Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]1:2 is the limit a macro lens can go. If I use it at any other magnification its not macro?!? A hard sell. My macro lens I have right here is my 55 3.5 Nikkor and it focuses to 9.5 inches where it gets half sized or "2" you can read on the barrel. Also I remember having ways to deal with light loss from macro shooting and I forget the details I think at 1:1 you'd loose two stops and 1:2 you'd loose one stop. I may have forgotten this. I had a cardboard wheel and other gizmos and a trick I used ot use. But I think it was at 3 feet where you didn't have any light loss any more that you'd have to allow for exposure wise. This defining I'm sure in many photographers eyes what the limits of macro was. Macro was where you had to allow for in effect bellows factor. On this lens I have here the last magnification indication is 1:10 which is at around 2.5 feet. I'm sure people think they put a macro lens on their camera such as this shoot at 1:10 and they are certainly shooting macro. Or close up. Me when I think "close up" I think "table top" or "head shot". When I think table top I think toaster oven. I bet a lot of people with a macro on their camera and it not set at infinity (a very long distance away) they think they're shooting macro or they want their money back. But for me and many people its in the close than three feet area. Also a macro lens has to be both optimized for close in not infinity like all others and also be flat field. So when you focus at 3 feet you are also focused at three feet at the edges. Which are really further away than 3 feet. And would not be in focus wide open perhaps if it was not a true macro lens. Mark William Rabiner > From: John McMaster <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 16:30:06 +1200 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] (FF) waned > > I have always thought of it as 1:1 to ~5:1 then into micro, as you say 1:2 > is often said as macro and that is all my APO-Macro can do without an > add-on...... > > john > > -----Original Message----- > > I'm game! So what's the difference between a macro shot and a close up? > I'm afraid I use both terms interchangeably my whole life with my > photographer friends. > And basically from all I've read its all about a meter or three feet or > closer. I think I've got this from reading countless articles by > columnists > in photo magazines for 3.5 decades and by looking at the rather complex > markings on my macro lenses which indicate magnification and so on. > > By the way I just wiki'd it and the guy says a macro shot is a shot in > which the shot, first neg, but later print is bigger than the subject > itself. > This I would call BS. NEVER have I heard that one before! > > Most macro lenes before a decade ago by the way did not even focus to 1:1 > 1:2 was about the norm you needed add ons to get 1:1 a thing which most > people I've ever met never bothered with. > > > Mark William Rabiner > > >> From: John McMaster <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:57:56 +1200 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] (FF) waned >> >> This is much more a close-up rather than macro... >> >> john >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Macro grab shots are not uncommon here on the LUG but in my opinion >> macro is hard. Way harder than it looks. And its hard to do a >> successful macro grab shot. The best macro shots I feel take a bit >> more time and require some technique. And require more shots which you >> pick from to get one which is good. >> >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> >> >>> From: John McMaster <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:42:47 +1200 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] (FF) waned >>> >>> Thanks Mark, it was a lazy shot (handheld and at low asa speed ;-)) >>> but I quite liked it >>> >>> john >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> The muted colors are refreshing but I'd stop down so we have more >>> information to look at. All we get is a tantalizing sixtieth of an >>> inch slice of some of the globs! Our eye keeps searching for detail >>> and its now quite sure where to look. >>> Also its best if the areas which are in focus in macro work be in the >>> forefront. In front. In the foreground. As our eye goes their first. >>> To have stuff in the back be soft we expect that. As its in the >>> background we're less worried about it But having stuff in the front >>> where we look first look soft is jarring. >>> Its like there are soft blobs "in the way". >>> >>> >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: John McMaster <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> >>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 15:30:49 +1200 >>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >>>> Subject: [Leica] (FF) waned >>>> >>>> I cannot match the bright colours of the northern hemisphere >>>> currently, so here is one past its best.... >>>> >>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Chiaroscuro/Flowers/waned.jpg.html >>>> >>>> C & C welcome (as always) >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> Canon 5D MkI (new to me), APO-Macro 100mm >>>> >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information