With a Panasonic LX3, I'm able to take a picture at a distance of 1cm from the subject, and see the intricate details available at that close perspective. As I review options for DSLR macro lens, I see that high end macro lens enable for getting close as 8", not 1cm. My question is.....how does a DSLR macro lens reproduce the close up effect that a compact digital can accomplish from such a short distance from the subject.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Macro Lens question
- Thread starter lx3_fan
- Start date
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
With compact zooms, it works out that they can get the most magnification at short focal lengths (otherwise the lens would have to stick out of the camera by about 200mm). This means that whatever you're shooting is right up by the lens. You might think that this is a good thing, but the lens gets in the way of your light. Any macros you take at 1cm have got the lighting ruined by a large dark object (your lens and camera) right in front.
What counts in macro is field of view. DSLR macro lenses can produce very small fields of view at reasonable working distances, allowing you to put decent lighting on the subject.
Another misleading number is that the focus distances for SLR macros are the distance from the sensor to the subject; obviously, a lot of this distance is taken up by the camera and lens, so the actual working distance is much less.
--
Leonard Migliore
Thank you for the clarification on the focal distance being somewhat mitigated by the lens/body length. I use a lightbox for illumination of the macro subjects, therefore light obfuscation by the lens and body is not an issue. I am in learning mode, and becoming aware of some of the shortcomings of using compact cameras for technical applications. Therefore, I am researching the macro lens capabilities of DSLR cameras, and want to ensure that I will be able to get the same level of detail, which is essentially microscopic with the equipment I use now. I suppose you could say that I'm doing micro photography vs. macro photography, but I am intrigued with the smallest level of detail possible. Will the same perspective be available with a DSLR macro lens?
AnandaSim
Forum Pro
I think compact cameras have muddied the waters in technical understanding of macros. The others may give more authoritative answers...
Macro used to be a term that specified that the lens would have a flat focus field. For amateur and popular use, macro became a term that meant you could focus near, regardless of how flat the field of focus is.
Macros were also marked out as 1:1, 1:2 etc.... 1:1 means that 1 cm at the object is 1 cm at the film or sensor for example.
Micros, I think were higher than 1:1 ratio, e.g. 2:1 meaning 1 cm on the object would be 2 cm on the film / sensor.
Nikon calls their lenses Micro Nikkors - although these are Macro lenses.
Let's not talk about zooms first, the classic macro lenses were primes, single focal length. For example, Olympus, the brand I use has a 35mm, a 50mm and soon a 100mm prime lens. Three lenses are offered because if we take 1:2, all three lenses can do that magnification. The difference between the three lenses is that 35mm, you have to be pretty near to the object whilst 100mm, you are further away. This determines your perspective.
I had a quick look at this page - you may find it useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
Ananda
http://anandasim.mp
Macro used to be a term that specified that the lens would have a flat focus field. For amateur and popular use, macro became a term that meant you could focus near, regardless of how flat the field of focus is.
Macros were also marked out as 1:1, 1:2 etc.... 1:1 means that 1 cm at the object is 1 cm at the film or sensor for example.
Micros, I think were higher than 1:1 ratio, e.g. 2:1 meaning 1 cm on the object would be 2 cm on the film / sensor.
Nikon calls their lenses Micro Nikkors - although these are Macro lenses.
Let's not talk about zooms first, the classic macro lenses were primes, single focal length. For example, Olympus, the brand I use has a 35mm, a 50mm and soon a 100mm prime lens. Three lenses are offered because if we take 1:2, all three lenses can do that magnification. The difference between the three lenses is that 35mm, you have to be pretty near to the object whilst 100mm, you are further away. This determines your perspective.
I had a quick look at this page - you may find it useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography
--
Ananda
http://anandasim.mp
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
lx3_fan wrote:
snip
I think what you mean is photo-micrography , which is the business of making normal-sized photographs of very small things, usually through a microscope.
