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

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Argument about Macro
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 44, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/02/2011 01:34:20 PM · #1
A close friend of mine who shoots on this site occasionally, a "professional" photographer, and I are having a debate about what a "Macro" is and what a "Macro" isn't. My friend insists that a Macro shot requires a subject ratio equivalent to the sensor of equal to or greather than one to one. The "professional" indicated any extreme close up he takes with a Macro lens is a "macro". I have no clue what to think, and many of the definitions and picture examples I have seen seem to be contradictory--though maybe I am looking in the wrong spots. Is there a solid definition of this term, or is a loosey-goosey phrase?
05/02/2011 01:41:57 PM · #2
If you can count the eyes of a fly, that's a macro.
05/02/2011 01:44:07 PM · #3
Originally posted by crowis:

Is there a solid definition of this term, or is a loosey-goosey phrase?

No; yes.
05/02/2011 04:34:05 PM · #4
my personal definition (not sure if its correct)

Macro = 1:1 or better
05/02/2011 04:45:08 PM · #5
The debate isn't so much about what is a macro photo, but what is a macro lens.

My understanding is a true macro lens will have at least a 1:2 magnification ratio (half life-size on the film plane (sensor) with 1:1 capabilities via an extension tube. Some lenses will go 1:1 without a tube.

The key element to a macro lens is that it is a "flat-field" design. this design gives the smae sharpness on the edge of the frame as it is in the center. One of the main purposes of a macro lens before the days of scanners, was for copy work. Edge to edge sharpness was critical.
05/02/2011 04:53:57 PM · #6
If you believe...

- 3rd party lens manufacturers, anything closer than 1:5 magnification :-P
- OEM lens manufacturers, 1:2 or better is usually labeled "macro."
- Traditionalists, only 1:1 or greater magnification is "true macro."

Take your pick. I think most knowledgeable end users scoff at the 3rd-party lens manufacturers labeling pretty much any lens as "macro." On the other hand, if I back off of full 1:1 magnification slightly, am I still justified in considering the result "macro?" I'd say so.
A further complicating factor is that the format makes a difference. The Horizontal FoV of a 35mm camera at 1:1 magnification is 36mm. An APS-C camera set to record a 36mm-wide subject is only at about 1:1.6 (Canon) or 1:1.5 (Nikon).
In the end, the transition between macro and close-up is a gray area (or grey, depending on your locality!).
05/02/2011 04:57:04 PM · #7
Originally posted by scarbrd:

The debate isn't so much about what is a macro photo, but what is a macro lens.

My understanding is a true macro lens will have at least a 1:2 magnification ratio (half life-size on the film plane (sensor) with 1:1 capabilities via an extension tube. Some lenses will go 1:1 without a tube.

But with digital cameras, doesn't that vary with the sensor size and pixel density?

With a close-up lens added, my S3 took this picture of a bumblebee, which nearly fills the frame; at a typical 300dpi resolution, without cropping or resizing, that bee is over 7" across; is that a "true" macro? I have no idea the ratio of the image projected on the sensor to the live bee ...

05/02/2011 05:07:55 PM · #8
Originally posted by GeneralE:

But with digital cameras, doesn't that vary with the sensor size and pixel density?


Yes, huge difference. See my comments on format. The extreme examples are the non-SLR camera sensors, which are typically almost 5x smaller than a 35mm frame. Their pixel pitch can be below 2µm, so at 1:1 they are recording a FoV smaller than 7mm, and details as small as 2µm. Compare that to a 35mm sensor that's recording a 36mm FoV and detail down to about 6µm.
05/02/2011 05:23:09 PM · #9
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

But with digital cameras, doesn't that vary with the sensor size and pixel density?


Yes, huge difference. See my comments on format. The extreme examples are the non-SLR camera sensors, which are typically almost 5x smaller than a 35mm frame. Their pixel pitch can be below 2µm, so at 1:1 they are recording a FoV smaller than 7mm, and details as small as 2µm. Compare that to a 35mm sensor that's recording a 36mm FoV and detail down to about 6µm.


