Thanks to all who responded.
Special thanks to Godfrey for the link to the paper.
From that document, I learned an interesting thing related to the
exposure at high magnifications (p13 of the PDF, p.12 of the paper).
I've known that fact experimentally, but never thought about the exact
On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Thanks to all who responded.
Special thanks to Godfrey for the link to the paper.
From that document, I learned an interesting thing related to the
exposure at high magnifications (p13 of the PDF, p.12 of the paper).
I've known that
Larry, sorry... that can be easily looked up in the PDML archives,
(that's how I am reading the list anyway), - as Godfrey posted only one
response.
Here it is:
http://www.a-p-s.org.au/pdfs/articles/macro.pdf
As I wrote, - the interesting thing is the formalism for exposure
at high
On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
Larry, sorry... that can be easily looked up in the PDML archives,
(that's how I am reading the list anyway), - as Godfrey posted only one
response.
Here it is:
http://www.a-p-s.org.au/pdfs/articles/macro.pdf
As I wrote, - the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
This makes me wonder if there were some way to design an aperture so that
there was no knife edge. Perhaps a curved coating of sapphire on the edge of
the blade so that it became progressively more opaque over the distance
Macro is an abbreviation of photomacrography which by strict
definition is the capture of subjects at 1:1 or greater
magnifications. Here's a good recent paper on the subject (circa
2006): http://www.a-p-s.org.au/pdfs/articles/macro.pdf
When applied to lenses, originally the term macro lens meant
From: Igor Roshchin
... Well, I understand the meaning of the word. But what does it
actually mean in the lens designation?
The new Sigma 18-250 lens is called macro with a maximum
magnification ratio of 1:2.9:
on 2012-06-16 7:28 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
Macro is an abbreviation of photomacrography which by strict
definition is the capture of subjects at 1:1 or greater
magnifications. Here's a good recent paper on the subject (circa
2006): http://www.a-p-s.org.au/pdfs/articles/macro.pdf
interesting
the macro term is loosely applied, in general in means some sort of close
focussing, ususally 1:5 magnification or greater. To me a real macro lens
is always a flat field prime optimized for closeup, with at least 1:2 mag-
nification or greater.
-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:
So, what is necessary and sufficient for a lens to be called macro?
Someone in the marketing department calling it a macro.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Macro in the good old days usually meant 1:2 as a minimum, for maximum
reproduction ratio. When close focusing zooms began to appear it was
misused a lot to describe merely close focusing capability. So don't be
surprised if a lens described as macro is only actually close focusing
Damn, I should really read these things before I post them.
On 6/15/2012 2:51 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Macro in the good old days usually meant 1:2 as a minimum, for maximum
reproduction ratio. When close focusing zooms began to appear it was
misused a lot to describe merely close focusing
It's interesting that the 1:2 definition has nothing to do with image size, or
field of view. A 1:2 lens on a u4/3 is effectively a lot more magnification
than 1:1 on a 645, or even a 645D, and about the same as 1:1 on a 35mm.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML
Not, really the field of view changes but the magnification doesn't. If
you print a 1:1 image, of the same subject, the actual size of the
capture medium, from any format, say 645, then do the same with 35mm and
line up the 35mm print on top of the 645 print the subject will be the
same size,
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:19 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Not, really the field of view changes but the magnification doesn't.
Until you print it, or do something besides look at the image on the negative
or the sensor.
Of course, we're talking magnification at different stages in the process.
Once again not really, macro refers to magnification at capture. The
magnification ration refers to the size of the image on the recording
surface. 1:1 means that the image projected on the surface is the same
size as the object being captured. Not as obvious maybe in the case of
a three
That's right PJ Alling.
Many camera or lens manufacturers seem to confuse macro with close-up. Most
macro settings don't really do macro images (capture size equal to 1:1 or
larger) - jsut close-ups :-)
Regards
Jens (from Denmark)
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On
17 matches
Mail list logo
