Reproduction ratio 1:1

My Nikkor Z 105mm has a reproduction ratio of 1:1 and from what I read the lens is therefore perfect for macro. I've read a lot about it, including here on DPReview, but I'd like to see it in front of me. So, does anyone have examples of macro photos where 1:1 is and where it isn't? Because I try to visualize it in order to understand properly the benefits of this for macro photography.

Do your own. Get a sheet of mm grid graph paper. Take a photo of a 36×24mm section. Print it out on a 36×24mm section of paper. Then print it on 8×10" paper. There you go.

BBbuilder467 wrote:

Gilbert1 wrote:

My Nikkor Z 105mm has a reproduction ratio of 1:1 and from what I read the lens is therefore perfect for macro. I've read a lot about it, including here on DPReview, but I'd like to see it in front of me. So, does anyone have examples of macro photos where 1:1 is and where it isn't? Because I try to visualize it in order to understand properly the benefits of this for macro photography.

1:1 is when the image is exactly the dimensions of the sensor.

If you placed a US dime on an area that size, that's what you would see in the frame.

Any example of 1:1 with a full frame body would be the same. I think a US quarter fills the frame from top to bottom at 1:1 with full frame.

hmm, not sure thats right. if you focus on a dime @ 1:1 the dime will be the same size on both apc or ff sensors, but as the ff has a bigger sensor there will be more space around the edges

try this from allan wells Sensor Size and Magnification - correcting a common misunderstanding - YouTube

regards

Jim

Jack Tingle wrote:

Do your own. Get a sheet of mm grid graph paper. Take a photo of a 36×24mm section. Print it out on a 36×24mm section of paper. Then print it on 8×10" paper. There you go.

Thanks!

BBbuilder467 wrote:

I think a US quarter fills the frame from top to bottom at 1:1 with full frame.

Thanks. What do you mean with this last sentence?

jim mij wrote:

BBbuilder467 wrote:

Gilbert1 wrote:

My Nikkor Z 105mm has a reproduction ratio of 1:1 and from what I read the lens is therefore perfect for macro. I've read a lot about it, including here on DPReview, but I'd like to see it in front of me. So, does anyone have examples of macro photos where 1:1 is and where it isn't? Because I try to visualize it in order to understand properly the benefits of this for macro photography.

1:1 is when the image is exactly the dimensions of the sensor.

If you placed a US dime on an area that size, that's what you would see in the frame.

Any example of 1:1 with a full frame body would be the same. I think a US quarter fills the frame from top to bottom at 1:1 with full frame.

hmm, not sure thats right. if you focus on a dime @ 1:1 the dime will be the same size on both apc or ff sensors, but as the ff has a bigger sensor there will be more space around the edges

try this from allan wells Sensor Size and Magnification - correcting a common misunderstanding - YouTube

regards

Jim

Thanks Jim. After all your explanations, I hope I understand. I'm still going to watch the video but unfortunately it is not in my own language (Dutch).

He means (he thinks) the height of a full frame sensor is about the same as the height of a US quarter.

Actually, the classic definition of macro is that the scale is at least 1:1. It has been watered down, so now many people call any closeup a macro.

It's maybe easier if you think about film. Pretend you photograph, say, a small coin at 1:1 with a film camera. Then, when you have developed the film, you can put that frame over the real life coin and you will see that the picture of the coin will cover the real coin exactly. The object has the same size (in mm or inches) on the film (or sensor) as it has in real life. That's all it means.

meow wrote:

He means (he thinks) the height of a full frame sensor is about the same as the height of a US quarter.

Actually, the classic definition of macro is that the scale is at least 1:1. It has been watered down, so now many people call any closeup a macro.

It's maybe easier if you think about film. Pretend you photograph, say, a small coin at 1:1 with a film camera. Then, when you have developed the film, you can put that frame over the real life coin and you will see that the picture of the coin will cover the real coin exactly. The object has the same size (in mm or inches) on the film (or sensor) as it has in real life. That's all it means.

Thanks. It makes it more clear to me. But my question then is, what is the big advantage of this? Because in a photo editing program I'm going to enlarge that little coin.

BBbuilder467 wrote:

Gilbert1 wrote:

BBbuilder467 wrote:

I think a US quarter fills the frame from top to bottom at 1:1 with full frame.

Thanks. What do you mean with this last sentence?

A US quarter is about the same diameter as the full frame sensor is tall.

If you took a close-up of a dinner plate with a US quarter in the center, at 1:1, only the coin would be in the frame.

When you fill the frame with the dinner plate, it's a close-up, but 1:1 is macro, where the coin fills the frame. That's the 1:1 you'll get with full frame.

You're using a full frame camera, so it doesn't matter what somebody else gets. You asked what you'll get at 1:1.

Thanks. It helps me understand it well.

Hello Gilbert,

1. Reproduction ratio

reproduction ratio means the size you got on the sensor vs the real size of the subject. With 1:1 it means the same. So if you try to make a photo of an insect that measures 10mm of lenght it will have the same measure on your sensor (10mm).

2. How to get it

How to get the 1:1 ratio ? You must be at the min focus distance from the subject. If you do photo not at the min distance you will not get the 1:1 ratio, but a lower ratio. So to sum up, using a macro lens from far way of the subject is ... useless !

3. Size on the screen with a 24Mp FF camera

I understand you have a Z6, so let me explain you what will be the result.