Maybe I'm off base here, but isn't 1:1 the same regardless of the sensor size?

I mean, either it is life size on the sensor or it isn't, right? How big of a subject you can photograph will change with the sensor size, but not the ratio.
05/02/2011 05:30:38 PM · #10
Technically, a "true" macro lens is capable of 1:1 or greater reproduction.

1:1 reproduction means that the image at the sensor/film plane is the same size as the object being imaged. If we still USED film, you could overlay the film on the object after processing and they'd be the same size.

Sensor size has zip-all to do with it: a smaller sensor just shows less of the object being imaged at a given reproduction ratio. Focal length has zip-all to do with it; 1:1 is 1:1, you can't tell the difference in focal length. With a longer lens, you can 1:1 with more space between you and the object being imaged, but the actual size of the image will be the same, at the sensor plane.

So, for example, we use a 60mm macro on the 7D and a 100mm macro on the 5D, and you can't tell the difference between them by looking at the output, basically. Except of course that the 5D has a smoother grain pattern than the 7D...

R.
05/02/2011 06:01:10 PM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Technically, a "true" macro lens is capable of 1:1 or greater reproduction.

1:1 reproduction means that the image at the sensor/film plane is the same size as the object being imaged. If we still USED film, you could overlay the film on the object after processing and they'd be the same size.

Sensor size has zip-all to do with it: a smaller sensor just shows less of the object being imaged at a given reproduction ratio. Focal length has zip-all to do with it; 1:1 is 1:1, you can't tell the difference in focal length. With a longer lens, you can 1:1 with more space between you and the object being imaged, but the actual size of the image will be the same, at the sensor plane.

So, for example, we use a 60mm macro on the 7D and a 100mm macro on the 5D, and you can't tell the difference between them by looking at the output, basically. Except of course that the 5D has a smoother grain pattern than the 7D...

R.


You have said nothing of pixel density, which is a crucial component in the equation.

1 sq cm on a sensor can have a vastly different number of pixels, depending on what type / model of camera it is.

As a matter of a fact, I've come to the conclusion that this is where high MP sensors actually shine, as each bit of detail gets finer, I can see a huge difference between the 50D and the 20D, something that is generally not noticeable with most subjects, but in macro those extra pixels mean extra detail, which translates to an effectively increased amount of magnification. And, I wonder if you've actually tried that experiment with the 5D and the 7D.. Seems to me that since the film plane is at the same distance, the effective magnification is not different, but the effect is, since you're covering the same area with more pixels, and thereby more detail (to a point anyhow, quality is important at some point too)...

05/02/2011 06:17:22 PM · #12
Easy test: put the camera in an underwater housing and take a picture of a great white shark. If camera survives, it wasn't a macro.
05/02/2011 06:25:18 PM · #13
Originally posted by Cory:


You have said nothing of pixel density, which is a crucial component in the equation.


That's a whole other topic; the topic under discussion here is "what attributes qualifies a lens as 'a macro'?"

Regardless of how many pixels are on the sensor (or how grainy the film is) 1:1 is still 1:1, the image SIZE is the same, physically, on the sensor; it's granularity is a variable, yes.

Regarding whether your "extra detail", it's every bit as important in wide-angle landscapes as it is in macro work, and it's been my experience that the 5D is better than the 7D in resolving detail.

R.
05/02/2011 07:00:54 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Technically, a "true" macro lens is capable of 1:1 or greater reproduction.

1:1 reproduction means that the image at the sensor/film plane is the same size as the object being imaged. If we still USED film, you could overlay the film on the object after processing and they'd be the same size.

Sensor size has zip-all to do with it: a smaller sensor just shows less of the object being imaged at a given reproduction ratio. Focal length has zip-all to do with it; 1:1 is 1:1, you can't tell the difference in focal length. With a longer lens, you can 1:1 with more space between you and the object being imaged, but the actual size of the image will be the same, at the sensor plane.