In practise the difference may not be very noticeable because of the lack of Depth of Field pertaining to macro photography on to larger sensors. Essentially the lens will only get a subject depth of a few millimetres sharp enough to read, so those image elements that are further or nearer, and could give a sense of perspective... will be too blurred to be seen properly, anyway.
As it happens, small sensors make a lot of sense for macro shooting, especially in cameras that can close focus at the longer ends of their zoom range. There are not so many around like that, now, but I keep one of the older ones specifically because it is a wiz at easy macros with good stand-off...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/
The A2 model can fill the frame with a subject 2¼" across with NO additional equipment at all, just by switching the lens into its 'macro' mode. The addition of the special high grade Minolta achromatic close-up lens (CL49-200) allows moving closer and filling the frame with a subject only 1¼" across, and that is better than 1:1 macro on a traditional FF35mm camera.
For these reasons it might make more sense to buy, say, a 4/3rds camera in preference to even an APS sensored dSLR. Also, if I recall correctly, the Olympus macro lens is a really high performer... (shrugs)
--
Regards,
Baz
snip
Errr... usually microscopic detail is only available when photographing through a microscope. Is that what you are doing?
Actually, micro-photography is the business of making very small photographs. An example would be the microdots beloved of international spying for secret transmission of documents.
I think what you mean is photo-micrography , which is the business of making normal-sized photographs of very small things, usually through a microscope.
Since perspective is an effect caused by the distance between the lens and different ranges within the subject, the increased stand-off that comes from changing up to dSLR macro will change perspective. It will be flattened somewhat, as standing back from a subject always does.
In practise the difference may not be very noticeable because of the lack of Depth of Field pertaining to macro photography on to larger sensors. Essentially the lens will only get a subject depth of a few millimetres sharp enough to read, so those image elements that are further or nearer, and could give a sense of perspective... will be too blurred to be seen properly, anyway.
As it happens, small sensors make a lot of sense for macro shooting, especially in cameras that can close focus at the longer ends of their zoom range. There are not so many around like that, now, but I keep one of the older ones specifically because it is a wiz at easy macros with good stand-off...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/
The A2 model can fill the frame with a subject 2¼" across with NO additional equipment at all, just by switching the lens into its 'macro' mode. The addition of the special high grade Minolta achromatic close-up lens (CL49-200) allows moving closer and filling the frame with a subject only 1¼" across, and that is better than 1:1 macro on a traditional FF35mm camera.
For these reasons it might make more sense to buy, say, a 4/3rds camera in preference to even an APS sensored dSLR. Also, if I recall correctly, the Olympus macro lens is a really high performer... (shrugs)
--
Regards,
Baz
Dave Martin
Senior Member
"Working distance" is the space between the lens and the subject. For simple lenses it obeys the following rule:
Working_Distance=Focal_Length(1+Subject_width/Sensor_width)
The dominant term in this equation is the lens' focal length. DSLR's use longer actual focal length lenses so can be farther from the subject.
Dave in Iowa
Dave Martin
Senior Member
It may be practical to use a strong close-up lens to move your LX3 away from the subject!
When a close-up lens is placed in front of a primary lens, the effect is to bring subjects at the close-up lens' focal length into focus. This has the effect of allowing your P&S camera to use longer focal lengths to bring not-so-nearby subjects into focus at larger net magnification.
Here is a high quality achromatic lens I bought on eBay used on a Fujifilm F20 P&S camera:
Close-up Image quality with this lens is superb for my Fujifilm F20 & not so good for my Fuji F70EXR. I have no idea how it will perform with an LX3.
Here's a link to the lens: http://tinyurl/ylhd7f2
Dave in Iowa
sherwoodpete
Veteran Member
Not really, though it may depend on the subject as to how important it is.
Here's an example, shot from very close range with the old Olympus C5050 and from rather further away with a 105mm macro lens on a DSLR.
