Adapted Macro

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Cruzan80, Oct 15, 2012.

  1. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    So with all of the other threads going on about "effective" this and that, and how framing and DoF change vis a vis sensor size, i figured I would get confirmation on something that we all should agree on.

    If a lens is designed for film, and it is displaying a max macro capability of 1:2, putting it on a m4/3 sensor does not magically transform it into a 1:1. It is still half the size of the original, there is just less of the original surrounding on the sensor, due to the smaller size. I have seen tons of people advertising that if you take a 1:2 macro (for FF) and put it on a m4/3 sensor, it magically makes it 1:1. If I take that lens, and put it on my m4/3 camera, I will still only get ~9mm (17.3/2 taking up the whole frame, as opposed to ~18mm (35.8/2). Yet it is still represented at half of the actual size on the sensor itself. Macro is an inherent property of the lens itself, like focal length and aperture size, not a function of sensor size. Correct?

    Comments? Concerns?
     
  2. dwig

    dwig Mu-43 Top Veteran

    623
    Jun 26, 2010
    Key West FL
    If, and only if, by "macro" you mean "reproduction ratio" then you are correct.

    At the same time, a lens capable of 1:2 on a full frame body will yield a field of view on an m43 body that would require a 1:1 capable lens on a full frame body. Still, 1:2 is 1:2 regardless of the body it is used on so it is quite incorrect to ever say that such an adapted lens "becomes a lens capable of 1:1".
     
  3. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    Yes, that is what I was using the term to mean. 1:2 is always 1:2 (reproduction ratio wise), and the only way it at all approaches what a 1:1 on FF would look like is in FoV, not level of magnification.