The Cell Phones Are Coming for Us, Too!

Luisifer wrote:

Jack Tingle wrote:

Me either, but it's the best macro setup that fits in my pocket.

Funny theme on the one hand but from time to time it would be good to remember that macro (magnification about 1:1 and higher) could be counted thanks to sensor size too.

Why would that be "good to remember" when it's not even remotely true?

Remember, the term "macro photography" (or more properly "photo macrography") was coined 123 years ago by the photographer W. H. Walmsley, who literally wrote the book on the subject "Photo Micrography For Everyone". He defined "macro" and "micro" entirely in terms of how big the subject was. If you could fill a print with an object you'd observe with a 10 diameter lens, you had a "macro". For a standard 8x10 print, that was roughly a 1 inch object.

It's only a weird coincidence that 35mm "Leica format" film takes 24mm images, so the 1 inch object that is the true definition of "macro" just happens to be 1:1. Lens makers used that as a selling point: a 55mm "macro lens" with a 27.5mm helicoid and a matching 27.5mm extension tube could hit 1:1 with a minimum of special equipment.

Did that 1:1 definition work on 6x7cm medium format? Nope. Did it work on 4x5 or 8x10 inch large format? Absolutely not (more on that in a sec). Did it work on 16mm "subminiature" format or "Minox" format? Not at all. It was totally specific to 35mm "miniature" or "Leica" format. Period. End of story.

Remember, vibration is in the same units as subject size, and depth of field is proportional to magnification relative to the final print or image file, not the sensor size, so everything you have to do, all the techniques you have to use, are proportional to the subject size, not the sensor size. Taking a picture of a 1 inch subject with a 35mm camera at 1:1, a medium format at 2:1, or a 4x5 at 5x is not that dissimilar an experience.

In that mobilephone case the result would be photo with 6mm part of the ruler and not the 2 inches.

And in the case of the antique 10x14 Kodak portrait camera we had in the lobby of Midwest Photographic Workshops, 1:1 would be a headshot. A portrait of a woman that includes a hat and a pearl necklace is not a "macro" photograph by any definition known to man.

I built a 4x5 view camera that could use the 50mm Leitz Photar at magnifications of 5-20x (you have to extend a 50mm lens 1m to hit 20x. It had long rails). 5x mag on the 4x5 looks a lot like 1:1 on a 35mm camera. (My first "focus stack" was done by manually masking 4 shots from a 4x5 before we started doing that sort of thing on those "computer" contraptions).

Just this size of ruler mean magnification about 1:8. And this is magnification to far from the macro range.

And yet, at 16x9 it is roughly a 1x2 inch frame, exactly Walmsley's definition, and exactly the same picture you get with a "macro" lens on a 35mm FF camera.

So the truth is that it fits to your pocket but it is really not the macro setup.

The truth is that it's exactly a macro setup.

But if you must insist on a definition that isn't actually true: the picture I shot with my Samsung Galaxy S21 ultra elsewhere in this thread is about 12mm, on the short telephoto camera (the S21 has a 72mm equivalent straight telephoto and a 210mm equivalent periscope lens telephoto) camera) with a 1/3.24" sensor with its 12mm diagonal is basically a 1:1.

(Technically, that camera can focus down to 1.5x, I just didn't have the light for that where I shot. I gave it what I could without putting the subject in the shadow of the camera).

.. on the other hand of fun, one photo with magnification 1:2 by reversed Mamiya-Sekor 105mm f3.5 lens on 8x10" planfilm:

Interesting, but can I ask why?

The 105mm f/3.5 Mamiya-Sekor is a Tessar variation. A relatively cheap 105mm enlarger lens would simply shred it. Or is the blur the point, and you're just after tonality?