Re: MACRO SHOTS QUESTION

Prometheus wrote:

In article <e8lstn01dvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Prometheus wrote:

In article <e8ionr02v58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Prometheus wrote:

In article <e8h0fm072s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
The problem is that with sensor size varying all over the place "1:1"
is no longer as "usefully precise" as "filling the frame with a field
of x dimensions or smaller".

It always worked for different sizes of film; macro is a property of
the lens to form a life size image.

For a limited range of standard sizes none of which were particularly
small.

Basically you're saying that a camera that can fill the frame with an
object a half inch across has no macro capability while one having a
larger sensor but that cannot fill the frame with objects less than
twice that size does have macro capability, which seems to be more
confusing than useful.

I am saying that if I photograph on object 1mm across and the image on
the film or sensor is 1mm across it is macro. The fact that I can not
always fit a subject in to the frame (i.e. I can obtain a macro of a bee
with my 350D but not a house brick, I could obtain a macro of the brick
with a 10 x 8 camera, but nothing will give me a macro of the house)
does not prevent 1:1 being macro.

What's clear to me is that this is another one of those silly Internet
religions like "Mac vs PC" and "Intel vs AMD" and "Canon vs Nikon" that
some people insist on defending to the point of being killfiled.

The you do not understand that a ratio has no units.

What I understand is that with a 35mm camera and a macro lens I could fill
the frame with objects of a certain size. With a point and shoot that
claims macro capability I fill it with objects of the same size. The
ratio
between object and sensor size is different but grok the concept: I DO
NOT GIVE A DAMN what the ratio is as long as I can get the shot I want.

Good, but don't call it macro. When I fill a 24 x 36 mm frame with a 24
x 36 mm subject I am taking a macro photograph, when you fill a 4 x 5 mm
frame with the same subject you have not taken a macro photograph. You
have only taken a 1/6 life size photograph, a feat that many if not most
non-macro lenses can manage.

So how is its being 1/6 life size on the sensor a problem?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: iPhoto annoyance!
    ... Bella Jones wrote: ... I use a 100mm macro on my film-based 135 SLR, ... Yep, cropped sensor here. ... frame bodies is actually vastly different to your '16-30'. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: MACRO SHOTS QUESTION
    ... is no longer as "usefully precise" as "filling the frame with a field ... twice that size does have macro capability, ... with a 10 x 8 camera, but nothing will give me a macro of the house) ... frame with the same subject you have not taken a macro photograph. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Automating call-out alignment in double-page documents
    ... I think the macro below will do what you want. ... the macro finds out which page number the frame is on. ... "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: ... Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org ...
    (microsoft.public.word.pagelayout)
  • Re: Automating call-out alignment in double-page documents
    ... the macro finds out which page number the frame is on. ... Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org ...
    (microsoft.public.word.pagelayout)
  • Re: iPhoto annoyance!
    ... even with EFS lenses - that will only work on a cropped ... sensor - you still have to multipy the numbers. ... frame bodies is actually vastly different to your '16-30'. ... due to their shallower depth-of-field in comparison to e.g. a 50mm macro ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
Loading