bertspix

Lucindawind, 4 months ago

hi bert .. there are 3 macro groups here that can answer you with this I think
lol moving in on a cow ... yep you are right that is not true macro …

Christopher E..., 4 months ago

bert here is a link that might help you out macro

i do know its a ratio of 1:1, just like the shot i just submitted macro tulip
I had to get very close to my subject, and i use a special lens, a diopter, instead of “macro lens”, its like a magnifying glass pretty much, hope it helps
i would think micro would mean at its smallest..and macro is the largest, but both filling your whole shot

Jan Piller, 4 months ago

Bert – I think the people using the term Micro are just using the wrong term or making typos – the correct term is macro. They are also mistaken many times on the definition – in photography macro means “what the eye can’t normally see” – that’s a blunt definition and doesn’t tell the whole story – but often I see a close up of a flower and people comment “great macro” where in fact it is just a “great close up”. the macro would be if they took a picture of just some small “detail” of the flower that the naked eye doesn’t generally see. Even a close up of a bug is not a macro. It is a close up of a bug. But if you take a shot of it’s eye or a wing – then it can be deemed macro. “To see large”

bertspix, 4 months ago

Thanks Chris and Jan…I agree with Chris that the definition of Macro starts at a ratio of 1:1…in other words the photographic image is the same size as the object.
Jan: If the people who use the term “Micro” are just using the wrong term or spelling, somebody had better tell Nikon. The now call all their “close-up’ lenses ‘Micro” when previously they referred to them as Macro Lenses. (even on the actual lens they use the term Micro…but…Macro or Micro..that’
s a second question. Is my understanding and Chrises explanation correct, that the image has to be at a 1:1 ratio or better with the object? You cannot even state that if taken with a Macro lens it’s a Macro picture. ..nothing could be further from the truth. The 105mm Macro lens is also a wonderful portrait lense…and portraits are certainly not Macro…You could of course photograph a pimple on the person’s cheek, and if the actual pimple is the same size (1:1) or smaller than the Photo then we could call it a Macro Photo….How far off am I in my understanding of Macro/Micro >???

Jan Piller, 4 months ago

Here’s the Wikipedia version:
Macro photography is close-up photography; the classical definition is that the image projected on the “film plane” (i.e film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.

In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers.

Jan Piller, 4 months ago

This is from a free dictionary:
A micrograph, microphotograph or photomicrograph is a photograph or similar image taken through a microscope or similar device to show a magnified image of an item.

So I think I’ll go check out these lenses that Nikon is talking about – It could also just be a Marketing ploy – much the same as calling a housewife a”Domestic Engineer”.

Jan Piller, 4 months ago

Here – this should answer your question. It’s just Nikon using that term – to be different no doubt – most people and manufactureres use the term Macro. I went and looked at the lenses – they are macro lenses – not little micro lenses you find on a microscope.
Equipment for making the image the required size includes:

Using a special-purpose lens called a macro lens (some manufacturers call it a micro), having a long barrel for close focusing. A macro lens might be optimized to provide its best performance at a magnification of 1:1. Some macro lenses, like the Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.8, can achieve even better magnification— up to 5:1 macro, bringing the structure of small insect eyes, snowflakes, and other minuscule but detailed objects into striking focus. However, it is more common for a photographer to use a “standard” (1:1) macro lens. There are different categories of macro lenses, depending on the focal length:
50–60mm range typically used for product photography and small objects
90–105mm range the standard focal range used for insects, flowers, small objects
150–200mm range gives more working distance — typically used for insects and small animals
a few zooms provide a macro option, but they generally do not allow a 1:1 magnification

bertspix, 4 months ago

Thank you Jan…you have done the research which I should have done before coming out with my stupid question…thanks again…Bert

lucamaphoto, 4 months ago

thanks from me too, i was wondering the same thing so bert i am glad that you asked instead of researched because i too could have, should have would have…. but didn’t , wouldn’t and wont.
p.s i am pretty sure if you enlarged a pimple on someones cheek it would not matter if you called it micro or macro… both words sound the same when you are saying them with no teeth :)

bertspix in reply to lucamaphoto’s comment, 4 months ago

for a chocolate/vanilla smeared baby face, you are a pretty violent kid…(:-))))... Bert