Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,434   Online: 946
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Barcelona/Córdoba
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    58
    Macro (or as is technically correct, Micro) lenses are generally designed to have a flat field of focus,
    The only instance that I have ever seen of the use of "micro" rather than "macro" in this context is/was the designation of some Nikon lenses. In forty years I have never come across any other manufacturer or text that uses the term "micro" in this context.

  2. #32
    KennyMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    158
    If you consider the view permitted by such a lens, a macro would be used from a greater distance from the subject, and a micro more proximal position. I too have only seen the word micro used by Nikon. It makes me wonder if the use of macro comes from some odd translation from Japanese, although that is purely a guess as nothing else makes sense

    Oh, and Rob, nice photographs. Thank you for sharing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Wass View Post
    The only instance that I have ever seen of the use of "micro" rather than "macro" in this context is/was the designation of some Nikon lenses. In forty years I have never come across any other manufacturer or text that uses the term "micro" in this context.
    If you call it a "prime lens" because it's a fixed-focal length (i.e. not a zoom lens), then as Inigo Montoya said so eloquently, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

  3. #33
    Rob MacKillop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    47
    Thanks, Kenny!

  4. #34
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,260
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    The blues look lovely!

    Which brings me to... the winter mid-mornings actually have quite deep hued skies - but how does one get that in Velvia on 120? ND filters? stop down much?
    Any tips?
    Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India .
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,665
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India .
    excess of UV in N pole but sky in Nepal should be similar.

  6. #36
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    543
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Maybe there are a few tiny differences between the skies in Scotland and India .
    Well, I did see deep hued mornings here, and the question was coming from that angle plus with general advice I have received on using Velvia when there's subdued light available

    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Barcelona/Córdoba
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    58
    Macro vs Micro

    I tried to avoid being pedantic in my last post, but it's clear that can't be avoided. In English speaking territories the accepted formal definitions are:-

    photomacrography - photography producing magnification on the film/sensor in the range 1x to 10x

    photomicrography - photography producing magnification on the film/sensor >10x

    Hence the latter usually requires the use of a microscope. Of course most popular writing on the subject uses the term "macrophotography" or just "macro", but the writers always go along more or less with the above definition and never misuse the term "micro". Nikon is the only source of any confusion. All the other manufacturers use "macro", though unfortunately often for zoom lenses that focus a little closer the average.

  8. #38
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    446
    Nice pictures. Smoothe backgrounds (bokeh) produced by this lens. How did you scan them?

    Question I have about shooting close, something I don't normally do with my RB67. Which of my lenses would provide the least distortion: 50mm, 90mm, 180mm, or 360mm. Except for the 90, all are Secor C's. The 50 has a floating lens adjustment. Would that be the best to use?

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Wass View Post
    Macro vs Micro

    I tried to avoid being pedantic in my last post, but it's clear that can't be avoided. In English speaking territories the accepted formal definitions are:-

    photomacrography - photography producing magnification on the film/sensor in the range 1x to 10x

    photomicrography - photography producing magnification on the film/sensor >10x

    Hence the latter usually requires the use of a microscope. Of course most popular writing on the subject uses the term "macrophotography" or just "macro", but the writers always go along more or less with the above definition and never misuse the term "micro". Nikon is the only source of any confusion. All the other manufacturers use "macro", though unfortunately often for zoom lenses that focus a little closer the average.
    ^^What he says RE: Macro & Micro
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  10. #40
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,260
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Klein View Post
    Nice pictures. Smoothe backgrounds (bokeh) produced by this lens. How did you scan them?

    Question I have about shooting close, something I don't normally do with my RB67. Which of my lenses would provide the least distortion: 50mm, 90mm, 180mm, or 360mm. Except for the 90, all are Secor C's. The 50 has a floating lens adjustment. Would that be the best to use?
    The 90mm would give you the most flexibility.

    The floating element in the 50mm isn't really designed to optimize in the near-life-size range, although it helps.

    And the working distance with the 50mm is awkward when you are near life size.

    The 180mm will probably work well as well, but you might not like the magnification you get, and may find the working distance will result in flattened perspective.

    I have no idea what it would be like to work with the 360, but I expect you will need a really good tripod head, and lots of patience.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin