If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
Paul Furman wrote:
There are some rules of physics that probably make the traditional sensor magnification scenario relevant, plus it's easy math, but I tend to agree mm per pixel on the subject is the most useful measurement for macro pics. However, it would have to be linked to lppmm performance of the lens/sensor to tell the full story; lppmm = line pairs per millimeter on the sensor, which is obviously limited by pixel count and lens sharpness, that's what they use to rate lenses with a test chart. Indeed... -- Bertrand |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote: That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking up close at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes out of my DSLR (Canon 450D), this is far from being the same quality. My rule of thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while the DSLR pics are still OK at 1:1... This is a human perception issue, and not really a true image-quality issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a shallow DOF image, the bits that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in the image is painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a black background as opposed to when presented on a gray background. It's a human perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image regions. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Living in This Century" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:43:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Living in This Century" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:03:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * Neil Harrington wrote : * David J. Littleboy wrote : There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with it, but maybe I'm missing something.. snip / There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1 lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not talking field of view, that's different. As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of view *is* what we're talking about. Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." The old macro definition of 1:1 for 35mm film no longer holds true to various sensor sizes. That was only a convenient definition to "standardize" a certain type of subject being photographed, an arbitrary cut-off point to make communicating about various photography techniques easier. Today it is safe to say that anything that is 1:1 when compared to a 35mm film frame is also true macro-photography, no matter the sensor size being used to record it. It's silly to use antiquated definitions that no longer mean anything. There is no difference in the size of the resulting subject's image when printed or displayed today if it is taken on a full-frame sensor or a 1/2.5 sensor. The best you can do is use the old 35mm standard, just as you do for equivalent 35mm lens focal-lengths for all cameras today. That's reasonable enough, but using 35mm equivalence for "macro" would mean accepting a lens as macro if it would focus down to 1:1.5 on a DX-format camera -- and that would probably not be acceptable to many people. Besides, since a 1:1 full-frame lens can be used on a DX body, it would be inconsistent to accept a 1:1.5 DX lens as "macro" even though it produces the same final image magnification as a 1:1 lens on full frame. In the case of cameras with 1/2.5 sensors, it seems safe to say no one will produce a 1:1 lens for them since that would almost be getting into the world of photomicrography. :-) That's why the out-dated definition of 1:1 meaning "macro" is nonsense today. Well, that usage started with 35mm cameras and of course it always was an arbitrary sort of thing. Other than for slide copying, there was no particular reason that I can see for 1:1 being any sort of a holy grail. As a matter of fact, some legitimate macro lenses only focused down to 1:2 without an adapter. Since most if not all DSLRs are pretty much directly descended from 35mm SLRs, and typically use the same lenses, the carryover of the 1:1 standard for macro is understandable even if it causes some confusion. When using supplementary close-up achromats I get very good "macro" images on a 1/2.5 sized sensor where the subject to sensor-image dimensions well exceed the pedantic "macro" 1:1 ratio. 2mm size subjects filling the full frame on a 5.76mm wide sensor. Subject sizes with adequate DOF that are all but impossible on a DSLR's larger sensor. On that 1/2.5 size sensor a subject of 2mm is WELL within the realm of "micro" when compared to 35mm standards, yet the useful image from it is just as good as that from a full-frame sensor (actually better, because of the extended DOF possible on a smaller sensor). The 1:1 = "macro" definition needs to be left in last century, where it belongs. That never really was a universal definition anyway -- as I said, it began with 35mm cameras and their interchangeable lenses, and the idea of a 1:1 standard for macro lenses simply became a convention that was generally accepted for this type of specialized lens for such cameras. Other kinds of cameras such as view cameras were also well adapted to extreme close-up work, and I never heard of a "macro lens" for those cameras. Lens manufacturers often applied the term "macro" to any zoom lens that would focus down to 1:4 or thereabouts. Many photographers objected to this usage on the grounds that such lenses didn't meet the 1:1 or even 1:2 standard, but on the other hand Nikon has always taken the position that the term "macro" should be reserved for lenses that focus much *closer* than 1:1 -- which is why they use "micro" for lenses that other makers would call "macro." So really, the principle of Humpty Dumptyism ("the word means what I choose it to mean") applies here. I think the problem stems from those DSLR owners who are desperately grasping at straws, deceiving themselves, trying to find another way to try to believe that their camera must somehow be superior, just because they can produce a 1:1 image more easily (albeit at a poorer to useless too-shallow DOF) on their larger sensor cameras. I find just the opposite to be true due to the extended DOF on smaller sensors as the superior choice for all macro-photography. The images quality being just as good, and often better, and more of the subject in focus than what they can ever obtain on their DSLRs. Not to mention that hand-held "macro" even under normal indoor room-lighting is a piece of cake on a smaller sensor. No flash required to obtain a useful DOF by having to greatly stop down a DSLR lens into a region where the lens loses all of its pricey resolution capability. Not unlike cutting off your nose to spite your face, but in photography terms. Self-deceptive justification is a nasty thing. :-) Well, you seem to have a great deal of hostility toward DSLRs and their owners. I own, use and enjoy both types of camera. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Compact cameras have the great advantage of, well, compactness. It's nice to have a camera that you can slip into any pocket, or in a somewhat larger size, one which has all the useful focal lengths from wide angle to really long telephoto, all in one lens. What a pleasure it is not to have to lug around a bag filled with camera body and lenses, flash unit etc. Even compacts with shorter-range zooms sometimes have a unique combination of features that makes them desirable -- I would never sell my Coolpix 8400, for example. And for those who care about video, I suppose compact cameras are still better for that, at least at the present state of the art (I rarely use it myself). But for most general photography when size and weight are not terribly important, and complete control over what you are doing *is* important, I cannot imagine anyone believing a compact might be the equal of a DSLR. For starters, the DSLR's pentaprism viewfinder makes a bad joke out of any electronic viewfinder. The DSLR's manual zoom is so much faster, easier and more accurate than a compact's motorized zoom that there is just no comparison. The DSLR does not have the severe noise problems at higher ISOs that are typical of compacts with their tiny sensors. The DSLR is far more flexible and advanced in its use of flash than any compact. And so on. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
Food for Thought wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking up close at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes out of my DSLR (Canon 450D), this is far from being the same quality. My rule of thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while the DSLR pics are still OK at 1:1... This is a human perception issue, and not really a true image-quality issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a shallow DOF image, the bits that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in the image is painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a black background as opposed to when presented on a gray background. It's a human perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image regions. No, I'm talking in general, when taking well focused pictures with enough DOF on both cameras. The P&S image looks good until you get close, while the DSLR image stays good all the way. -- Bertrand |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:47:30 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote: Food for Thought wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking up close at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes out of my DSLR (Canon 450D), this is far from being the same quality. My rule of thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while the DSLR pics are still OK at 1:1... This is a human perception issue, and not really a true image-quality issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a shallow DOF image, the bits that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in the image is painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a black background as opposed to when presented on a gray background. It's a human perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image regions. No, I'm talking in general, when taking well focused pictures with enough DOF on both cameras. The P&S image looks good until you get close, while the DSLR image stays good all the way. major-eye-roll |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Ofnuts" wrote in message ... Food for Thought wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:44 +0200, Ofnuts wrote: That's where most people will start disagreeing. When looking up close at what comes out of my P&S (Pana FZ8), and what comes out of my DSLR (Canon 450D), this is far from being the same quality. My rule of thumb is that the FZ8 pictures start looking crappy at 1:3 zoom, while the DSLR pics are still OK at 1:1... What do you mean by "crappy at 1:3 zoom" as opposed to "still OK at 1:1"? This is a human perception issue, and not really a true image-quality issue. Due to so much being out of focus in a shallow DOF image, the bits that are sharp only appear sharper in contrast to how much in the image is painfully out of focus. Just as a white dot looks whiter on a black background as opposed to when presented on a gray background. It's a human perception contrast between percentages of blurry and sharp image regions. No, I'm talking in general, when taking well focused pictures with enough DOF on both cameras. The P&S image looks good until you get close, while the DSLR image stays good all the way. I am not understanding this at all. When say "until you get close," do you mean the viewer getting close to the picture, or the camera getting close to the subject? What sort of pictures are you talking about, taken how? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:38:26 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: That never really was a universal definition anyway Actually, it was. But it's not just 1:1. There were defined ranges within which each term embraced their subject to virtual-image size. These were/are the scientific and optical designers' concrete definitions. (image-size : subject-size) 10:1 to 10:1 = microphotography or photomicrography 10:1 to 1:1 = macro photography 1:1 to 1:10 = gross photography (still in common use in medical fields) 1:10 to 1:100 = photography 1:100 to 1:100 = telephotography or astrophotography (can also be represented in "subject-size : image-size" order as well, depending who is writing things at the time) The ranges within which each term progressed in powers of 10. I somewhat recall that 1:100 to 1:1000 = telephotography (terrestrial long-distance), and 1:1000 to 1:1000 = astrophotography (beyond earth) Even those two having their defined ranges, but I would be remiss to state that as fact. Just a strong but vague memory of how two more ranges were termed. The long distance through turbulent and dense atmosphere along the surface of the earth preventing good imaging at greater than 1:1000. Why the two terms were used independently. Today most people lump macro with gross photography and just call that 10:1 to 1:10 combined range as macro photography. Also often in error when they think that microphotography starts at subjects smaller than 1:1. Microphotography requires one more power of 10 before its beginning range. As for the rest of all the biased DSLR ownership blind justifications, it doesn't hold up under real-world macro photography use. Keep on deceiving yourselves. Been there, did that. I now use the proper tool for the job. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote:
(image-size : subject-size) 10:1 to 10:1 = microphotography or photomicrography 10:1 to 1:1 = macro photography 1:1 to 1:10 = gross photography (still in common use in medical fields) 1:10 to 1:100 = photography 1:100 to 1:100 = telephotography or astrophotography I like the rule of thumb that goes like, it's a "macro" photo, rather than merely close-up, if you can see detail in it that you can't see with the naked eye. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote:
Also often in error when they think that microphotography starts at subjects smaller than 1:1. Microphotography requires one more power of 10 before its beginning range. Most folks actually know that microphotography is what WWII and Cold War spies did. Micro sized pictures... that can be embedded in the period at the end of a sentence on a piece of paper, so that nobody will realize that it is hiding the secret to the Atom Bomb. Photomicrography, on the other hand, is making big pictures of micro sized little things. Page size pictures of periods that have an embedded image, for example... :-) -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:28:19 +0800, "Wilba"
wrote: 60 Yrs. Pedantry 60 Yrs. Creativity wrote: (image-size : subject-size) 10:1 to 10:1 = microphotography or photomicrography 10:1 to 1:1 = macro photography 1:1 to 1:10 = gross photography (still in common use in medical fields) 1:10 to 1:100 = photography 1:100 to 1:100 = telephotography or astrophotography I like the rule of thumb that goes like, it's a "macro" photo, rather than merely close-up, if you can see detail in it that you can't see with the naked eye. Does this include hyperopic (farsighted) people with 20/50 20/35 vision? (each eye is measured independently) And which of those two eyes will you use to determine the macro range of photography? Macro might then become anything smaller than a 40" TV set. Don't get me wrong. I too find those definitions too stodgy for general photography and general discussions about the subject, but they do exist and are correct when one must use precise terms. Plus, I would think for all the anally pedantic trolls in these news-groups they would applaud having yet one more reason to bash each other, or when they have to resort to childish red-herring evasiveness after they've clearly lost an argument. Beyond the usual simple spelling-typo excuses they use to desperately garner attention for their troll selves. At least they might finally learn something useful while they troll the world for attention in an attempt to fill that fathomless void inside (mentally and emotionally). For personal and casual discussion I use a method similar to yours but based on subject sizes. Something akin to: A pack of cigarettes or larger item = photography, a postage stamp or small group of stamps = macro, one letter or number on that stamp = getting into micro. Even then not cut & dried, just subjects at or around those limits. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Macro + extension tubes | Gordon MacPherson | Digital Photography | 2 | June 21st 07 12:38 PM |
macro equipment: macro lens or extension tubes? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 06 08:13 AM |
Extension Tubes or Macro Lens? | Edward Holt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 3rd 06 09:26 PM |
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters. | default | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | January 20th 06 07:24 AM |
How does adding extension affect macro lenses? | Belgos | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | April 28th 05 06:29 PM |