Macro with MFT compared to larger sensors

[jwilliams]

Hello!

Are you just after the semantics (1:1 stays 1:1, which it does), or actually in doubt/denial as well that the resulting images you get when sticking the same lens preset to 1:1 on a film body, FF camera, 1.5 crop camera, 1.7 crop camera, 2.0 crop camera, 2.7 crop camera still don't look the same (which should be the actual point of interest for most people shooting macro for non scientific purposes)?

Best,

Alex

 

[TeddyD]

Macro means 1:1 magnification from front of the lens to rear of the lens.

Actually, no.

I agree.

A discussion on the definition of "Macro"

4/3" macro means you only capture 17.5x13mm area.

35mm macro means you capture about 36x24mm area.

20mpix 4/3" sensor means you need a 80mpix 35mm sensor for same pixel count per detail with the same macro magnification.

So there ain't such 35mm sensor that offers same quality.

Now do with HR MODE and you get 80Mpix, that is same as about 120-150Mpix 35mm sensor with a Bayer Filter, as HR Mode captures all colors per Pixel instead just one color.

There simply ain't anything on 35mm market for that quality, why a optical quality of adapted larger format lenses is questionable, as I would just get Olympus 4/3 mount 50mm f/2 for that, spend time to do focus stacking manually when required and enjoy results that others can't get without very serious microscope lenses and automations.

The rest I agree with.

Classically, a macro lens is one that has a flat field of view at or close to its minimum focus distance.

There's a bit of confusion.. Flat field lenses merely are for repro and they have this same flat field of focus through all their focus area. Thou most macro lenses have flat focus and are often excellent choice for repro, however these two concepts are different by their nature. There are also macro and close up lenses with adjustable DOF field shape.

Thus my OM 2.5:1 Tamron 70-150 Macro is a macro lens, and so is my FTs f/2 50 macro. So is my mFTs 12-50 macro, when at 43mm in macro mode, but not when it is at 43mm in normal mode. Interestingly, it is also one of the features of my 8mm (film size) pre-war Minox, which was designed primarily for copying documents at close range ... ;-) . However, the Minox is really a tiny Schmidt camera, as it has a curved film plane.

None of the following are true macro lenses, even though all offer very close focusing ability: OM 35-70 Close Focus; FTs 14-54 MkII; mFTs 12-100. They do not have a flat field of view at or near their minimum focus distance.

I must say that testing the 12-50 and 12-100 on a page of laser printed text just now (with 12-100 at f/5.6 and 46mm), the 12-50 had more CA in the extreme corners, but about the same resolution. This is what happens when one compares a (relatively) cheap kit lens with one that is around 3-4x the price ...

PS: I think that the term "macro" is so loose that it is hard to define accurately.

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

I often take photos that are meant to be printed at larger than life size. Does this make them macro photographs? It is an interesting field ...

That's reproduction ratio.. nothing to do with macro.

 

[Donald B]

Another thing not mentioned in the thread is that the distance between the camera and the subject to achieve 1:1 is greater with FF than with µ4/3.

 

[bobn2]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

 

[Martin.au]

Actually the term macro is quite well defined. Joseph S Wisniewski nailed it on page 2 of that thread, complete with the original definition. I generally summarise it simply as taking photos of objects that are around 25mm across or smaller.

 

[gary0319]

+1 on using the PL100-400 for close work on bugs, etc.I use it on my Olympus E-M1 III and wish the Pro Capture worked with that combo. Even so, I sold off my 60mm macro in favor of the working distance of the 100-400.

 

[TeddyD]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it. Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/carl-zeiss/100mm-f2-makro-planar-t-2100/review/

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

 

[bobn2]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[TeddyD]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Another thing not mentioned in the thread is that the distance between the camera and the subject to achieve 1:1 is greater with FF than with µ4/3.

--
I only smile and say cheese when I have a regulator in my mouth.

the subject appears on the sensor at the same exact size in real life. Format independent.

Yes, and f/2.8 = f/2.8. Format independant.

Effects of f/2.8 on the photo you end up with, not format independent.

Effects of 1:1 on the photo you end up with, not format independant.

That is also correct. I never quite understood why macro photographers find the image plane reproduction ratio so important, as opposed to how big the gnat's todger is in the final image.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

we dont , only would-be macro photographers got to get with the times , the person that fills the frame with the least mm "WINS"

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

That’s kind of a silly rule
With my D800 I am able to frame objects that are less than 1-3mm wide in the FOV, I guess that means I win as that is at 36mp resolution in 1-3mm wide framing?

Here is the K7 sensor up close

here is an index image showing the area I photographed

Allot of what I photograph is way smaller than that





--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[bobn2]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[Martin.au]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[mcabato]

... not to get the real camera ...

