lg
>
Horses for courses. I've been selling some antique sterling silver
pieces on eBay. The linked image is sufficient for this purpose. Use
of a macro lens would not improve the output for the purpose intended.
To me, "macro" and "close-up" are two different things. Alfred used
the term "close-up", and standard lenses will take close-up shots with
satisfactory results. If what he wants to do is present close-up
images for a particular reason, then there's no need to lead him to
believe that a macro lens or extensions are necessary to obtain
results.
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> > Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots of
> > people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were surprised
> > that they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
>
> .. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
I don't know, but I also didn't claim that. IIRC the Olympus 5050 and/or
the Olympus 8080 could fill the frame in the supermacro mode with
something like 2x3cm.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>>
>>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>> Macro is not a "mode".
>>
>> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
>> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
>> the "macro mode" setting.
>>
>> If you set the camera to "Automatic", "Aperture Priority", "Shutter
>> Priority", etc, is this not setting the camera "mode"?
>>
>> If "mode" is not the correct term, please supply it and a red felt-tip
>> pen so I can make the necessary corrections in my owner's manual.
>
>It is not semantics nor nit picking. Macro photography is a singular
>subject and requires the right equipment to do it. It is not a 'mode'
>for the equipment (though it could be for the photographer...).
Of course it's semantics. The question was "What exactly happens when
a camera is set to macro mode"? The word "mode" means "a designated
condition or status", and the question was about a camera setting.
What you have brought up is a completely different thing - macro
photography - and something that is done without setting the camera to
the macro mode. Macro photography is accomplished with lenses or
extensions and not by the setting of the mode dial on the camera.
Macro is an available setting mode on the camera, but shooting in that
mode does not result in macro photography. It results, in some
cameras, in better close-ups at certain distances. (I find, however,
with my D40 that the "macro mode" is not an improvement for close-ups
of small objects. It is with my Coolpix.)
You can lecture on about marketing spin and uninformed buyers, but the
fact remains that there is a "macro mode" on many cameras and -
believe it or not - many camera users understand that shooting in the
macro mode does not result in macro photography and use it to get
better close-ups.
It's admirable that you are so willing to provide education to the
masses, but in some cases you are delivering more coal to Newcastle.
>The various camera co's use the term a loosely in their marketing and so
>it comes down to:
>
>-the uninformed (and generally not very interested) thinking they have a
>capability that they do not; and as long as they're happy it doesn't
>matter too much.
>
>-the informed who want to make macro photos and who conclude that the
>only way to get there is with proper technique and tools.
>
>I've tried the shortcuts such as "macro" zoom lenses (though never
>bought one, a blessing) and diopter lenses. The results were indeed
>"bigger", but poor in contrast, color and detail. Not what macro really is.
>
>Indeed, real macro lenses are often exceedingly sharp in the macro focus
>range while not so sharp at 1:10 towards infinity. They are optimized
>for macro shooting.
>
>One could also take an ordinary lens like a 50mm and add an extension
>tube to get magnification. This too is macro if one gets close to 1:2
>or better.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.
--
Blinky the Shark
> In article <H7GdnQfPDNTHnOjV...@comcast.com>, Neil
> Harrington says...
>>
>> Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e. interchangeable
>> lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly designed
>> to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
>> 1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal plane.
>
> A magnification of 1:2 means that if the sensor is 24x36mm an object of
> the size of 12x18mm fills the frame? Or perhaps an object of a size of
> 48x72mm?
I always had trouble remembering which way that worked. I'll offer you
the mind hook that I use to remember how it works.
Camera : Subject
The size of the scene at the Camera is the left component of the ratio;
the size of the Subject is on the right. Reading from left to right,
Camera and Subject are in alphabetical order.
If you don't need a trick like that, fine. :) If you do, it's yours.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
Blinky the Shark
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>
>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>
>>Macro is not a "mode".
>
> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
> the "macro mode" setting.
What are you seeing with the D40, Tony? I think in this respect my D60 is
the same as your D40, and "macro" doesn't even appear in the index of my
FM. I see "close-up", and am used to that language with the "Close Up"
mode -- the flower icon on the mode dial. Can you give me an example?
Thanks.
tony cooper
<no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>>
>>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>>
>>>Macro is not a "mode".
>>
>> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
>> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
>> the "macro mode" setting.
>
>What are you seeing with the D40, Tony? I think in this respect my D60 is
>the same as your D40, and "macro" doesn't even appear in the index of my
>FM. I see "close-up", and am used to that language with the "Close Up"
>mode -- the flower icon on the mode dial. Can you give me an example?
See:
http://img107.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=50248_mode_122_168lo.jpg
The top half is a scan of the manual for my D40, and the bottom half
is the manual for my Coolpix.
The D40 refers to "shooting modes" at the top, "point and shoot modes"
in the middle, and "close-up" at the bottom.
The Coolpix refers to "Focus Modes" and used "Macro Close-Up".
The "mode dial" determines the setting mode.
"Macro" does not appear in the index of the D40 manual, but "Macro
mode" is listed in the Coolpix index.
That "flower icon" setting is a focus mode, but it does not result in
macro photography. The "sports" mode does not necessarily result in
sports photography, either. A mode is a setting in this context, and
not a description of the captured image.
Neil Harrington
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
message news:jI9dk.23931$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <%B5dk.23703$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>> Taylor says...
>
>>> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
>>> image". Oh, and a "macro" lens might be expected to produce a 1:1
>>> magnification, so the field of view might be about 24 x 16mm. On a
>>> small-sensor camera, a true 1:1 macro might be a field of view of
>>> about 6 x 4.5mm.
>>
>> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots of
>> people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were surprised
>> that they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
>
> .. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
That's really applying a false standard, as far as I can see. There's no
reason why the entirely arbritary 1:1 or 1:2 requirement should be applied
to compact cameras.
The important thing is the magnification of the final image. That's what the
end viewer sees. If a 35mm or full-frame digital camera with a macro lens at
1:2 fills the frame with about a 2" x 3" subject, then for practical
purposes a compact digital camera that does the same is equally a macro
camera. Why should it matter if the actual in-camera magnification is only
1:10 or even less?
The "macro lens" requirement of 1:1 or 1:2 was set in the days of 35mm when
such lenses were almost always used with that frame size. That's no longer
the case -- sensor sizes are all over the place. My D80 with a macro lens at
1:3 produces the same size *final image* as the same lens would at 1:2 on a
full-frame camera. And my little Coolpix 4600 in macro mode can produce just
about the same size final image when it's in macro mode.
That's all that should matter. Requiring a compact camera with, say, a 1/2.5
type sensor to reach 1:1 or 1:2 would be demanding that it produce an image
of far larger *final magnification* than any full-frame camera with macro
lens could do. That just doesn't make any sense.
Neil
Blinky the Shark
Okay, that's what I was wondering about, versus your claim. (I didn't go
through every page of my D60 manual looking for it, but I've read TM a few
times.
> That "flower icon" setting is a focus mode, but it does not result
> in macro photography.
I know. And it doesn't even mention "macro".
Meanwhile, I'm sitting - very antsily, even though that's probably not a
word - on a back order for a Tamron 90 macro lens. Nobody I want to order
from has it, my thinking being that that's because there's a $90
manufacturer's rebate on it. I've compared images and reviews and
flickrs and pbases and photonets and stuff for weeks. That's the lens I
want, dammit. Dammit. (BuyDig showed it in stock last week, so I tried
ordering it there. A few days went buy and my order status changed to
"PIK", which a rollover popup said meant "it's in the hands of the
wareouse and we'll ship reall soon", to "Shipping", which had the same
rollover popup, and then back to "Processing", where it was the first day
of my order. I finally called them, and they admitted that the left hand
didn't know what the right hand was doing; I cancelled that order. I have
it on BO at Adorama and a local camera shop (via their online presense);
first one to get stock gets my money. Problem is, when I put it on BO at
the second vendor, a couplethree weeks ago, they said it had already been
on backorder for a month. And the rebate's only good until July 31.
Dammit. Dammit.
tony cooper
<no....@box.invalid> wrote:
It's going to be a tough sell to convince people that the "flower
icon" is not the "macro mode" on any camera. The term "close-up mode"
may be the more accurate term, but "macro" is firmly embedded in the
camera market's mind. That doesn't mean that the same people feel
they are doing "macro photography". They know they aren't going to be
photographing a spider's nads using this setting.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page4e.shtml talks about
"macro" comparisons.
Ken Rockwell (I know, I know) talks about "macro" output with an
18/55mm lens at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55-ii.htm#perf
Steve's Digicam refers to "macro" as one of the shooting modes on the
Pentax istDs. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/istds.html
We are used to cameras that have mode choices, and the flower icon
mode is called the "macro mode" in many - if not most - camera reviews
and in camera forums.
I think we just have to get used to the idea that "macro mode" is a
setting on a camera, and "macro photography" is accomplished by using
a macro lens or extension tubes. Use of the term "macro mode" is not
an indication that the speaker doesn't understand the difference.
Jumping in and saying that using the macro mode isn't macro
photography is an unnecessary nit-pick.
Blinky the Shark
I don't have a dog in that fight, Tony, and I said nothing about it. All
I did was point out that unlike your original claim (since amended to
well, your other camera's manual does), the D40/D60 manual does not use
the word "macro". That's all. Simple and handled. :)
David J Taylor
> In article <jI9dk.23931$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>>> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots
>>> of people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were
>>> surprised that they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
>>
>> .. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5
>> mm?
>
> I don't know, but I also didn't claim that. IIRC the Olympus 5050
> and/or the Olympus 8080 could fill the frame in the supermacro mode
> with something like 2x3cm.
OK, but if the sensors ar 6 x 4.5mm, and the subject is 30 x 20mm, that's
nothing like the 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction ratio which "macro lenses"
provide. "Macro" traditionally means 1:1, rather than just "close focus".
So, yes, compact (i.e. small-sensor) cameras can have a smaller field of
view than a DSLR while using a "standard" lens. With a 50-100mm SLR marco
lens, you will also find that the working distance to the subject is
greater than with the compact, allowing more control of lighting etc.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> That "flower icon" setting is a focus mode, but it does not result in
> macro photography. The "sports" mode does not necessarily result in
> sports photography, either. A mode is a setting in this context, and
> not a description of the captured image.
Can you stop the flash from popping up on the D40 in "flower-icon" mode?
David
David J Taylor
[]
> That's really applying a false standard, as far as I can see. There's
> no reason why the entirely arbritary 1:1 or 1:2 requirement should be
> applied to compact cameras.
>
> The important thing is the magnification of the final image. That's
> what the end viewer sees. If a 35mm or full-frame digital camera with
> a macro lens at 1:2 fills the frame with about a 2" x 3" subject,
> then for practical purposes a compact digital camera that does the
> same is equally a macro camera. Why should it matter if the actual
> in-camera magnification is only 1:10 or even less?
>
> The "macro lens" requirement of 1:1 or 1:2 was set in the days of
> 35mm when such lenses were almost always used with that frame size.
> That's no longer the case -- sensor sizes are all over the place. My
> D80 with a macro lens at 1:3 produces the same size *final image* as
> the same lens would at 1:2 on a full-frame camera. And my little
> Coolpix 4600 in macro mode can produce just about the same size final
> image when it's in macro mode.
> That's all that should matter. Requiring a compact camera with, say,
> a 1/2.5 type sensor to reach 1:1 or 1:2 would be demanding that it
> produce an image of far larger *final magnification* than any
> full-frame camera with macro lens could do. That just doesn't make
> any sense.
> Neil
The original question, IIRC, was why extra lenses might be needed with
SLRs, and the answer there is that for "small subject" photography, the
SLR lens is working in a different operating regime, where the subject
distance is no longer "near infinity", and therefore to get the best
performance a different optical design may be required.
Agreed that compact cameras inherently have a smaller subject area at a
given reproduction ratio, and therefore are more likely to be working in
the "subject is near infinity" region, and hence not need the special
macro-lens design.
Cheers,
David
Blinky the Shark
Speaking for the D60: yes; close-up mode allows you to select auto flash,
auto with red-eye prevention, and no flash. I wasn't sure. I just tested.
Blinky the Shark
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> []
>>> That "flower icon" setting is a focus mode, but it does not result in
>>> macro photography. The "sports" mode does not necessarily result in
>>> sports photography, either. A mode is a setting in this context, and
>>> not a description of the captured image.
>>
>> Can you stop the flash from popping up on the D40 in "flower-icon" mode?
>
> Speaking for the D60: yes; close-up mode allows you to select auto flash,
> auto with red-eye prevention, and no flash. I wasn't sure. I just tested.
And it's a bit more than a focus mode; it also warms up the image a bit,
for instance. And I *think* that it favors large aperatures for
seperation of subject and background.
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Can you stop the flash from popping up on the D40 in "flower-icon"
>> mode?
>
> Speaking for the D60: yes; close-up mode allows you to select auto
> flash, auto with red-eye prevention, and no flash. I wasn't sure. I
> just tested.
Which menu? I did look briefly but didn't find it. Of course, it may be
new to the D60.
Thanks,
David
Blinky the Shark
There's a flash mode button on the left side of the prism area, just below
the popup part. When I press it while in close-up mode, I can spin the
command dial through those three selections, which show up in in the flash
mode box at the lower left corner of the LCD.
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>> []
>>>> Can you stop the flash from popping up on the D40 in "flower-icon"
>>>> mode?
>>>
>>> Speaking for the D60: yes; close-up mode allows you to select auto
>>> flash, auto with red-eye prevention, and no flash. I wasn't sure.
>>> I just tested.
>>
>> Which menu? I did look briefly but didn't find it. Of course, it
>> may be new to the D60.
>
> There's a flash mode button on the left side of the prism area, just
> below the popup part. When I press it while in close-up mode, I can
> spin the command dial through those three selections, which show up
> in in the flash mode box at the lower left corner of the LCD.
Thanks for that. Yes, it's same here. But even if I select No Flash, the
flash still pops up on close-up mode the next time I switch the camera on.