So, for example, we use a 60mm macro on the 7D and a 100mm macro on the 5D, and you can't tell the difference between them by looking at the output, basically. Except of course that the 5D has a smoother grain pattern than the 7D...

R.


You're technically correct; 1:1 is 1:1, regardless of sensor size. But (you knew there was a but) there is a tremendous practical difference. 1:1 on a digicam with a sensor the size of my little finger nail yields a total FoV as small, or even smaller, than the image from a 35mm sensor at 5:1! Reproduction ratio, in today's world, is pretty much an irrelevant measure of "macro."
05/02/2011 07:12:55 PM · #15
Originally posted by kirbic:

You're technically correct; 1:1 is 1:1, regardless of sensor size. But (you knew there was a but) there is a tremendous practical difference. 1:1 on a digicam with a sensor the size of my little finger nail yields a total FoV as small, or even smaller, than the image from a 35mm sensor at 5:1! Reproduction ratio, in today's world, is pretty much an irrelevant measure of "macro."


That's still not relevant to the discussion, which began as "What attributes qualify a lens as 'macro'?" — And the answer to that is "The ability to project a 1:1 or greater image size onto the sensor."

For the rest of it, I can CROP my 5D down to that "little fingernail" segment; that isn't proving a thing. There's a *reason* they call them "cropped sensors"...

R.

Message edited by author 2011-05-02 19:13:27.
05/02/2011 07:32:45 PM · #16
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

You're technically correct; 1:1 is 1:1, regardless of sensor size. But (you knew there was a but) there is a tremendous practical difference. 1:1 on a digicam with a sensor the size of my little finger nail yields a total FoV as small, or even smaller, than the image from a 35mm sensor at 5:1! Reproduction ratio, in today's world, is pretty much an irrelevant measure of "macro."


That's still not relevant to the discussion, which began as "What attributes qualify a lens as 'macro'?" — And the answer to that is "The ability to project a 1:1 or greater image size onto the sensor."

For the rest of it, I can CROP my 5D down to that "little fingernail" segment; that isn't proving a thing. There's a *reason* they call them "cropped sensors"...

R.


Robert,
I did understand the question... my intent was to convey the practical aspects. FWIW, shooting with a small-sensor camera @ 1:1 is much different than cropping our 5D image. Today, they are packing 12 Mpx into that tiny sensor. Crop a 5D image to that size, and you're left with 0.53 Mpx.
05/02/2011 07:45:22 PM · #17
Whoo hoo! I got one right!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Technically, a "true" macro lens is capable of 1:1 or greater reproduction.
05/02/2011 08:09:51 PM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kirbic:

You're technically correct; 1:1 is 1:1, regardless of sensor size. But (you knew there was a but) there is a tremendous practical difference. 1:1 on a digicam with a sensor the size of my little finger nail yields a total FoV as small, or even smaller, than the image from a 35mm sensor at 5:1! Reproduction ratio, in today's world, is pretty much an irrelevant measure of "macro."


That's still not relevant to the discussion, which began as "What attributes qualify a lens as 'macro'?" — And the answer to that is "The ability to project a 1:1 or greater image size onto the sensor."

For the rest of it, I can CROP my 5D down to that "little fingernail" segment; that isn't proving a thing. There's a *reason* they call them "cropped sensors"...

R.


Oh man, I get to "Bear" Bear! The actual original discussion was what makes a macro shot, not lens... :P
05/02/2011 08:24:31 PM · #19
Thanks for taking time on this, and I really appreciate the input so far, though most of you seem to a gree with lkn4truth, my amigo who occasionally still takes a shot on this site. I am starting to get the whole 1:1 issue, which truly makes something a macro. I think a good deal of my confusion rests with one of the other ponts brought (that by magnification I can make something appear to be done in macro style without really being a macro--i.e. zooming onto an insect and cropping). My friend's advice was that my flower shot in the Bokeh Challenge (which would easily print at real life size (if not bigger), is not a macro as it was not shot at 1:1 or greater, but instead is an Extreme Close Up. . .and he also told me it was not tecnically a Bokeh, but was a Very Shallow DOF shot. So, I kind of felt like a tard. LOL.
05/03/2011 07:05:56 AM · #20
The term "Macro" was around long before digital cameras appeared. So, I do not agree that the photo site parameters are relevant to the definition.