• Your camera is a FF : 24mmx36mm
• its resolution is :4000x6000 pixels
• that mean a linear resolution of : 6000 pixels/36mm = 167 pixels/mm

So if you do a photo of a subject that measure 10mm at min focus distance, on the sensor it will measure 10mm too and it will be : 10mm*167pixels/mm = 1670 pixels on the screen. On a fullHD screen (1920 pixels wide) it's almost the size of the screen.

fzrTom wrote:

Hello Gilbert,

1. Reproduction ratio

reproduction ratio means the size you got on the sensor vs the real size of the subject. With 1:1 it means the same. So if you try to make a photo of an insect that measures 10mm of lenght it will have the same measure on your sensor (10mm).

2. How to get it

How to get the 1:1 ratio ? You must be at the min focus distance from the subject. If you do photo not at the min distance you will not get the 1:1 ratio, but a lower ratio. So to sum up, using a macro lens from far way of the subject is ... useless !

3. Size on the screen with a 24Mp FF camera

I understand you have a Z6, so let me explain you what will be the result.

• Your camera is a FF : 24mmx36mm
• its resolution is :4000x6000 pixels
• that mean a linear resolution of : 6000 pixels/36mm = 167 pixels/mm

So if you do a photo of a subject that measure 10mm at min focus distance, on the sensor it will measure 10mm too and it will be : 10mm*167pixels/mm = 1670 pixels on the screen. On a fullHD screen (1920 pixels wide) it's almost the size of the screen.

Thanks Franck. You explain well. Very clear to me.

Gilbert1 wrote:

meow wrote:

He means (he thinks) the height of a full frame sensor is about the same as the height of a US quarter.

Actually, the classic definition of macro is that the scale is at least 1:1. It has been watered down, so now many people call any closeup a macro.

It's maybe easier if you think about film. Pretend you photograph, say, a small coin at 1:1 with a film camera. Then, when you have developed the film, you can put that frame over the real life coin and you will see that the picture of the coin will cover the real coin exactly. The object has the same size (in mm or inches) on the film (or sensor) as it has in real life. That's all it means.

Thanks. It makes it more clear to me. But my question then is, what is the big advantage of this? Because in a photo editing program I'm going to enlarge that little coin.

OK. Say you want a picture of a car standing 10 meters from where you stand and you can't get any closer. You shoot it with a 50mm lens (full frame eq). The car is pretty small in the picture so you crop it and enlarge the crop. Now you have a picture of the car filling the frame, but it will look pretty crappy, because the resolution will be low (few pixels). Had you instead used maybe a 200 mm lens, the car had filled the frame to start with and you could work with the full resolution image in your editor.

This is the same thing. If you want that coin to fill the frame, the quality of the photo will be better if you can accomplish that in the camera already.

There's nothing magical with 1:1. There are macro lenses that give you 2:1 or even more. It's mainly that 1:1 is the smallest scale for true macro, so manufacturers like to put that on their lenses. 0.9:1 wouldn't sell as well, I suspect.

meow wrote:

Gilbert1 wrote:

meow wrote:

He means (he thinks) the height of a full frame sensor is about the same as the height of a US quarter.

Actually, the classic definition of macro is that the scale is at least 1:1. It has been watered down, so now many people call any closeup a macro.

It's maybe easier if you think about film. Pretend you photograph, say, a small coin at 1:1 with a film camera. Then, when you have developed the film, you can put that frame over the real life coin and you will see that the picture of the coin will cover the real coin exactly. The object has the same size (in mm or inches) on the film (or sensor) as it has in real life. That's all it means.

Thanks. It makes it more clear to me. But my question then is, what is the big advantage of this? Because in a photo editing program I'm going to enlarge that little coin.

OK. Say you want a picture of a car standing 10 meters from where you stand and you can't get any closer. You shoot it with a 50mm lens (full frame eq). The car is pretty small in the picture so you crop it and enlarge the crop. Now you have a picture of the car filling the frame, but it will look pretty crappy, because the resolution will be low (few pixels). Had you instead used maybe a 200 mm lens, the car had filled the frame to start with and you could work with the full resolution image in your editor.

This is the same thing. If you want that coin to fill the frame, the quality of the photo will be better if you can accomplish that in the camera already.

There's nothing magical with 1:1. There are macro lenses that give you 2:1 or even more. It's mainly that 1:1 is the smallest scale for true macro, so manufacturers like to put that on their lenses. 0.9:1 wouldn't sell as well, I suspect.

Thanks.

What a very clear explanation. I'm very happy with it :-).

And how useful this DPReview forum is! :-). This way we can help each other.

Indeed.

Numismatists buy cheap video toolmaker's microscopes for this reason. The resolution is 640×480 or FHD but the optics are 40× with a built-in ring light.

Gilbert1 wrote:

My Nikkor Z 105mm has a reproduction ratio of 1:1 and from what I read the lens is therefore perfect for macro. I've read a lot about it, including here on DPReview, but I'd like to see it in front of me. So, does anyone have examples of macro photos where 1:1 is and where it isn't? Because I try to visualize it in order to understand properly the benefits of this for macro photography.

1:1 is the very closest the camera lens can get to the subject with such a lens, so you basically just move closer until you are near 1:1. But, if you use a tripod, this is very difficult to actually achieve - the closest focus point - a rail makes this easier. Same with hand holding: i.e. your body sways. OTH it doesn't really matter as what you want to go for is the best composition you can achieve. It doesn't concern me at all if I am at exactly 1:1. 1:1 is just a number and not an image.