I was hoping the setting might persist when the camera was switched off.
Cheers,
David
Cynicor
Use a Nikon SG-31R and block the flash.
savvo
>
> "David J Taylor"
><david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:jI9dk.23931$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <%B5dk.23703$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>>> Taylor says...
>
>>
>>>> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
>>> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items.
>>
>
> That's really applying a false standard, as far as I can see. There's no
> reason why the entirely arbritary 1:1 or 1:2 requirement should be applied
> to compact cameras.
Arbitrary? That's the definition of 'macro' in its photographic context.
If that requirement is not met then it's not macro.
--
savvo orig. invib. man
Neil Harrington
Yes. However, at least some compact camera zoom lenses do change to a
"special macro-lens design" when put in macro mode. Of course I'm not
suggesting that it's as sophisticated an arrangement as is the case with a
"true macro" lens, but it can still be remarkably good.
My cheap little Coolpix 4600, mentioned above, when at maximum magnification
in its "green macro" range, produces images which look quite sharp from edge
to edge and with no barrel distortion that I can see. And that's producing a
final image size that's roughly the same as a full-frame camera with a macro
lens at 1:2. That's pretty good.
My older Minolta S404 has a more interesting scheme. When its 35-140mm
(equiv.) lens is put in macro mode, it no longer serves as a zoom lens at
all! Its f.l. is then fixed at about 70mm (equiv.) and the internal movement
of its elements is devoted entirely to the macro function.
Neil
David J Taylor
[]
>> Thanks for that. Yes, it's same here. But even if I select No
>> Flash, the flash still pops up on close-up mode the next time I
>> switch the camera on. I was hoping the setting might persist when
>> the camera was switched off.
>
> Use a Nikon SG-31R and block the flash.
Cynicor, as I think you may know, I am a minimum bulk and weight person,
so any extras are out. Were I doing serious macro in the studio (i.e. at
home) it would be different, of course.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> Yes. However, at least some compact camera zoom lenses do change to a
> "special macro-lens design" when put in macro mode. Of course I'm not
> suggesting that it's as sophisticated an arrangement as is the case
> with a "true macro" lens, but it can still be remarkably good.
>
> My cheap little Coolpix 4600, mentioned above, when at maximum
> magnification in its "green macro" range, produces images which look
> quite sharp from edge to edge and with no barrel distortion that I
> can see. And that's producing a final image size that's roughly the
> same as a full-frame camera with a macro lens at 1:2. That's pretty
> good.
> My older Minolta S404 has a more interesting scheme. When its 35-140mm
> (equiv.) lens is put in macro mode, it no longer serves as a zoom
> lens at all! Its f.l. is then fixed at about 70mm (equiv.) and the
> internal movement of its elements is devoted entirely to the macro
> function.
> Neil
Indeed - I still have my Nikon Coolpix 990 which probably had the best
"macro" of any of those cameras - a field width of 19mm (0.75 inch).
Sensor size 7.2 x 5.3mm.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990/page12.asp
One of the advantages of not having to accomodate interchangeable lenses -
you could match the lens and sensor very well.
Cheers,
David
Neil Harrington
"savvo" <spam.go...@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cgbhk5-...@tog.savvo.co.uk...
> On 2008-07-10, Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>
>> "David J Taylor"
>><david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:jI9dk.23931$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> In article <%B5dk.23703$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>>>> Taylor says...
>>
>>>
>>>>> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
>>>> ....
>>>> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items.
>>>
>>> .. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
>>
>> That's really applying a false standard, as far as I can see. There's no
>> reason why the entirely arbritary 1:1 or 1:2 requirement should be
>> applied
>> to compact cameras.
>
> Arbitrary?
Entirely arbitrary, yes.
> That's the definition of 'macro' in its photographic context.
No, that's a definition of lenses that happen to meet that specification,
like "black and white cow" is a definition for a black and white cow.
The "definition of 'macro' in its photographic context" is given on p. 901
in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (1956, rev. desk ed. 1969) as
"taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary camera lenses" (as
opposed to microscope lenses). It's really just that simple. If you have a
photograph of a bug that's larger than the original bug, that's macro.
At the time the section on macrophotography was written, the kind of lenses
we now call "macro" must have been uncommon if they existed at all, since
they are not even mentioned in the text. The methods mentioned are 35mm
cameras with normal lenses on extension tubes or bellows, and large-format
view cameras with short-focus lenses.
> If that requirement is not met then it's not macro.
About four pages in the Focal Encyclopedia are devoted to macrophotography
and nowhere is any mention made of any such "requirement."
Neil
Neil Harrington
> Neil Harrington wrote:
> []
>> Yes. However, at least some compact camera zoom lenses do change to a
>> "special macro-lens design" when put in macro mode. Of course I'm not
>> suggesting that it's as sophisticated an arrangement as is the case
>> with a "true macro" lens, but it can still be remarkably good.
>>
>> My cheap little Coolpix 4600, mentioned above, when at maximum
>> magnification in its "green macro" range, produces images which look
>> quite sharp from edge to edge and with no barrel distortion that I
>> can see. And that's producing a final image size that's roughly the
>> same as a full-frame camera with a macro lens at 1:2. That's pretty
>> good.
>> My older Minolta S404 has a more interesting scheme. When its 35-140mm
>> (equiv.) lens is put in macro mode, it no longer serves as a zoom
>> lens at all! Its f.l. is then fixed at about 70mm (equiv.) and the
>> internal movement of its elements is devoted entirely to the macro
>> function.
>> Neil
>
> Indeed - I still have my Nikon Coolpix 990 which probably had the best
> "macro" of any of those cameras - a field width of 19mm (0.75 inch).
> Sensor size 7.2 x 5.3mm.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp990/page12.asp
That's terrific. I'm going to keep an eye out for a really nice 950 or 990
on eBay.
Those images are even larger ("closer") than a full-frame camera at 1:1
would be!
>
> One of the advantages of not having to accomodate interchangeable lenses -
> you could match the lens and sensor very well.
Yes, evidently. . . . I still love my Coolpixes and will probably keep most
of them forever.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.10....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you stop the flash from popping up on the D40 in "flower-icon" mode?
>>
>> Speaking for the D60: yes; close-up mode allows you to select auto
>> flash,
>> auto with red-eye prevention, and no flash. I wasn't sure. I just
>> tested.
>
> And it's a bit more than a focus mode; it also warms up the image a bit,
> for instance. And I *think* that it favors large aperatures for
> seperation of subject and background.
The D40 manual doesn't say much about close-up mode, only that it
automatically selects the central AF area (which hardly seems like enough to
call it a close-up mode). This can be changed to either of the other two
with the multi-selector.
However, Simon Stafford's book on the D40 (Magic Lantern Guides) says it
also selects a small aperture for best depth of field, uses 3D Color Matrix
Metering II system with D or G type lenses, and "focus mode is always set to
AF-A, which you will not be able to override." (I take that to mean, in AF
mode you can't use the AF override feature on a lens with the M/A-M switch,
which of course the D40 kit lenses don't have anyway.)
Neil
savvo
>
> "savvo" <spam.go...@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cgbhk5-...@tog.savvo.co.uk...