The closer range shot has the more dramatic perspective. Incidentally, different focus points were deliberately chosen in the two shots, though this does not affect perspective.
Regards,
Peter
Dave Martin
Senior Member
Good example Peter! Thank you.
First off, you're using the word "perspective" in an everyday sense that's not the same as the technical, photographic sense of the word. Some of the replies that you've gotten so far have treated it like the latter, which I'm afraid may be causing some confusion.
But now the main point of my reply: contrary to what you effectively assume the distance between the front of the lens and the subject just isn't relevant in the way you think. That is just one physical parameter of macro photography, that can vary somewhat independently of the other ones. Put in other terms, how small of an subject you can fill the photo with isn't directly determined by how close the lens is from the subject; different camera/lens combinations will do this at different distances. As a general rule, farther away is better (and requires more expensive gear).
The way I like to think of macro photography (somewhat unconventionally, I admit) is by comparing the size of objects in a print with their sizes in real life; a good (and idiosyncratic) term for this is "print-to-life ratio." So if you take a frame-filling photo of a 32x24mm postage stamp, and print it at 8x6" (203.2x152.4mm), your print-to-life-ratio is about 6.35:1 (203.2mm divided by 32mm). The way I like to think of it (and you'll get plenty of people who disagree with me), a good approximation to what "macro" means is making larger-than-life prints of very small objects.
Print-to-life ratio is the product of two other ratios that depend on your camera and lens:
- Print-to-sensor ratio, more conventionally called enlargement . This is the ratio between the size of your camera sensor and the size of the print. Your LX3's sensor is roughly 8.17x6.13mm, so the enlargement ratio to make an 8x6" print would be about 24.87:1 (203.2mm divided by 8.17mm). A Four Thirds camera like the Panasonic G1 has a much larger 17.3x13mm sensor, so the enlargement required to make that print is just 11.75:1 (203.2mm divided by 17.3mm).
- Sensor-to-life ratio, more conventionally called lens magnification or reproduction ratio . If you're filling the photo frame on your LX3 with that 32x24mm postage stamp from above, this ratio is about 1:3.91 (8.17mm divided by 32mm), which is not considered to be a very large magnification ratio in the DSLR world. On the Panasonic G1, on the other hand, that photo requires a lens magnification of 1:1.85 (17.3mm divided by 32mm), which is large enough to require a specially designed macro lens.
All I've said above indirectly answers this question. The distance from the subject isn't directly relevant. Any lens/camera/print enlargement combination that produces the suitable ratios will give you the same effect. The compact camera achieves it by using a really small sensor that can be filled by a conventional (low-magnification) lens design. The DSLR achieves it by using a specially designed lens to fill a large sensor. The distance between lens and subject is otherwise irrelevant, other than the fact that farther away is better, and thus a DSLR+lens that allow you to be 67.5mm away from the subject at 1:1 (Panasonic 45mm macro, my estimate) is better than a compact camera lens that requires you to be 1cm away.
Not quite. I've been looking at the 35mm f/3.5 Zuiko for macro work. The specs say the minimum focus is about 6 inches. However if you see it in action (sorry, I'm not sure where I saw the picture or I'd link it) the front of the lens will be about 1 inch from the subject when maxed out. Reason: six inches to the sensor is what they mean. The camera + lens is about 5 inches deep.
I point this out because I was thinking six inches wouldn't be a horrible working distance...but I'd scare off a lot of butterflies if the front of my lens were just an inch away.
sherwoodpete
Veteran Member
Well yes, but you are mixing up two different terms:
- "Working Distance" - distance from front of lens to subject
- "Minimum Focus Distance" - distance from sensor to subject
Regards,
Peter
I appreciate the input I received from everyone on the forum regarding this subject. I have a much clearer understanding of macro photography and macro lens as it relates to DSLR and Compact Digital cameras. There is a wealth of information provided by the people who posted replies on this topic.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum