DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Basic question on MACRO
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/03/2006 01:31:09 PM · #1
I have this question bothering me for a long time.
In any camera, if you set the mode to 'fast mode' or 'sports mode' or 'to icon of a person running', then the camera will set the shutter speed to MAX and adjust other parameters to get a good pic.

Similarly what happens at the backend when you set the mode to MACRO or 'flower mode' in a normal camera
If your answer is to get good DOF, I can get the same at small F at APERTURE PRIORITY.. and why do we need a MACRO lens when we can get 1.8F at 50mm in canon prime lens, which can give good DOF.
Hope you understood my question. Thanks for your reply.
08/03/2006 01:34:37 PM · #2
A 'real' macro is when the subject is reproduced 1:1 on the film/sensor.
To do this you need a true macro lens, as opposed to a close focusing lens.
the 'normal camera' (aka cheap imitation of a real camera) shifts the lense for close focusing.

beyond that, exposure works like in any other situation.

For real macro, you need a real macro lens.
My friend Emmanuels pic

Emmanuel's pict

Message edited by ursula - large image.
08/03/2006 01:34:57 PM · #3
Macro lenses can focus on objects much closer to the lens
08/03/2006 01:36:59 PM · #4
a macro is technically 1:1 magnification of the subject.
if your subject size is 1 inch, the image projected on film (talking in terms of film cameras) is also 1 inch. You need special lens to be able to achieve that. the lens normally is capable of focussing at a very close distance.

the normal camera 'flower' icon only makes use of low F number and has nothing to do with magnification

08/03/2006 01:43:23 PM · #5
Originally posted by shanky_pec:

and why do we need a MACRO lens when we can get 1.8F at 50mm in canon prime lens, which can give good DOF.
Hope you understood my question. Thanks for your reply.


With my 100mm macro I can get as close as 6 inches away(1.6 crop makes it a 160mm also). Would that translate to at least 4X closer? The subject would be filling a lot more of the frame. I would need to crop less. I can print it much larger. A 2 inch bee could be 10 inches printed. Or more. And its a really sharp lens anyway. :)

08/03/2006 01:43:33 PM · #6
Actually I don't think a Amcro lens has to be 1:1 to be a macro. My Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro only goes to 1:2

What makes a macro lens unique in addition to the close focusing ability it that the lens design is a "flat field" design. This mean that the edges of the image should be as sharp as the center of the image. Unlike non-macro lenses, the edges will not be as sharp as the center.

This is why some folks use their macro lens for shooting non-macro shots. I think Librodo uses his 60MM Macro for portrait shots quite often. His portraits are pretty good! ;-)

08/03/2006 01:57:39 PM · #7
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Actually I don't think a Amcro lens has to be 1:1 to be a macro. My Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro only goes to 1:2

What makes a macro lens unique in addition to the close focusing ability it that the lens design is a "flat field" design. This mean that the edges of the image should be as sharp as the center of the image. Unlike non-macro lenses, the edges will not be as sharp as the center.

This is why some folks use their macro lens for shooting non-macro shots. I think Librodo uses his 60MM Macro for portrait shots quite often. His portraits are pretty good! ;-)

For it to be a true macro it has to do 1:1 and by the way canon sells an add on for your lens to make it 1:1.
08/03/2006 02:21:53 PM · #8
Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Actually I don't think a Amcro lens has to be 1:1 to be a macro. My Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro only goes to 1:2

What makes a macro lens unique in addition to the close focusing ability it that the lens design is a "flat field" design. This mean that the edges of the image should be as sharp as the center of the image. Unlike non-macro lenses, the edges will not be as sharp as the center.

This is why some folks use their macro lens for shooting non-macro shots. I think Librodo uses his 60MM Macro for portrait shots quite often. His portraits are pretty good! ;-)

For it to be a true macro it has to do 1:1 and by the way canon sells an add on for your lens to make it 1:1.


I know about the tube, my first lens was a 55mm Nikon micro back in 1979, my point is, Canon calls it a macro, //www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=19 , even prints "macro" right on the lens.

And magnification ratio is only one part of a macro lens, lens design is equally imporatant. Otherwise, you could reverse a 50mm 1.8 and get greater than 1:1, but I wouldn't call it a macro lens because the edge to edge sharpness isn't there.

But, hey, if you have to have 1:1 to be a real macro, you go boy!

08/03/2006 02:37:41 PM · #9
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Actually I don't think a Amcro lens has to be 1:1 to be a macro. My Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro only goes to 1:2

What makes a macro lens unique in addition to the close focusing ability it that the lens design is a "flat field" design. This mean that the edges of the image should be as sharp as the center of the image. Unlike non-macro lenses, the edges will not be as sharp as the center.


Thank you for posting this info - it's very good to learn about this edge-sharpness issue.
08/03/2006 02:38:19 PM · #10
What magnification is considered "macro" is a subject for endless debate. The definition has been diluted by manufacturers slapping "Macro" on the barrel of any lens that comes even close. Many labeled "Macro" don't get closer than 1:3 or 1:4. This is close-up, but *not* macro. Still, defining macro as strictly 1:1 or more magnification strikes me as a little stilted.
It's especially confusing where different formats are concerned. For a 1:1 lens on 35mm, an object 43mm long will fill the frame diagonally. For an APS-C (1.6-crop) cam, however, 1:1 magnification gives a diagonal FoV of only 27mm. Blow both up to the same print size, and the APS-C cam will seem to have greater "magnification."
If instead we define macro as a diagonal FoV <40mm, then for non-DSLR cams (which normally have pretty small sensors) the macro range would start at magnifications as low as 4:1 or so.
Given the proliferation of different sensor sizes, I'd suggest that somethign like the latter definition would be more appropriate.
08/03/2006 02:40:36 PM · #11
Originally posted by scarbrd:

my point is, Canon calls it a macro, //www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=19 , even prints "macro" right on the lens.


yeah... 'cause the marketing people who slapped the word "macro" to the side of it knew what they were talking about and would _never_ just say it was macro to boost sales...

nope.... never...
08/03/2006 03:01:22 PM · #12
Originally posted by kudzu:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

my point is, Canon calls it a macro, //www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=19 , even prints "macro" right on the lens.


yeah... 'cause the marketing people who slapped the word "macro" to the side of it knew what they were talking about and would _never_ just say it was macro to boost sales...

nope.... never...


If the marketing people at Canon are coming up with this title:

Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro

to boost sales, then Canon needs new marketing people. Cuz that just ain't all that sexy! ;-)

oh, and this matters WAY too much to some people.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 05:14:41 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 05:14:41 AM EDT.