>> On 2008-07-10, Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>>
>>> "David J Taylor"
>>><david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:jI9dk.23931$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> In article <%B5dk.23703$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>>>>> Taylor says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
>>>>> ....
>>>>> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items.
>>>>
>>>> .. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
>>>
>>> That's really applying a false standard, as far as I can see. There's no
>>> reason why the entirely arbritary 1:1 or 1:2 requirement should be
>>> applied
>>> to compact cameras.
>>
>> Arbitrary?
>
> Entirely arbitrary, yes.
>
>
>> That's the definition of 'macro' in its photographic context.
>
> No, that's a definition of lenses that happen to meet that specification,
> like "black and white cow" is a definition for a black and white cow.
You'll have to enlighten me what you imagine that distinction is
supposed to mean.
> The "definition of 'macro' in its photographic context" is given on p. 901
> in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (1956, rev. desk ed. 1969) as
> "taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary camera lenses" (as
> opposed to microscope lenses). It's really just that simple. If you have a
> photograph of a bug that's larger than the original bug, that's macro.
"larger-than-life." It has apparently escaped you that that is another
way of saying 1:1 or greater. This is a much stricter (in your terms
more arbitrary) definition than 1:2
>
> At the time the section on macrophotography was written, the kind of lenses
> we now call "macro" must have been uncommon if they existed at all, since
> they are not even mentioned in the text. The methods mentioned are 35mm
> cameras with normal lenses on extension tubes or bellows, and large-format
> view cameras with short-focus lenses.
Relevance?
>> If that requirement is not met then it's not macro.
>
> About four pages in the Focal Encyclopedia are devoted to macrophotography
> and nowhere is any mention made of any such "requirement."
Spectacular. You read all 'about four pages' and managed to understand
not one word.
How you managed to end up, in the space of two short postings, arguing
with yourself is quite breathtaking.
Neil Harrington
That anyone can enlighten you seems unlikely.
>
>
>> The "definition of 'macro' in its photographic context" is given on p.
>> 901
>> in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (1956, rev. desk ed. 1969) as
>> "taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary camera lenses" (as
>> opposed to microscope lenses). It's really just that simple. If you have
>> a
>> photograph of a bug that's larger than the original bug, that's macro.
>
> "larger-than-life."
"larger-than-life photographs," yes. You have to read all four words to get
the meaning, extra work though that may be.
> It has apparently escaped you that that is another
> way of saying 1:1 or greater. This is a much stricter (in your terms
> more arbitrary) definition than 1:2
Most photographs have been many times larger than the negatives (or slides,
or images on sensor) they were made from for many years now. Evidently you
are unaware of this. Perhaps you think the digital camera actually makes the
picture in its final size and somehow stuffs it into that little card, but
that is not what happens.
You clearly need far more help with these concepts than I have the time or
patience to give you.
Plonk.
Neil Harrington
<m...@mine.net> wrote in message
news:rlic74pkco6buroh0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:35:00 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Neil
> Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
>>
>>Metering II system with D or G type lenses, and "focus mode is always set
>>to
>>AF-A, which you will not be able to override." (I take that to mean, in AF
>>mode you can't use the AF override feature on a lens with the M/A-M
>>switch,
>>which of course the D40 kit lenses don't have anyway.)
>
>
> Focus mode Description
> AF-A Auto-servo AF
> (default setting)
> Camera automatically selects single-servo autofocus when subject is
> judged to be stationary, continuous-servo autofocus when subject is
> judged to be moving. Shutter can be released if camera is able to
> focus.
>
> AF-S Single-servo AF
> For stationary subjects. Focus locks when shutter-release button is
> pressed halfway. Shutter can be released if camera is able to focus.
>
> AF-C Continuousservo AF
> For moving subjects. Camera focuses continuously while shutter-release
> button is pressed halfway. Shutter can be released if camera is able
> to focus.
Ah. Thanks for the correction.
So then I guess you *can* use AF override with a lens with the M/A-M switch
on a D40. (I almost never do anyway. I'll have to try it and see.)
Neil
J�rgen Exner
>The important thing is the magnification of the final image. That's what the
>end viewer sees.
So you are saying that if I take a totally normal photography of let's
say my dog and enlarge it for a billboard, then the picture of the dog
is certainly larger than the actual dog. And that makes it a macro
photography?
jue
Neil Harrington
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vi4d74dni2jo29uj9...@4ax.com...
Do you actually do that sort of thing often?
But no, a billboard is a billboard and not what is usually meant by "a
photograph."
Here it is again, posted in from my earlier post which you've apparently
missed:
_______________________
The "definition of 'macro' in its photographic context" is given on p. 901
in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (1956, rev. desk ed. 1969) as
"taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary camera lenses" (as
opposed to microscope lenses). It's really just that simple. If you have a
photograph of a bug that's larger than the original bug, that's macro.
At the time the section on macrophotography was written, the kind of lenses
we now call "macro" must have been uncommon if they existed at all, since
they are not even mentioned in the text. The methods mentioned are 35mm
cameras with normal lenses on extension tubes or bellows, and large-format
view cameras with short-focus lenses.
______________________
Now you can probably invent some other far-fetched situation for the purpose
of creating another quibble, but in the ordinary usage that an ordinary
reader would take Focal Encyclopedia's definition of macrophotography, it's
still a reasonable definition.
Again, nothing in Focal Encyclopedia's four-page article on macrophotography
says anything about the term requiring 1:1, 1:2 or any other specific
magnification at the focal plane.
Neil
Chris Malcolm
> "Jurgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It looks to me as though the definition of "macro" photography derives
from a photographic era in which many prints were made as direct
contact prints from the same size of negative, and what enlarging was
done was mostly routine fixed enlarging, such as turning 35mm
negatives into postcard size prints. In those days there was a much
firmer relationship between the size of the final print and the
effective sensor size.
Today the relationship between sensor size and final photograph size
is much more variable and much more widely variable. It seems to me
that this has blurred the definition of "macro" in ways which can't
rationally be corrected by going back to the original definitions with
their obsolete references to "size of photograph".
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Alan Browne
> It's admirable that you are so willing to provide education to the
> masses, but in some cases you are delivering more coal to Newcastle.
It's amazing that this is a photography group and that the masses who
subscribe to marketing pablum eat it up in the face of customary
nomenclature, definition, experience and proven method and technique.
"macro" is not a mode.
"macro mode" is not macro photography.
Camera/lens makers who sell cheap goods with too much promise and too
little delivery certainly do not change definition.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Neil Harrington
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6dnnepF...@mid.individual.net...
Well, that definition is from the 1969 revision of the 1956 encyclopedia.
Even in the earlier year, few people were still making contact prints from
roll film and I doubt any were from 35mm (apart from contact sheets). I
don't recall any fixed size of enlarging from when I started doing it in
1951, with other GIs at the post photo lab. Most of us used 8 x 10, or 4 x 5
for snapshots -- regardless of whether shooting in 120 (still very popular
at that time) or 35mm. I never saw anyone make a single contact print.
>
> Today the relationship between sensor size and final photograph size
> is much more variable and much more widely variable.
