1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Macro question

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by scottz, Jun 26, 2011.

  1. scottz

    scottz Mu-43 Regular

    135
    Jun 18, 2011
    Littleton, CO
    I'm still new to MFT, and I'm trying to understand this. I know if I get a 105mm macro, it will be a 210mm equivalent. What I don't know, is, if the lens is 1:1 in macro on 35mm, what will it be for the MFT?

    Thanks,

    Scott
     
  2. photoSmart42

    photoSmart42 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    628
    Feb 12, 2010
    San Diego, CA
    1:1 is 1:1 regardless of the crop factor. You just see less of the image because of the crop, but at 1:1 you'd expect to fill your image with an object roughly 17x13mm in size.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    I'll take a stab at it ...

    It's 210mm equivalent, because you are cropping the middle of the image. However, the image projected on the sensor plane is the same and thus will be the same scale (1:1). You are simply collecting a smaller piece of it.

    Edit: PS42 beat me to it.
     
  4. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    I don't know. What format do you use the 105mm on? APS-C? 35mm? 6x7? I would drop the crop factor thing and simply work in your format. Format never changes focal length, just angle of view. Simply take the focal length and divide by the diagonal of the sensor to get angular magnification.

    Magnification is defined by object size to image size at the sensor plane. At 1:1 your field equals your chip size.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    Someone asked this question quite awhile ago - I took some photos for them so they could get a better grasp. Essentially 1:1 means what Hikari said - if the sensor is 1 inch squared, the image the macro lens will capture will be 1 inch squared in the photo (for instance, a $0.25 quarter will approximately fill the frame).

    Here the quote with the images from my previous post. These two shots are with the same lens, at maximum magnification of 1:1 - the difference in the field of view is due to the crop factor of 1.5x in the first image and 2x in the second image:

    1:1 macro with the 50mm lens on the Pentax K-x (which is an APS-C sensor, 1.5X crop factor):

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xwuej-ZM1KGAWu50qldzLA?feat=embedwebsite">http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2SfxskGMpI/AAAAAAAABdA/kXdQG4BsDQ0/s800/IMGP0329.JPG" /></a>

    and 1:1 macro with the same 50mm lens adapted to the Panasonic GF1 (2X Crop Factor):

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/PZKguuo4BvLjAbWDuqof4g?feat=embedwebsite">[img]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2SeKMprZJI/AAAAAAAABcQ/rko6S9Fp94s/s800/P1000192.JPG" /></a>

    Shots were both made with Pentax AF360-fgz flash off camera (to the left), wireless p-ttl with the Pentax K-x and wireless slave mode with the GF1.

    Hope that was helpful!
     
  6. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Yes, there is an Equivalent Field of View attached to macro magnification ratio, as demonstrated by pxpaulx's photos. So a 1:1 lens will show a 2:1 magnification in an Equivalent Field of View.
     
  7. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Apparently "linear magnification" no longer has any meaning...:rofl:

    I am never surprised that amateurs are confused by the fundamentals in photography. We keep dumbing down with ideas like "crop factor" and "35mm equivalents," which BTW are only true at infinity. The irony is that most young photographers never shot 35mm. So do they now convert their APS-C to 35mm and then convert the result to m4/3? I remember in Japan a compact was marketed with a 28mm angle of view. I asked a few non-photographer types that would actually buy such a camera if they knew what the 28mm thing was--they had no idea.

    The funny things is in the old days with film, there were at least 9 other film formats. I never heard the term "crop factor" from photographers that used those.
     
  8. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Hmmm... You seem to miss the point of Equivalent Field of View. It has one purpose only, and that is to describe the FOV you see in the image in comparison to one single standard that is consistent across the board. Linear magnification is still there, but has absolutely nothing to do with why people want to know what the EFL or crop value is. Technical specs don't help people who just want to know what their image will look like!

    Equivalent Focal Length and Equivalent Field of View is NOT, I repeat... NOT a technical value. It is a rough number used only for comparison and understanding. In the Four-Thirds world it is also very inaccurate, as we use a different aspect ratio than 35mm. We claim a 2x crop factor, but in reality it's just a little more of a crop than APS-C. In other words, Olympus is using the same marketing trick of adding in total surface area which is not used in the same way, in order to claim a higher crop value the same way APS-C camera makers mislead people by saying that APS-C is "50% bigger" than Four-Thirds. It can be proven by math, but makes no sense in real-world application. You simply can't make those kind of direct comparisons between different aspect ratios unless you bring them down to the same aspect first. Oh well... crop factor was never meant to be an accurate technical value in the first place.

