Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <H7GdnQfPDNTHnOjVnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com>, Neil
> Harrington says...
>> Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e. interchangeable
>> lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly designed
>> to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
>> 1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal plane.
>
> A magnification of 1:2 means that if the sensor is 24x36mm an object of
> the size of 12x18mm fills the frame? Or perhaps an object of a size of
> 48x72mm?
1:2 would mean an object 8mm in length would be 4mm on the film or sensor.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>
>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>
>Macro is not a "mode".
I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
the "macro mode" setting.
If you set the camera to "Automatic", "Aperture Priority", "Shutter
Priority", etc, is this not setting the camera "mode"?
If "mode" is not the correct term, please supply it and a red felt-tip
pen so I can make the necessary corrections in my owner's manual.
tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>
>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>> Macro is not a "mode".
>
> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
> the "macro mode" setting.
>
> If you set the camera to "Automatic", "Aperture Priority", "Shutter
> Priority", etc, is this not setting the camera "mode"?
>
> If "mode" is not the correct term, please supply it and a red felt-tip
> pen so I can make the necessary corrections in my owner's manual.
It is not semantics nor nit picking. Macro photography is a singular
subject and requires the right equipment to do it. It is not a 'mode'
for the equipment (though it could be for the photographer...).
The various camera co's use the term a loosely in their marketing and so
it comes down to:
-the uninformed (and generally not very interested) thinking they have a
capability that they do not; and as long as they're happy it doesn't
matter too much.
-the informed who want to make macro photos and who conclude that the
only way to get there is with proper technique and tools.
I've tried the shortcuts such as "macro" zoom lenses (though never
bought one, a blessing) and diopter lenses. The results were indeed
"bigger", but poor in contrast, color and detail. Not what macro really is.
Indeed, real macro lenses are often exceedingly sharp in the macro focus
range while not so sharp at 1:10 towards infinity. They are optimized
for macro shooting.
One could also take an ordinary lens like a 50mm and add an extension
tube to get magnification. This too is macro if one gets close to 1:2
or better.
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <%B5dk.23703$E41.12726@text.news.virginmedia.com >, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> Not so. Yes, they can focus close, but often the distortion (e.g.
>> barrel distortion) is very bad, and the field in nothing like flat.
>> With an SLR-class macro lens, you could expect zero linear
>> distortion etc., such that the lens could be used for making
>> accurate copies fo documents etc.
>
> A non-issue. Use the PTLens filter to correct the distortions. Besides
> there are P&S cameras with good lenses
No - once the edges of a subject are out of focus, the information is
lost. It's not /just/ about geometric distortion.
>> It's the difference between "getting an image" and "getting a quality
>> image". Oh, and a "macro" lens might be expected to produce a 1:1
>> magnification, so the field of view might be about 24 x 16mm. On a
>> small-sensor camera, a true 1:1 macro might be a field of view of
>> about 6 x 4.5mm.
>
> Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots of
> people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were surprised
> that they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
... and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:31:40 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:31:56 +0200, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>
>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>
>> Depends on what you call a "close-up". This image
>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2.../weidlichb.jpg
>> is the maker's mark on the back of teaspoon. It was taken with a
>> Nikon D40 with the standard 18/55mm kit lens that came with the
>> camera. The camera was not set to the "Macro" mode. I use a copy
>> stand and let the camera automatically focus at 15".
>
>The real deal is (however) with a macro lens:
>
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6046438&size=lg
>
Horses for courses. I've been selling some antique sterling silver
pieces on eBay. The linked image is sufficient for this purpose. Use
of a macro lens would not improve the output for the purpose intended.
To me, "macro" and "close-up" are two different things. Alfred used
the term "close-up", and standard lenses will take close-up shots with
satisfactory results. If what he wants to do is present close-up
images for a particular reason, then there's no need to lead him to
believe that a macro lens or extensions are necessary to obtain
results.
In article <jI9dk.23931$E41.6761@text.news.virginmedia.com> , David J
Taylor says...
> > Yes, and that is why P&S more easily can capture small items. Lots of
> > people who moved from a P&S to a large sensor camera were surprised
> > that they needed a special lens to capture small objects.
>
> .. and what compact camera has an unaided field of view of 6 x 4.5 mm?
I don't know, but I also didn't claim that. IIRC the Olympus 5050 and/or
the Olympus 8080 could fill the frame in the supermacro mode with
something like 2x3cm.
--
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>>
>>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>> Macro is not a "mode".
>>
>> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
>> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
>> the "macro mode" setting.
>>
>> If you set the camera to "Automatic", "Aperture Priority", "Shutter
>> Priority", etc, is this not setting the camera "mode"?
>>
>> If "mode" is not the correct term, please supply it and a red felt-tip
>> pen so I can make the necessary corrections in my owner's manual.
>
>It is not semantics nor nit picking. Macro photography is a singular
>subject and requires the right equipment to do it. It is not a 'mode'
>for the equipment (though it could be for the photographer...).
Of course it's semantics. The question was "What exactly happens when
a camera is set to macro mode"? The word "mode" means "a designated
condition or status", and the question was about a camera setting.
What you have brought up is a completely different thing - macro
photography - and something that is done without setting the camera to
the macro mode. Macro photography is accomplished with lenses or
extensions and not by the setting of the mode dial on the camera.
Macro is an available setting mode on the camera, but shooting in that
mode does not result in macro photography. It results, in some
cameras, in better close-ups at certain distances. (I find, however,
with my D40 that the "macro mode" is not an improvement for close-ups
of small objects. It is with my Coolpix.)
You can lecture on about marketing spin and uninformed buyers, but the
fact remains that there is a "macro mode" on many cameras and -
believe it or not - many camera users understand that shooting in the
macro mode does not result in macro photography and use it to get
better close-ups.
It's admirable that you are so willing to provide education to the
masses, but in some cases you are delivering more coal to Newcastle.
>The various camera co's use the term a loosely in their marketing and so
>it comes down to:
>
>-the uninformed (and generally not very interested) thinking they have a
>capability that they do not; and as long as they're happy it doesn't
>matter too much.
>
>-the informed who want to make macro photos and who conclude that the
>only way to get there is with proper technique and tools.
>
>I've tried the shortcuts such as "macro" zoom lenses (though never
>bought one, a blessing) and diopter lenses. The results were indeed
>"bigger", but poor in contrast, color and detail. Not what macro really is.
>
>Indeed, real macro lenses are often exceedingly sharp in the macro focus
>range while not so sharp at 1:10 towards infinity. They are optimized
>for macro shooting.
>
>One could also take an ordinary lens like a 50mm and add an extension
>tube to get magnification. This too is macro if one gets close to 1:2
>or better.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.
> In article <H7GdnQfPDNTHnOjVnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com>, Neil
> Harrington says...
>>
>> Now it looks like you're asking about discrete lenses, i.e. interchangeable
>> lenses for SLR type cameras. A macro lens of that kind is expressly designed
>> to give exceptionally good performance while focusing very close, usually
>> 1:1 or 1:2 magnification (life size or half life size) at the focal plane.
>
> A magnification of 1:2 means that if the sensor is 24x36mm an object of
> the size of 12x18mm fills the frame? Or perhaps an object of a size of
> 48x72mm?
I always had trouble remembering which way that worked. I'll offer you
the mind hook that I use to remember how it works.
Camera : Subject
The size of the scene at the Camera is the left component of the ratio;
the size of the Subject is on the right. Reading from left to right,
Camera and Subject are in alphabetical order.
If you don't need a trick like that, fine. If you do, it's yours.
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>
>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>
>>Macro is not a "mode".
>
> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
> the "macro mode" setting.
What are you seeing with the D40, Tony? I think in this respect my D60 is
the same as your D40, and "macro" doesn't even appear in the index of my
FM. I see "close-up", and am used to that language with the "Close Up"
mode -- the flower icon on the mode dial. Can you give me an example?
Thanks.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:32:25 -0700, Blinky the Shark
<no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> What exactly happens when a camera is set to macro mode?
>>>>
>>>> And why are some lenses "macro lenses" while others are not? Can a lens
>>>> which is not a macro lens take close-ups?
>>>
>>>Macro is not a "mode".
>>
>> I sense some semantic nit-picking here. My Nikon D40 and my Nikon
>> Coolpix both have a "mode dial" on the body, and both manuals refer to
>> the "macro mode" setting.
>
>What are you seeing with the D40, Tony? I think in this respect my D60 is
>the same as your D40, and "macro" doesn't even appear in the index of my
>FM. I see "close-up", and am used to that language with the "Close Up"
>mode -- the flower icon on the mode dial. Can you give me an example?
The top half is a scan of the manual for my D40, and the bottom half
is the manual for my Coolpix.
The D40 refers to "shooting modes" at the top, "point and shoot modes"
in the middle, and "close-up" at the bottom.
The Coolpix refers to "Focus Modes" and used "Macro Close-Up".
The "mode dial" determines the setting mode.
"Macro" does not appear in the index of the D40 manual, but "Macro
mode" is listed in the Coolpix index.
That "flower icon" setting is a focus mode, but it does not result in
macro photography. The "sports" mode does not necessarily result in
sports photography, either. A mode is a setting in this context, and
not a description of the captured image.
Re: Macro mode 
If you do, it's yours.
Linear Mode
