Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3
On article Macro photography: Understanding magnification (127 comments in total)

Maxim Ge: I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the "real world".

You define maginifcation as "simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality". I think it has to be coupled with crop factor.

Consider an example. You have a frame 24x36 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm, projected size is 36 mm, so maginification is 2:1, that's correct, but remember - we see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

Now we take a tiny camera with crop = 18 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm and projected size is 2 mm. Magnification = 1:9 ? But we continue to see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

So 2:1 and 1:9 give same result - strange, isn't it?

I think that crop factor should be added to magnification definition, in this case both considered pictures would have same magnification.

Agree, but if we define magnification this way than thesis "macro photography means shooting at a magnification ratio of at least 1:1" looks a little bit strange. Compacts give significantly lesser magnification still they shoot macro ( so they have 1:1 being multiplied by crop factor).

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 10:18 UTC
On article Macro photography: Understanding magnification (127 comments in total)

I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the "real world".

You define maginifcation as "simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality". I think it has to be coupled with crop factor.

Consider an example. You have a frame 24x36 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm, projected size is 36 mm, so maginification is 2:1, that's correct, but remember - we see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

Now we take a tiny camera with crop = 18 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm and projected size is 2 mm. Magnification = 1:9 ? But we continue to see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

So 2:1 and 1:9 give same result - strange, isn't it?

I think that crop factor should be added to magnification definition, in this case both considered pictures would have same magnification.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2011 at 09:25 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies

keeponkeepingon: Sample images here:

http://www.lenstip.com/1949-news-Fujifilm_X10_-_sample_images.html

Looks about what you could get with any cheap P&S.

Note that all portraits shot with ISO 400-800.

E.g.
http://pliki.optyczne.pl/X10/fujX10_fot08.jpg

has strange parameters 21.9 mm, f/2.8, exp. 1/800 sek., ISO 400.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2011 at 09:50 UTC
 Total: 3, showing: 1 – 3