If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
David Ruether wrote:
but ***sometimes*** some combinations of a ***good*** zoom and an achromat (a 2-element close-up lens attached to the front of the lens), when used at some FLs, and with the lens stopped down quite a bit (and either on a tripod or with flash to make that possible) can produce good sharpness with a zoom for taking macro photos. Yes, miracles do happen. EOS450D, EF-S 55-250mm IS + Raynox DCR-250 close-up lens: http://i86.servimg.com/u/f86/12/46/16/36/flyhea10.jpg (this is a 1:1 crop of the full picture). Btw with the above combination I can reach a 2.7x scale (0.9mm field of view on a 25mm sensor)(475 pixels/mm)(but this is quite impractical in most cases). OTOH this is only a miracle :-) -- Bertrand |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with it, but maybe I'm missing something.. This guy should also be a good portrait lens on APS-C. Yes, that's going to be my very next lens. Tamron makes some really nice stuff, and their macro lenses are especially good. Pop Photo gives their new 60/2 high marks: http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lens...Di-II-Macro-AF It's a bit pricey, and being brand new the prices haven't yet eased much -- but in the U.S., Tamron has a $25 rebate on this lens until the end of the year. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
* Neil Harrington wrote :
* David J. Littleboy wrote : There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with it, but maybe I'm missing something.. snip / There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1 lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not talking field of view, that's different. -- Troy Piggins |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * Neil Harrington wrote : * David J. Littleboy wrote : There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with it, but maybe I'm missing something.. snip / There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1 lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not talking field of view, that's different. As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of view *is* what we're talking about. Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:03:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * Neil Harrington wrote : * David J. Littleboy wrote : There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). Due to the smaller sensor, yes. While 1:1 is still 1:1, it's about 1.5:1 in full frame equivalence as far as final image size is concerned. I don't understand why anyone would say "finer pixel pitch" has anything to do with it, but maybe I'm missing something.. snip / There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1 lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not talking field of view, that's different. As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of view *is* what we're talking about. Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." The old macro definition of 1:1 for 35mm film no longer holds true to various sensor sizes. That was only a convenient definition to "standardize" a certain type of subject being photographed, an arbitrary cut-off point to make communicating about various photography techniques easier. Today it is safe to say that anything that is 1:1 when compared to a 35mm film frame is also true macro-photography, no matter the sensor size being used to record it. It's silly to use antiquated definitions that no longer mean anything. There is no difference in the size of the resulting subject's image when printed or displayed today if it is taken on a full-frame sensor or a 1/2.5 sensor. The best you can do is use the old 35mm standard, just as you do for equivalent 35mm lens focal-lengths for all cameras today. You can, of course, also go buy a buggy-whip and try to drive your car with it, but it's only going to make you look equally foolish and silly. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
* Neil Harrington wrote :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 20 lines snipped |=---] There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1 lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not talking field of view, that's different. As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of view *is* what we're talking about. FoV may be what you're talking about, but you shouldn't mix terms like "equivalent" and "lifesize". The first may be relevant when talking about FoV of different sensors with the same lens, but the latter isn't because it's independant of sensor size. That's all I'm saying. Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." I understood that and don't dispute it. I just think the term "full frame equivalence" FoV and 1:1 lifesize are apples and oranges. Think we're both agreeing on the same thing, so all good. If you agree with me, it means you're right and one of the good guys. -- Troy Piggins |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
Neil Harrington wrote:
Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view, because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to depict your subject? -- Bertrand |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Ofnuts" wrote in message
... Neil Harrington wrote: Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view, because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to depict your subject? -- Bertrand Hey guys, we should be out with our macro lenses taking photos rather than debating definitions :-) Anyone else remember the days when a lens on a 35mm film body was defined as having a "macro" setting if: The image on a 6" x 4" print was life-size or larger. This meant that a lens was "macro" if it could project a 1/4 size image on the film. Come to think of it, PhotoPlus's current issue reviews some zoom lenses and berates one of them for claiming to have a "macro" function. Regards, Rog. ps: where did I put my macro? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * Neil Harrington wrote : "Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 20 lines snipped |=---] There is no "full frame equivalence" when talking about 1:1 lifesize, is there? The subject is either lifesize on the sensor or it isn't. Doesn't matter what size the sensor is. We're not talking field of view, that's different. As I said, 1:1 is still 1:1 -- life size on the sensor is still life size on the sensor. But the final image magnification is not the same; it's increased about 1.5x (assuming the same overall final image size). Field of view *is* what we're talking about. FoV may be what you're talking about, but you shouldn't mix terms like "equivalent" and "lifesize". The first may be relevant when talking about FoV of different sensors with the same lens, but the latter isn't because it's independant of sensor size. That's all I'm saying. Here's all I'm saying: a 1:1 image on a DX sensor will produce the same final-size image as would a 1.5:1 image on a "full frame" sensor. Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." I understood that and don't dispute it. I just think the term "full frame equivalence" FoV and 1:1 lifesize are apples and oranges. Think we're both agreeing on the same thing, so all good. If you agree with me, it means you're right and one of the good guys. OK. :-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Extension rings for macro
"Ofnuts" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: Imagine a 1:1 image on full frame. Now imagine that same image, only cropped to fit an APS-C sized sensor. For any given final print size, the cropped sensor image will be magnified about 1.5x compared to the full-frame one. This is what David is talking about when he speaks of "magnification effect due to the crop." Actually we should be talking of pixels per millimeter of field of view, because in the end, what counts if how many pixels you have got to depict your subject? But that doesn't have anything to do with image magnification per se, as far as I can see. And the terms "macro" and "1:1" are all about image magnification. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Macro + extension tubes | Gordon MacPherson | Digital Photography | 2 | June 21st 07 12:38 PM |
macro equipment: macro lens or extension tubes? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 06 08:13 AM |
Extension Tubes or Macro Lens? | Edward Holt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 3rd 06 09:26 PM |
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters. | default | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | January 20th 06 07:24 AM |
How does adding extension affect macro lenses? | Belgos | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | April 28th 05 06:29 PM |