 

[Donald B]

Another thing not mentioned in the thread is that the distance between the camera and the subject to achieve 1:1 is greater with FF than with µ4/3.

--
I only smile and say cheese when I have a regulator in my mouth.

the subject appears on the sensor at the same exact size in real life. Format independent.

Yes, and f/2.8 = f/2.8. Format independant.

Effects of f/2.8 on the photo you end up with, not format independent.

Effects of 1:1 on the photo you end up with, not format independant.

That is also correct. I never quite understood why macro photographers find the image plane reproduction ratio so important, as opposed to how big the gnat's todger is in the final image.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

we dont , only would-be macro photographers got to get with the times , the person that fills the frame with the least mm "WINS"

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

That’s kind of a silly rule
With my D800 I am able to frame objects that are less than 1-3mm wide in the FOV, I guess that means I win as that is at 36mp resolution in 1-3mm wide framing?

Here is the K7 sensor up close

here is an index image showing the area I photographed

Allot of what I photograph is way smaller than that

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

are u using objectives ? ive just built mine and get down to 4mm now , I wouldn't want any smaller as I intend to shoot bugs eyes and any more mag would be to much. im shooting 40 images for a dof of 4mm.

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Another thing not mentioned in the thread is that the distance between the camera and the subject to achieve 1:1 is greater with FF than with µ4/3.

--
I only smile and say cheese when I have a regulator in my mouth.

the subject appears on the sensor at the same exact size in real life. Format independent.

Yes, and f/2.8 = f/2.8. Format independant.

Effects of f/2.8 on the photo you end up with, not format independent.

Effects of 1:1 on the photo you end up with, not format independant.

That is also correct. I never quite understood why macro photographers find the image plane reproduction ratio so important, as opposed to how big the gnat's todger is in the final image.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

we dont , only would-be macro photographers got to get with the times , the person that fills the frame with the least mm "WINS"

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

That’s kind of a silly rule
With my D800 I am able to frame objects that are less than 1-3mm wide in the FOV, I guess that means I win as that is at 36mp resolution in 1-3mm wide framing?

Here is the K7 sensor up close

here is an index image showing the area I photographed

Allot of what I photograph is way smaller than that

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

are u using objectives ? ive just built mine and get down to 4mm now , I wouldn't want any smaller as I intend to shoot bugs eyes and any more mag would be to much. im shooting 40 images for a dof of 4mm.

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

Just using a 70-200 F4 and an old 50mm 1.7

Dof really is not a problem for what I want to do

most of my work involves objects smaller than 2mm wide

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[Donald B]

Another thing not mentioned in the thread is that the distance between the camera and the subject to achieve 1:1 is greater with FF than with µ4/3.

--
I only smile and say cheese when I have a regulator in my mouth.

the subject appears on the sensor at the same exact size in real life. Format independent.

Yes, and f/2.8 = f/2.8. Format independant.

Effects of f/2.8 on the photo you end up with, not format independent.

Effects of 1:1 on the photo you end up with, not format independant.

That is also correct. I never quite understood why macro photographers find the image plane reproduction ratio so important, as opposed to how big the gnat's todger is in the final image.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

we dont , only would-be macro photographers got to get with the times , the person that fills the frame with the least mm "WINS"

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

That’s kind of a silly rule
With my D800 I am able to frame objects that are less than 1-3mm wide in the FOV, I guess that means I win as that is at 36mp resolution in 1-3mm wide framing?

Here is the K7 sensor up close

here is an index image showing the area I photographed

Allot of what I photograph is way smaller than that

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

are u using objectives ? ive just built mine and get down to 4mm now , I wouldn't want any smaller as I intend to shoot bugs eyes and any more mag would be to much. im shooting 40 images for a dof of 4mm.

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

Just using a 70-200 F4 and an old 50mm 1.7

Dof really is not a problem for what I want to do

most of my work involves objects smaller than 2mm wide

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

they look great, lighting has been my biggest challenge so far, but just figured it out now , but no highlights makes the image look a bit flat .

Don

--
Olympus EM5, EM5mk2 my toys.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244

past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1

 

[bobn2]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[Martin.au]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[TeddyD]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.

 

[Martin.au]

There's nothing loose in the term of macro, thou there's a lot of loose use of the term but we should not do that mistake as the term "macro photography" refers to photos from natural size to ten times enlarged image of the target on film or sensor. Anything with higher magnification is "micro" and reduction til ten times smaller of the target is "close up". Quite prercise I'd say

Tell that to Zeiss

That's how the man who invented the term "macro photography" or "macrography" defined it.

Who was that man?

Who are we to change that? Anyway, not any f*****g marketing excutive to sell some more lenses, that of course is just IMHO

It's not a semantic argument that I can get worked up about really. What matters is the image at the end, not how big was the image at some arbitrary mid-point in the process.