Macro

[sumball]

my macro lens provides 1:2 reproduction but it's minimum focussing distance is ~1m.

To cut down your minimum focusing distance, get some tubes.

 

[wildstallion]

I don't know why are you complaining about this, to me you should be happy for it instead. I believe a 180mm lens' minimum focusing distant is around 30cm too. Thats the main reason you gotta pay more for a 105mm lens than a 65mm lens because you are paying for the working distant!

Since you can get 1:1 at 31cm, why must you go beyond that :dunno: (eg 3cm :bsmilie: ) unless you lens is not a 1:1 lens but a >1:1. The, yes, there is reason for you to go closer. The Canon MP-E65mm lens. You get 5x or so but the working distant is terrible.

For butterflies shooters, why do they prefer a 180mm lens than a 90/100/105mm lenses since all these lenses give us 1:1 but the prince of a 180mm lens is double or the 90mm lens? Because of the working distant again;p .

Im not complaining! I just wanted to know how some people can get 10cm from subjetc with a macro lens when all the ones ive seen are around 30cm with a 1:1 aspect ratio, dont get me wrong, id love to have this lens, just dont do enough macro work

 

[seanlim]

To cut down your minimum focusing distance, get some tubes.

Just checking u mean tubes as extension tubes issit?....does that mean that one can cut down 30cm minimum focus dist. to 10cm with a tube ?

 

[sumball]

Just checking u mean tubes as extension tubes issit?....does that mean that one can cut down 30cm minimum focus dist. to 10cm with a tube ?

technically yes, depends on the lens u r using for the final image size.

 

[syazkal]

technically yes, depends on the lens u r using for the final image size.

Question regarding the ext tube,
if i'll couple a 25mm ext tube with my 70-200 lens, do i still have the capability of zoomimg through out from 70 to 200mm, or do i only able to take 'macro' at the 200mm end. Thanks

 

[hwchoy]

Hi prata (kosong or with egg?) LOL

Joke aside. Just to check with you, you mention that in 1:1 lens, a 5cm long subject will be 5cm long on the film. Is is the same as a 5cm long subject will be 5cm long in my viewfinder? Or whats the definition of "a 5cm long spider will be 5cm long on the film" in the digital world say a 1:1 macro lens on a full frame 5D dSLR. I mean at which rate I am viewing it on my monitor?

I am quite puzzled with this, anyone can help me? Sorry for the stupid question.

the definition of magnification is not related to the size of the sensor. it is a physical property of the lens' optical design. when it says 1:1 at 1ft focusing distance, it simply means that an object of say 1cm, 1ft away from the lens forward element, will have an equal-sized image projected onto the sensor PLANE. note that regardless of the size of the sensor, or indeed regardless the size of the film, that image will be the equal size as the subject.

in the conventional 35mm film format, an object 36mm wide (horizontal) will completely fill the film (which is 36×24mm) at 1:1 magnifcation. on a full frame camera, that image will completely fill the sensor. however, it will be larger than a APS-C sensor which is only about 22mm wide.

 

[Snoweagle]

the definition of magnification is not related to the size of the sensor. it is a physical property of the lens' optical design. when it says 1:1 at 1ft focusing distance, it simply means that an object of say 1cm, 1ft away from the lens forward element, will have an equal-sized image projected onto the sensor PLANE. note that regardless of the size of the sensor, or indeed regardless the size of the film, that image will be the equal size as the subject.

in the conventional 35mm film format, an object 36mm wide (horizontal) will completely fill the film (which is 36×24mm) at 1:1 magnifcation. on a full frame camera, that image will completely fill the sensor. however, it will be larger than a APS-C sensor which is only about 22mm wide.

Speaking of sensor sizes, actually compact ones are really very tiny. Is that why the macros for compacts are not so gd?

 

[hwchoy]

Speaking of sensor sizes, actually compact ones are really very tiny. Is that why the macros for compacts are not so gd?

this is why a digicam (with the exception of the new Sony R1) cannot deliver the same image quality as a DSLR. a digicam sensor is about 10% the size of a 35mm format only!

snoweagle, what do you mean by "macros for compacts are not so gd"?

 

[roti_prata]

I don't know why are you complaining about this, to me you should be happy for it instead. I believe a 180mm lens' minimum focusing distant is around 30cm too. Thats the main reason you gotta pay more for a 105mm lens than a 65mm lens because you are paying for the working distant!

Since you can get 1:1 at 31cm, why must you go beyond that :dunno: (eg 3cm :bsmilie: ) unless you lens is not a 1:1 lens but a >1:1. The, yes, there is reason for you to go closer. The Canon MP-E65mm lens. You get 5x or so but the working distant is terrible.

For butterflies shooters, why do they prefer a 180mm lens than a 90/100/105mm lenses since all these lenses give us 1:1 but the prince of a 180mm lens is double or the 90mm lens? Because of the working distant again;p .

i hav no idea wat ur talking abt. if a 180mm lens has the same minimum focus as a 105mm 1:1 marco lens, wont the 180mm be a 2:1 marco? people buy longer marco lenses because it lets them get the same magnification from a further distance(so as not to startle the spider/butterfly/...)

 

[roti_prata]

Speaking of sensor sizes, actually compact ones are really very tiny. Is that why the macros for compacts are not so gd?

compacts hav very good marco, like 1cm focusing. because of their small sensors, they hav small lenses like 4-12mm(3x optical zoom) which gives them such close focusing distances

 

[metallilan]

this is why a digicam (with the exception of the new Sony R1) cannot deliver the same image quality as a DSLR. a digicam sensor is about 10% the size of a 35mm format only!

snoweagle, what do you mean by "macros for compacts are not so gd"?

well thats the point isnt it? no manufacturer is gonna put a fullframe sensor inside a compact cam on a mass scale...

 

[Ooze]

The difference between focal length and focusing distance is that the focal length determines how much space u see. for example on a 35mm lens on a 35 mm film body will give u a 63 degree viewing angle but a 100 mm will give only 24 degrees. However that does not determine how close can u move to your subject. Try it on a telephoto lens the normal focusing distance is usually 1 meter + but on a WA it's much nearer. But the difference between using a WA and a tele is that when u move closer is that the WA exposes more background than the tele because of the viewing angle.

Technically the macro lens allows u to focus at distances that a normal lens cannot focus. This is to increase the magnification on the sensor. The closer you go the higher the magnification (i hope i'm correct on this one)

http://www.ncc.sdccd.cc.ca.us/resource/qtvr/qtvrlm2/lm2p1.html
see this for a detailes explaination on viewing angle

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
see this to see how the focal length determines how much background u expose keeping a subject the same size

hope that help. i don't know if this is correct or not just trying to chip in :angel:

 

[pai]

actually there are some pretty good macro shots taken by compact cameras... the small sensor means that it's easy to fill the frame, and they usually have a macro mode which allows close focusing.

just check out the macro subforum... ppl "zeng" their canon A-series or panasonic FZs to become super macro machines :thumbsup:

 

[Snoweagle]

this is why a digicam (with the exception of the new Sony R1) cannot deliver the same image quality as a DSLR. a digicam sensor is about 10% the size of a 35mm format only!

snoweagle, what do you mean by "macros for compacts are not so gd"?

As in the closeness of the distance and the magnification.

 

[Snoweagle]

compacts hav very good marco, like 1cm focusing. because of their small sensors, they hav small lenses like 4-12mm(3x optical zoom) which gives them such close focusing distances

I've tried it with my compact. Sony states that my model's nearest macro focusing distance is 10cm. Closeness in this case is not very gd though...

 

[hwchoy]

actually there are some pretty good macro shots taken by compact cameras... the small sensor means that it's easy to fill the frame, and they usually have a macro mode which allows close focusing.

just check out the macro subforum... ppl "zeng" their canon A-series or panasonic FZs to become super macro machines :thumbsup:

this is because people display their shots at web sizes, at that kind of reduction any camera will look good. try viewing at 100% and you will see the noise level of a digicam. dynamic range also no fight. and we are not even talking about the optical performance of the lenses yet.

oh about the ease of filling the small sensor. that is also not true, small sensors goes with small lenses, so it ends up as they say LPPL.

 

[hwchoy]

As in the closeness of the distance and the magnification.

oh you mean macro mode in compacts have very short working distance? that I agree, its a function of the short focal length of the tiny lens. I used to try that "twist the barrel" trick on my G5, can get 1:1 (at 35mm equivalent) at a working distance of less than 1cm :sweat:

 

[Snoweagle]

oh you mean macro mode in compacts have very short working distance? that I agree, its a function of the short focal length of the tiny lens. I used to try that "twist the barrel" trick on my G5, can get 1:1 (at 35mm equivalent) at a working distance of less than 1cm :sweat:

There's no close up filter for my Sony so just have to live with it.

For your case, it's similar to Canon's S2 and S3 IS at 0cm macro.

 

[ortega]

P&S cameras also have greater DOF - which is good

 

[Snoweagle]

P&S cameras also have greater DOF - which is good

But the bokeh isn't as gd as my SLR ones. The background is not blurred enough though.