| Author | Thread |
|
|
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 |
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:
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. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 04:29:17 AM EDT.