The original meanings and definitions stills stands as far as I am concerned.

Nikon does not commonly use the term, macro. They use the more correct term "Micro" to define their products with a magnification ratio better than 1:1. They use the term macro for wider viewpoint lenses with lessor ratios, exactly as the Oxford dictionary defines these words. These two words are used in many other ways that align with my point of view, including business. For example, microeconomics and macroeconomics. Micro is defined as a closer view than macro.

This is my view. Clearly, it will not be everyone's view. So, whatever works for you is likely fine. The proper use of language gets so distorted these days that I long ago surrendered to the idea of suggesting to others the correct usage of specific words, proper spelling, punctuation, or grammar. In this world of social media, language has taken a back seat to laziness, speed, and inadequate keyboarding skills.
05/03/2011 11:55:38 AM · #21
Originally posted by Morgan:

The term "Macro" was around long before digital cameras appeared. So, I do not agree that the photo site parameters are relevant to the definition.

The original meanings and definitions stills stands as far as I am concerned.

Nikon does not commonly use the term, macro. They use the more correct term "Micro" to define their products with a magnification ratio better than 1:1. They use the term macro for wider viewpoint lenses with lessor ratios, exactly as the Oxford dictionary defines these words. These two words are used in many other ways that align with my point of view, including business. For example, microeconomics and macroeconomics. Micro is defined as a closer view than macro.



The Micro-Nikkor name has been around for a long time. The classic Micro-Nikkor 55mm 2.8 only went to 1:2 macro ratio. Same for it's predessor the Micro-Nikkor 55mm 3.5 (my first ever macro lens)

You needed an extension tube to get to 1:1
05/03/2011 12:15:03 PM · #22
Couple observations:
- I believe the source of the micro (meaning small) vs. macro (meaning large) terminology difference was the point of view. Micro refers to photographing small objects, where as macro refers to the largeness of the projected image. Just two different ways to think about the same situation.
- The loose, 1:1 or 1:2 definition of macro/micro has its roots in 35mm photography. Applying it to other formats is inappropriate. In any case, it is a *very* loose definition.
05/03/2011 02:59:04 PM · #23
Two answers:

Old School: 1:1 on a 24mm x 36mm film (or full frame sensor). In this instance if you laid the object you photographed on the top of the negative it would be the exact same size, aka "life size". Alternately if you printed the digital image at 24mm x 36mm size you could lay the object you photographed on the top of it and it would be the same size as well. One easy way to think of it is a US quarter photographed to fill the frame is approximately 1:1.

Common usage: Some form of close-up. Many modern zoom lenses are labeled macro and do not get you to 1:1. What that really means is that the focus closer than some other zooms. Also people will say "macro of a flower" to mean a "zoomed in closeup".
05/03/2011 03:34:21 PM · #24
Originally posted by bobnospum:

Alternately if you printed the digital image at 24mm x 36mm size you could lay the object you photographed on the top of it and it would be the same size as well. One easy way to think of it is a US quarter photographed to fill the frame is approximately 1:1.

I think this is what I was thinking of when I mentioned sensor size and pixel density affecting what should be considered "actual size" ... if the image is resized (without resampling) to 36mm in the longer dimension, is the image as larger or larger than the actual subject?

For example, that bee I posted earlier is nowhere near 30mm long in real life, but fills most of the frame; I probably have closer to 2:1 magnification in that shot.
05/03/2011 03:43:57 PM · #25
I thought the term macro in the photographic context was similar to macro in the context of microscopes. You use a microscope to magnify things several times by shining light through them -- thus allowing you to see through/at different depths depending on focus. You use a macro microscope to view the surface of things magnified, just like you would with a photographic macro lens. I'm probably way off.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 05:17:55 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 05:17:55 AM EDT.