    When I look at pxpaulx's post, he shows you what the difference in the image will look like, at the same 1:1 magnification level on two different formats. That's something that instantly makes sense, and that's basically what crop factor is there to describe... to put those two comparison photos into a number for a quick perspective. Telling somebody "Magnification is defined by object size to image size at the sensor plane. At 1:1 your field equals your chip size." does not help them to understand what effect that has on their image.
     
  9. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I guess film never had an identity crisis ... with the APS-C .... camera makers had to explain that while the camera look like a 35mm, felt like a 35mm and even smelled like a 35mm ... it ain't a 35mm format.

    G
     
  10. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    So why is the simple angular magnification standard, focal length/sensor diagonal, not used? That is simple. Why learn two sensor sizes and their difference rather than just having to know the sensor dimension you are using?

    Confusion always arises once focal length/image format as a standard is used because focal length affects other things. And why is 35mm the standard? Most cameras with interchangeable lenses are APS-C.

    I understand why the crop factor thing is used. And there are lots of questions because people are always confused. Which I think bolsters my argument.

    (Lets not even go into the fact people who shoot at 1:1 label their image "life size," when they are nowhere near that.)
     
  11. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    APS-C was a film format.
     
  12. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    But a half-frame camera, (at least the one's I meet), never looked like your normal, everyday 35mm SLR camera. (Besides, Half-frames don't count.)
     
  13. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    No, half-frame was a 35mm format. Kodak with a bunch of camera manufacturers introduced a new cartridge film format in the 90s--Advanced Photo System (now Antique Photo System). There were compact cameras as well as SLRs design for it.

    Advanced Photo System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Oddly enough, no one has tried to put APS SRL lenses on m4/3. There must be some good wides out there.
     
  14. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Well lookit that ... APS and everything. Right again Hikari :smile:

    I actually hadn't known of that format ... this was during my Cave-in-the-Himalayas period (CITH).

    G

    PS- I counted the film formats I could think of and only came up with eight ... so there's the missing link ... okay back to CITH.
    G

    PPS- Interesting reading.
    G
     
  15. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Actually, you had me think of two more, so I am at 11. Actually, 12 if you think of rotating panoramic cameras, but those would fall under several formats. Which reminds me of two more for specialized aerial cameras. Three more with the Xpan. And then there were 110 and 16mm formats for the Minox spy camera etc.

    There were just so many, not including antique formats. Film has a rich legacy...
     
  16. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    I get lost after Tri-X ...
    G

    (I know Tri-X is a type not a format.)
     
  17. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Film formats I remember:

    35mm
    35mm half frame
    35mm Panoramic (Xpan, Widelux, Horizon (all a little different)
    110
    126
    Disc
    16mm
    APS
    6x4.5
    6x6
    6x7
    6x8
    6x9
    6x12
    6x17
    6x24
    4x5
    5x7
    8x10
    4x10
    8x20

    Those would be the common ones consumers could buy within my lifetime and most within the last ten years--Disk never really caught on. Polaroid did have a lot which I did not include, all the way up to a 20x24 Land camera. And there are larger view cameras, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24, etc. The European 9x12, the forerunner of the m4/3 format, lost to 4x5. The early 20th century had a bunch of roll films and plates that never survived. I believe the Brooks Veriwide medium-format camera was 6x10.
     
  18. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Interesting thing is that the 135 film format was originally made by putting together two 35mm film frames, and has now become the standard that we call "35mm film". Originally it was a "double-frame", and if you look at old PEN F advertisements, you will see that the PEN F was called a "single-frame" format at the time. Now 135 has become so common that even Olympus calls the PEN F a "half-frame" camera in spite of its original single-frame designation.
     
  19. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    All I could remember:

    16mm
    110
    Half Frame
    126
    35mm
    6x6
    6x7
    4x5
    5x7
    8x10

    I thought those panorama cams used standard sized films just went sideways more than a standard camera?

    G
     
  20. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Many did that used roll film like 35mm and 120 (or 5" or 7" roll films which were more commonly found in aerial cameras, see Cirkut cameras). But there were a class of view cameras were the film would be cut down by the photographer, 4x10 for example, although I think a few manufacturers would get you 4x10 sheets if you paid for it.