You bet. And that makes it even less sense to insist that "macro" must mean
1:1 or 1:2 magnification at the focal plane.
> It seems to me
> that this has blurred the definition of "macro" in ways which can't
> rationally be corrected by going back to the original definitions with
> their obsolete references to "size of photograph".
But really, what else makes sense?
Suppose for example one person makes an 8 x 10 from a full-frame shot, taken
with a "true macro" lens at 1:2. Now someone else makes the identical shot
with a Coolpix, obviously at a much lower magnification on sensor -- with,
say, a 1/2.5 type CCD. Shot in exactly the same way, that would be only
about a 1:11 magnification (short dimension of frame 4.29 mm vs 24 mm). An 8
x 10 is made from that shot too.
Now a third person is asked to look at the two photos and cannot tell them
apart. Now matter how long and hard he looks, he cannot tell the difference
between the 1:2 shot and the 1:11 shot.
Does it make any sense to say that one photo is "macro" and the second one,
of the same subject, taken the same way and essentially identical, is not?
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:NbKdnfpl3Ju_NuvV...@giganews.com...
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> It's admirable that you are so willing to provide education to the
>> masses, but in some cases you are delivering more coal to Newcastle.
>
> It's amazing that this is a photography group and that the masses who
> subscribe to marketing pablum eat it up in the face of customary
> nomenclature, definition, experience and proven method and technique.
It has nothing to do with "marketing pablum." As far as "customary
nomenclature (etc.)" is concerned, you are talking about nomenclature that's
only been customary in connection with 35mm SLRs and only for the last few
decades. Macrophotography has been around since long before there were
specialized 1:1 or 1:2 lenses to put on 35mm SLRs.
>
> "macro" is not a mode.
It certainly is a mode on the many cameras that have a macro mode. And with
some non-SLR digital cameras, it's possible to get a bigger, "closer" image
than it is even with a "true macro" lens at 1:1 on a full-frame camera. It
is simply silly in such a case to say that the former, with a higher
magnification result is "not macro" while the latter is macro simply because
it uses a 1:1 lens.
>
> "macro mode" is not macro photography.
>
> Camera/lens makers who sell cheap goods with too much promise and too
The fact that you look down your nose at some cameras does not make them
"cheap goods with too much promise (etc.)."
> little delivery certainly do not change definition.
But the advent of 35mm SLR-specific macro lenses a few decades ago did
"change definition"? Macrophotography has been around since before such
lenses existed.
Neil
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>It's amazing that this is a photography group and that the masses who
>subscribe to marketing pablum eat it up in the face of customary
>nomenclature, definition, experience and proven method and technique.
>"macro" is not a mode.
>"macro mode" is not macro photography.
What are you on about?
Some cameras have focus mode that is designated by a flower icon on
the mode dial and called the macro mode or the close-up mode in the
manual. It's a focus mode, and a "mode" in that it's one of several
choices of settings. I don't see anyone here in this photography
group insisting that photograph taken when the camera set to this
focus mode is a macro photograph.
If there are people among the general public who refer to the results
of images taken when the camera is set to this mode as "macro
photographs", they are wrong. I don't see it as an earth-shattering
problem but it this gnaws at you, so be it.
I'm sure if they ever wander into this group that you'll set them
straight.
>>Camera/lens makers who sell cheap goods with too much promise and too
>little delivery certainly do not change definition.
Cheap goods? "Cheap" has a connotation of "shoddy", but some camera
makers who call the focus mode setting designated by the flower icon
the "macro" setting are merely inexpensive. There may be some
expensive ones that do. I don't know, and I don't know what is
considered "expensive" or "inexpensive". That's all relative.
While my Nikon D40 doesn't, my Nikon Coolpix does identify the mode as
the "macro mode" in the index and the "macro close-up mode" on page
31. Under "When to use it", the manual says "Use for close-ups".
Nothing falsely promised there. It delivers what it does promise.
I was not misled when I bought it. I owned a designated macro lens
when I used 35mm film, and knew what to expect from the Coolpix.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Cynicor
> "Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vi4d74dni2jo29uj9...@4ax.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>> The important thing is the magnification of the final image. That's what
>>> the
>>> end viewer sees.
>> So you are saying that if I take a totally normal photography of let's
>> say my dog and enlarge it for a billboard, then the picture of the dog
>> is certainly larger than the actual dog. And that makes it a macro
>> photography?
>
> Do you actually do that sort of thing often?
>
> But no, a billboard is a billboard and not what is usually meant by "a
> photograph."
I just wanted to say that this entire thread makes me weep actual blood.
savvo
QED. He didn't understand the encyclopaedia pages that he read and he
still thinks that the larger-than-life refers to the print size.
>
> You clearly need far more help with these concepts than I have the time or
> patience to give you.
>
Translation: "I have made a fool of myself in public and have not the
grace to admit my error."
> Plonk.
QED
savvo
Yes. He really is that ignorant.
savvo
>
>> "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
>>>The important thing is the magnification of the final image. That's what
>>>the
>>>end viewer sees.
>>
>> So you are saying that if I take a totally normal photography of let's
>> say my dog and enlarge it for a billboard, then the picture of the dog
>> is certainly larger than the actual dog. And that makes it a macro
>> photography?
>
> Do you actually do that sort of thing often?
>
> But no, a billboard is a billboard and not what is usually meant by "a
> photograph."
Was that a moment of light dawning?
Oh no. He's going back to his appeal to misunderstood authority.
> Here it is again, posted in from my earlier post which you've apparently
> missed:
Or maybe you read it and understood that it disagrees with his argument,
nobly choosing not to use it against him.
>
> The "definition of 'macro' in its photographic context" is given on p. 901
> in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (1956, rev. desk ed. 1969) as
> "taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary camera lenses" (as
> opposed to microscope lenses). It's really just that simple. If you have a
> photograph of a bug that's larger than the original bug, that's macro.
Of course, NH's confusion is in his definition of a photograph which
seems to follow the vernacular understanding, ie what the Focal
Encyclopedia (sic) would probably call a print.
Anyway, not to labour the point, were one to read the same Focal Press's
'Manual of Photography' the section therein (p.98 in the 2000 edition) titled
'Macro lenses' is relevant and, if read and correctly understood,
enlightening.
>
> At the time the section on macrophotography was written, the kind of lenses
> we now call "macro" must have been uncommon if they existed at all, since
> they are not even mentioned in the text.
That's what you get for relying on 40 year-old texts.
> Now you can probably invent some other far-fetched situation for the purpose
> of creating another quibble, but in the ordinary usage that an ordinary
> reader would take Focal Encyclopedia's definition of macrophotography, it's
> still a reasonable definition.
Isn't it? If only NH could understand it.
ASAAR
> As a practical matter it isn't really the lens to focal plane magnification
> ratio that matters, it's the final image size. So in a sense you're right,
> the compact camera's smaller sensor has the advantage that it can achieve
> the same final image size with a smaller in-camera magnification, since more
> magnification is necessarily applied *after* the on-sensor magnification.
Have view cameras (using say, 8"x10" plates) been used to take
larger than life images, such as for a portrait of a baby's face or
pictures of other objects of similar size? If so, were contact size
prints called macro photos?
Peter Irwin
>
> Have view cameras (using say, 8"x10" plates) been used to take
> larger than life images, such as for a portrait of a baby's face or
> pictures of other objects of similar size? If so, were contact size
> prints called macro photos?
I don't think people called the resultant photos macro, but
the working techniques would certainly make it macro work
or photomacrography. The defining feature of photomacrography
is that the lens is closer to the subject than it is to the
image. If you were to watch someone take a picture such
as the one you describe, you would be sure to notice the
photographer focussing by moving the rear standard. If you
have done macro work, then you know why the plate or film
rather than the lens was moved to focus.
Peter
--
pir...@shell.ktb.net
Neil Harrington
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
news:c2me74l9a9e1u0e51...@4ax.com...
According to the Focal Encyclopedia section on macrophotography I've
mentioned in other posts, view cameras with short-focus lenses were indeed
used for the purpose. I didn't see any specific mention of "view cameras" in
the section, but it seems obvious (they mention "whole plate, or 8 x 10
ins.") that's the kind of camera they meant.
> If so, were contact size
> prints called macro photos?
So it would seem, from their definition of macrophotography as simply
"taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary camera lenses." They go
on to say, "macrophotography ends and photomicrography (with microscope
lenses) begins, at about 10x diameters." (I'm using the small x to replace
the multiplication symbol in the actual text.)
Neil
michael adams
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22dec011d...@news.supernews.com...
> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>
> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Whether people want to argue as to whether full frame
photographs of a fly's head qualify as macro photography
or not, is really up to them, I suppose.
Here's an interesting site I came across a while ago
compiled by chap by the name of Plonsky who specialises
in photographs of insects. In his case taken with Canon
Powershot G1 and then later a G3 camera supplemented with
a Pentax 50mm 1.7 lens, among other things.
This page, a general introduction to his approach features
a large shot of a fly's head at the top.
http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm
While for the more squeamish this page simply has
descriptions and photographs of the gear he used.
http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/equip.htm
Given that he's adamant that none of the insects are doped
or interfered with in any way, the most surprising thing to
me is just how close he manages to get, given that live focussing
is involved, rather than pre-focussing and using remote
control.
michael adams
...
Blinky the Shark
I think the real problem is his use of "final image". It seems to me like
"macro", as defined by image:subject ratio, is about "the magnification of
the image *on the original medium*"; i.e., the film or electronic sensor.
Original. Not "final". The use of "final image" doesn't seem to me to
make sense, and allows arguments based on "final images" that are
billboard sized. IOW, no, a billboard-sized "final" image of a Lambo is
not macro, because the "original" image of the car - on the recording
medium - was not equal to or larger than the physical vehicle. I don't
know where this "final image" criterion sneaked into the discussion, but
it's a shame it did.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
Alan Browne
> I was not misled when I bought it. I owned a designated macro lens
> when I used 35mm film, and knew what to expect from the Coolpix.
Keep playin' yer fiddle. Doesn't sell here.
Alan Browne
> But the advent of 35mm SLR-specific macro lenses a few decades ago did
> "change definition"? Macrophotography has been around since before such
> lenses existed.
Ahem. In another posting in this thread I mentioned 4 equipment options
for true macro that all predate the dedicated lenses that you mention
(Although one of those, admittedly, is not very sharp).
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I was not misled when I bought it. I owned a designated macro lens
>> when I used 35mm film, and knew what to expect from the Coolpix.
>
>Keep playin' yer fiddle. Doesn't sell here.
I understand. It disturbs you to think that what you believe to be
your own special knowledge is commonly understood.
Neil Harrington
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
>
> I think the real problem is his use of "final image". It seems to me like
> "macro", as defined by image:subject ratio, is about "the magnification of
> the image *on the original medium*"; i.e., the film or electronic sensor.
> Original. Not "final". The use of "final image" doesn't seem to me to
> make sense, and allows arguments based on "final images" that are
> billboard sized.
Not in any reasonable way. In ordinary usage we do not refer to billboards
as "photographs," and although by one means or another a photograph can be
made in almost any size, in the overwhelming majority of cases "photograph"
meant (at the time the term "macrophotography" was introduced) a
photographic image printed on paper 8 x 10 inches or smaller.
> IOW, no, a billboard-sized "final" image of a Lambo is
> not macro, because the "original" image of the car - on the recording
> medium - was not equal to or larger than the physical vehicle. I don't
> know where this "final image" criterion sneaked into the discussion, but
> it's a shame it did.
It "sneaked in" by way of the Focal Encyclopedia's definition of
macrophotography -- "taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary
camera lenses" (as opposed to photomicrography, which generally meant the
use of microscope lenses). Again, the term "photograph" obviously meant the
finished product, the final image, irrespective of the size negative it was
produced from.
The notion that macro photography must involve something like a 1:1 or 1:2
"magnification of the image on the original medium" as you put it, only
started some time after the introduction of specialized close-focusing
lenses for 35mm SLRs that reached those magnifications. That too is obvious.
By the time those lenses first appeared, macrophotography had been around
for many years -- so to insist that it must require such lenses makes no
sense whatever.
As I pointed out elsewhere, a small-sensor camera in its macro mode may be
able to produce exactly the same final image, albeit at lower magnification
*in camera*, as a full-frame camera can with a "true macro" lens at 1:2 or
even 1:1. In fact, some Nikon Coolpix models can produce an even larger,
"closer" final image than a full-frame camera can at 1:1.
No one looks at the in-camera image as an end result. Whether you see a
photograph on a monitor screen or printed on paper, it's that final image
you see that matters. If you look at two close-up photographs that are
either identical or so nearly so that they cannot be told apart, does it
really make any sense to you to say one is "macro" because it was taken at
1:1 magnification *in camera*, but the other is "not macro" because the
original in-camera magnification was smaller?
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> But the advent of 35mm SLR-specific macro lenses a few decades ago did
>> "change definition"? Macrophotography has been around since before such
>> lenses existed.
>
> Ahem. In another posting in this thread I mentioned 4 equipment options
> for true macro that all predate the dedicated lenses that you mention
> (Although one of those, admittedly, is not very sharp).
Actually, NONE of the four you mentioned are really that good. Ordinary
camera lenses on extension tubes or bellows may give satisfactory results
when stopped down enough, at least for centrally placed subjects, but they
are not designed to be used at anything like a 1:1 magnification and aren't
likely to give good definition or flat field over the whole frame.
What you called "diopter add-ons" are more properly called close-up lenses.
I don't know where this misuse of "diopter" started, but diopters are a
measurement of the strength of the auxiliary lenses, not the lenses
themselves. Calling a close-up lens a "diopter" is like calling an
automobile engine a "horsepower."
As you say, they're "not very sharp" -- especially the +20 close-up lens it
would take to reach 1:1 with a 50mm prime lens. (Please note correct usage
of "prime" also. It does not mean "fixed focal length" even though that's
what the prime lens in this case happens to be.)
Neil
savvo
>
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.11....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
>
>> not macro, because the "original" image of the car - on the recording
>> medium - was not equal to or larger than the physical vehicle. I don't
>> know where this "final image" criterion sneaked into the discussion, but
>> it's a shame it did.
>
> It "sneaked in" by way of
Neil's misunderstanding of
> the Focal Encyclopedia's definition of
> macrophotography -- "taking larger-than-life photographs with ordinary
> camera lenses" (as opposed to photomicrography, which generally meant the
> use of microscope lenses). Again, the term "photograph" obviously meant
to Neil
> the
> finished product, the final image, irrespective of the size negative it was
> produced from.
>
> The notion that macro photography must involve something like a 1:1 or 1:2
> "magnification of the image on the original medium" as you put it, only
> started some time after the introduction of specialized close-focusing
> lenses for 35mm SLRs that reached those magnifications. That too is obvious.
> By the time those lenses first appeared, macrophotography had been around
> for many years -- so to insist that it must require such lenses makes no
> sense whatever.
And, of course, he has a reference to back up this claim? Oh no. It's
"obvious".
>
> As I pointed out elsewhere, a small-sensor camera in its macro mode may be
> able to produce exactly the same final image, albeit at lower magnification
> *in camera*, as a full-frame camera can with a "true macro" lens at 1:2 or
> even 1:1. In fact, some Nikon Coolpix models can produce an even larger,
> "closer" final image than a full-frame camera can at 1:1.
Now wasn't it this same Neil Harrington who complained of the
'arbitrary' nature of the 1:1 definition. So what does his non-arbitrary
definition of macro end up at? A vague hand-wavy objectivity-free "this
camera can produce a larger print than that camera."
Still don't get it? Here's a quick snap of a coin on a 10 mm grid.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bizarrovern/2661224948/
If you produce something similar with your camera, print it to whatever
size you like, I guarantee I can always print mine one (unit of your
choice) bigger.
But my image is (not quite, but as near as dammit as I was prepared to go
to give back-up to a usenet squabble) at 1:1 reproduction. Which is
invaluable in all sorts of ways that Neil's never given thought to and
which are the real objectives of macrophotography (e.g. entomology,
engineering, forensics).
savvo
>
> QED. He didn't understand the encyclopaedia pages that he read and he
> still thinks that the larger-than-life refers to the print size.
Apologies for that first 'QED' it must have been a copy/paste typo as it
is obviously (yes, obviously) misplaced.
Alan Browne
Whatever Tony. I've got your number. You come here with the baggage of
years and the influence of dabbling in too many things, never being on
top of any one thing.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:hrOdnXumEbieI-rV...@giganews.com...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>> But the advent of 35mm SLR-specific macro lenses a few decades ago did
>>> "change definition"? Macrophotography has been around since before such
>>> lenses existed.
>> Ahem. In another posting in this thread I mentioned 4 equipment options
>> for true macro that all predate the dedicated lenses that you mention
>> (Although one of those, admittedly, is not very sharp).
>
> Actually, NONE of the four you mentioned are really that good. Ordinary
> camera lenses on extension tubes or bellows may give satisfactory results
> when stopped down enough, at least for centrally placed subjects, but they
> are not designed to be used at anything like a 1:1 magnification and aren't
> likely to give good definition or flat field over the whole frame.
So what other way is there absent 1:1 (or even 1:2) macro lenses?
Point is (that you've glossed over) is that it's either dedicated macro
lenses or those other methods which were the way to go before dedicated
macro lenses. That was the point.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:04:10 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was not misled when I bought it. I owned a designated macro lens
>>>> when I used 35mm film, and knew what to expect from the Coolpix.
>>> Keep playin' yer fiddle. Doesn't sell here.
>>
>> I understand. It disturbs you to think that what you believe to be
>> your own special knowledge is commonly understood.
>
>Whatever Tony. I've got your number. You come here with the baggage of
>years and the influence of dabbling in too many things,
Neither the years nor the dabbling in many things are what I would
consider unwanted baggage.
>never being on top of any one thing.
And never with the desire to puff out my chest and profess expert
status in anything. Self-constructed pedestals are too fragile.
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:hrOdnXumEbieI-rV...@giganews.com...
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the advent of 35mm SLR-specific macro lenses a few decades ago did
>>>> "change definition"? Macrophotography has been around since before such
>>>> lenses existed.
>>> Ahem. In another posting in this thread I mentioned 4 equipment options
>>> for true macro that all predate the dedicated lenses that you mention
>>> (Although one of those, admittedly, is not very sharp).
>>
>> Actually, NONE of the four you mentioned are really that good. Ordinary
>> camera lenses on extension tubes or bellows may give satisfactory results
>> when stopped down enough, at least for centrally placed subjects, but
>> they are not designed to be used at anything like a 1:1 magnification and
>> aren't likely to give good definition or flat field over the whole frame.
>
> So what other way is there absent 1:1 (or even 1:2) macro lenses?
Almost certainly by far the most commonly used way today is the macro mode
found in virtually every compact digital camera -- some being better for the
task than others, of course. Short-focus lenses on view cameras were
evidently a popular method in the larger formats. The reversed lens method
you mentioned is good, depending on how it's done, but with obvious
limitations and much inconvenience.
>
> Point is (that you've glossed over) is that it's either dedicated macro
> lenses or those other methods which were the way to go before dedicated
> macro lenses. That was the point.
That was then, this is now. Look, I have nothing against "dedicated macro
lenses" -- I think I had one near the end of my screw-mount days, and when I
switched to Minolta about 1975 I know I had one in the old MD mount, and
later several in the Maxxum mount. Now I have a Tokina 100mm macro in the
Nikon AF mount, and will probably get one of the new 60mm Micro-Nikkors. For
someone who wants to do macro photography with a DSLR such lenses are
obviously the way to go.
But the point is that the macro mode in Nikon Coolpixes (and probably other
makes that I'm less familiar with) can do a very good job indeed in macro
work, the same sort of close-up work that you'd use a dedicated macro lens
for on a DSLR. I'm not saying one is the equal of the other, any more than
I'd say the relatively simple zoom lens on a $150 Coolpix is the equal of a
much more complex and sophisticated $500 standard zoom lens for a Nikon DSLR
for general photography.
But the little Coolpixes still do remarkably good macro work, within their
natural limitations (e.g., little if any effective aperture control) and
there's no reason to deny that it's macro simply because it doesn't meet
some entirely arbitrary *in camera* magnification ratio that really has
nothing to do with the final result.
Of course a dedicated macro lens for SLRs is designed to give excellent
definition over the whole field in extreme close-up work, with a flat field
and almost no distortion. That's important if you're copying documents or
slides, but what most people seem to use macro lenses for is flowers and
bugs -- for which those qualities are of little if any use.
Neil
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> So what other way is there absent 1:1 (or even 1:2) macro lenses?
>
> Almost certainly by far the most commonly used way today is the macro mod
<snip>
> bugs -- for which those qualities are of little if any use.
You didn't answer the question at all.
As to tubes, here's a shot from Troy.
""
http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_07_12&img=photos/2008_07_12/img_8539.jpg
Peter Irwin
> Actually, NONE of the four you mentioned are really that good. Ordinary
> camera lenses on extension tubes or bellows may give satisfactory results
> when stopped down enough, at least for centrally placed subjects, but they
> are not designed to be used at anything like a 1:1 magnification and aren't
> likely to give good definition or flat field over the whole frame.
It depends on the lens. A 50/3.5 tessar type is very likely to
be satisfactory for the purpose. The Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 made
a quite decent enlarging lens (the historical reason why enlarger
lens mounts are very often LTM) and was quite usable for 1:1 and
larger if stopped down to middle stops. My Asahi Pentax Manual
notes that the SMC Takumar 55/1.8 is much better for close-up
work than the 50/1.4.
True macro lenses such as the B&L Micro-Tessars and the Leitz
Micro-Summars certainly did exist in the 1930s if not earlier,
but it was quite usual to use the standard lenses for macro-work.
The old Leica Manuals mention the availability of the micro-summar
lenses, but have entire chapters on using the Elmar and other standard
lenses for the purpose.
My 35mm f/2.4 CZJ lens will focus down to a 1:2 ratio and seems
remarkably good for close-up work.
>
> As you say, they're "not very sharp" -- especially the +20 close-up lens it
> would take to reach 1:1 with a 50mm prime lens.
It wouldn't take quite that much because a typical 50 mm lens for
an SLR has about 1 cm worth of focus extension: it would only take
about a +13 lens. More practical is a +4 achromat on a 135mm lens.
It wouldn't likely get you quite up to 1:1 unless your 135 is
unusually close focussing, but it will get you close and will be
quite satisfactory in use.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Neil Harrington
"Peter Irwin" <pir...@ktb.net> wrote in message
news:g5e4s4$tpi$1...@dns.ktb.net...
> Neil Harrington <n...@home.today> wrote:
>
>> Actually, NONE of the four you mentioned are really that good. Ordinary
>> camera lenses on extension tubes or bellows may give satisfactory results
>> when stopped down enough, at least for centrally placed subjects, but
>> they
>> are not designed to be used at anything like a 1:1 magnification and
>> aren't
>> likely to give good definition or flat field over the whole frame.
>
> It depends on the lens. A 50/3.5 tessar type is very likely to
> be satisfactory for the purpose.
Probably, yes. The Tessar is essentially a Cooke Triplet with a compound
rear element, and Cooke Triplets seem to be useful for close-up work. Back
in my Minolta MD-mount days I had Minolta's Auto Bellows with their 100mm
f/4 Auto Bellows lens, and that was a Cooke Triplet. That would go to 1:1 or
a bit more.
But such lenses used for that purpose are almost always used stopped down,
as they would be for enlarging work also. I 'd be surprised if anyone would
use a Tessar wide open or nearly so for such work, even if the subject were
flat and perpendicular to the lens axis.
> The Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 made
> a quite decent enlarging lens (the historical reason why enlarger
> lens mounts are very often LTM) and was quite usable for 1:1 and
> larger if stopped down to middle stops. My Asahi Pentax Manual
> notes that the SMC Takumar 55/1.8 is much better for close-up
> work than the 50/1.4.
>
> True macro lenses such as the B&L Micro-Tessars and the Leitz
> Micro-Summars certainly did exist in the 1930s if not earlier,
> but it was quite usual to use the standard lenses for macro-work.
> The old Leica Manuals mention the availability of the micro-summar
> lenses, but have entire chapters on using the Elmar and other standard
> lenses for the purpose.
>
> My 35mm f/2.4 CZJ lens will focus down to a 1:2 ratio and seems
> remarkably good for close-up work.
>>
>> As you say, they're "not very sharp" -- especially the +20 close-up lens
>> it
>> would take to reach 1:1 with a 50mm prime lens.
>
> It wouldn't take quite that much because a typical 50 mm lens for
> an SLR has about 1 cm worth of focus extension: it would only take
> about a +13 lens.
That's true. But even a +13 close-up lens would be pretty severe, even if
there were an achromatic version of such a close-up lens -- the existence of
which would surprise me.
> More practical is a +4 achromat on a 135mm lens.
> It wouldn't likely get you quite up to 1:1 unless your 135 is
> unusually close focussing, but it will get you close and will be
> quite satisfactory in use.
If stopped down. Lots of improvement can be expected from almost anything
just by stopping down, as I'm sure you're aware.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
>>> So what other way is there absent 1:1 (or even 1:2) macro lenses?
>>
>> Almost certainly by far the most commonly used way today is the macro mod
> <snip>
>> bugs -- for which those qualities are of little if any use.
>
> You didn't answer the question at all.
I did answer the question -- the fact that you didn't like the answer
doesn't make it magically disappear.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> Whatever Tony. I've got your number. You come here with the baggage of
> years and the influence of dabbling in too many things, never being on top
> of any one thing.
Interesting that you look at "the baggage of years and the influence of
dabbling in too many things" as negatives, while I would consider them
positives. But then I'm an old geezer with a very wide range of interests,
which probably colors my judgment.
Neil
Neil Harrington
Is it your position that something CANNOT be macro photography unless its
image magnification is 1:1 or 1:2 (or, presumably, something in between) at
the focal plane?
For example, if I use my macro lens at 1:2 magnification that's macro
photography, but if I use it at 1:3 it is not?
Neil
Alan Browne
While it is generally a benefit, the key word is "general" and tends
also to close ones eyes to finer detail or newer experience.
"Jack of all trades..." etc.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:QKmdnb4Ag7wbjeTV...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> Whatever Tony. I've got your number. You come here with the baggage of
>>> years and the influence of dabbling in too many things, never being on top
>>> of any one thing.
>>
>> Interesting that you look at "the baggage of years and the influence of
>> dabbling in too many things" as negatives, while I would consider them
>> positives. But then I'm an old geezer with a very wide range of interests,
>> which probably colors my judgment.
>
>While it is generally a benefit, the key word is "general" and tends
>also to close ones eyes to finer detail or newer experience.
On the contrary, dabbling in many things is direct evidence that
"newer experience" is both desired and actively sought.
>"Jack of all trades..." etc.
The rest of that saying is "and master of none". While I don't
pretend to have mastered anything, there is more to master than is
covered by this group. Master of none that is obvious to you by your
exposure to me in this group is a fairer assessment.
savvo
You've quoted the definition from your Focal Enyclopaedia several times.
The line has to be drawn somewhere to differentiate macro from simple
close-up. Your reference says lifesize or larger. I accept its
authority, so yes, >=1:1 it is.
Neil Harrington
paste in again here:
Is it your position that something CANNOT be macro photography unless its
image magnification is 1:1 or 1:2 (or, presumably, something in between) at
the focal plane?
For example, if I use my macro lens at 1:2 magnification that's macro
photography, but if I use it at 1:3 it is not?
Neil
Paul Furman
> Alan, I would really like you to answer my question of yesterday,
He is on vacation :-)
Neil Harrington
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:Mbtfk.5979$cn7....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> Alan, I would really like you to answer my question of yesterday,
>
> He is on vacation :-)
Ah. Thanks. I hope I can remember to ask him when he returns. :-)
Neil