More questions - sorry

sineadw

I'm sure I'm bugging someone by now..

I just got my new camera, and after half an hour of disappointment as I thought the shutter release button was faulty and then happiness as I figured out that the wind-on thingey locks the shutter in the normal release position and only shoots in a strange halfway position that pokes in my nose... I'm finally looking at the lens.

Its a 35-70 zoom. The outer ring though has macro written on it and a line from 0.4 to 0.7 metres. I thought macro lenses were less than 35mm? Or am I confused altogether? Maybe don't answer that last one..

Maybe I should just do a course and be done with it :rolleyes: Someone let me know if I'm asking too many questions.

melekalikimaka

The classical definition is photography in which the image on film or electronic sensor is as large or larger than the subject. Therefore, on 35 mm film (for example), the camera has to have the ability to focus on an area at least as small as 24×36 mm, as this is the size of the image on the film. This is a magnification of 1:1.

In recent years, the term macro has come to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a standard 102×152 mm (4×6 inch) print is made, the image is life-size or larger.

Lighting can be difficult. Some cameras can focus on subjects so close that they touch the front piece of glass in the lens. It's impossible to place a light between the camera and a subject that close, making this extreme close-up photography impractical. A normal-focal-length lens (50 mm on a 35 mm camera) can focus so close that lighting remains difficult. To get more distance between the camera and the subject, photographers use telephoto macro lenses. Focal lengths from about 100 to 200 mm are popular. This permits lighting.

Roen

Macro's are typically longer than 35, a lot of wide angle lenses can focus quite closely but aren't actually true macro's. Every second lens these days has 'macro' stuck somewhere on it.
Also a lot of older manual advance cameras had to have the film advance lever cocked out to allow the shutter button to be depressed. Looks like yours is one of them.

DaireQuinlan

sineadw wrote:

I'm sure I'm bugging someone by now..
I just got my new camera, and after half an hour of disappointment as I thought the shutter release button was faulty and then happiness as I figured out that the wind-on thingey locks the shutter in the normal release position and only shoots in a strange halfway position that pokes in my nose.

You're not left eye-ed are you ? I've got an old Nikon FE-2 which is a curse for people whose left eyes are dominant due to the reason above, Film advance lever pokes them either in the bridge of the nose or (ouch) in the eye. At least its not their good eye !

D.

Alun

Roen wrote:

Macro's are typically longer than 35, a lot of wide angle lenses can focus quite closely but aren't actually true macro's. Every second lens these days has 'macro' stuck somewhere on it.

So, playing the devil's advocate here for a moment and knowing that there is some controversy out there concerning the 'real' definition, what is your personal definition of a 'true macro' ?

kuroino

I guess we have to distinguish macro lense from macro photography. As I know macro lense is not only made do work on high maginification, but to be sharp and have as little distortions as possible on such magnification in comparison to other shooting conditions.

One of the interesting problems with macro is that the distance to the objects become quite comparable with the size of the front element in your lense, that makes it more complicated to make a lense that makes sharp undistorted pictures, as I understand.

Roen

Alun wrote:

So, playing the devil's advocate here for a moment and knowing that there is some controversy out there concerning the 'real' definition, what is your personal definition of a 'true macro' ?

1:1 mag or above. Canon mp-65 for instance.

Alun

Roen wrote:

1:1 mag or above. Canon mp-65 for instance.

But does that have any real relevance in the world of, say, APS-C sized digital sensors where you can never actually 'see' the image itself, and where it's physical size is only determined at the point that you view it, and then by the resolution of the device you're viewing it on? In other words how 'big' is a digital image, really?

I can sort of see the relevance of 1:1 in an historical sense when you're talking, say, large format film, but for digital, or even 35mm, I'd say it's largely irrelevant.

As kuroino says, I'd place more importance on a) the ability to close focus b) the lack of any measurable distortion at those focussing distances, and c) the sharpness of the image.

If you apply the strict 1:1 rule, you'd have a tough time taking a macro shot even of an average postage stamp or coin with some cameras.

Roen

True enough Alun, but my formal schooling was from 96 to 99 so the only definitions I know are from the era of film.
If you go down the road of re-defining old standards because of the advent of digital sensors you better make sure you give DoF, Circle of Confusion etc a good make over too
Because they ain't what they once were.....

Alun

Roen wrote:

True enough Alun, but my formal schooling was from 96 to 99 so the only definitions I know are from the era of film.
If you go down the road of re-defining old standards because of the advent of digital sensors you better make sure you give DoF, Circle of Confusion etc a good make over too
Because they ain't what they once were.....

I wasn't necessarily restricting myself to digital sensors, although due to their size it was an extreme example. I mean, even if you're talking 35mm film, I can imagine many typical macro subjects (a butterfly or flower for example) that wouldn't fit full size in a 24x36mm frame either.

sineadw

Yep I'm left-eyed. Never realised that before.

Thanks for the explanations. Macro photography is something I'd really like to do so I thought I'd gotten a major bonus when the lens came today. I guess its a case of what Roen said - they just stuck it on there to make it look good. Oh well..

Roen

Macro photography rocks Sinead!
@ Alun, I know what you mean alright, I tend to ramble on though

DaireQuinlan

sineadw wrote:

Yep I'm left-eyed. Never realised that before.

Thanks for the explanations. Macro photography is something I'd really like to do so I thought I'd gotten a major bonus when the lens came today. I guess its a case of what Roen said - they just stuck it on there to make it look good. Oh well..

Whats the actual make/ model of the lens ? I've got a 35-105 MF nikkor that does great macros. It actually has a separate unlockable macro focusing ring that enables me to get to within a cm of a subject at 35 mm or about a foot at 105 with about the same magnification. So your lens could do the job pretty well ...

D.

Roen

A fair few of us are left eyed, I can't say it ever really affected me overly much and I never noticed getting poked by the lever before.
And don't worry about asking questions, this is an expensive enough hobby so if you can find out before you shell out, so much the better.

sineadw

Cheers Roen. You may regret saying that though..

Its just the lens that came with the camera originally I think? Cosina 35-70mm 1:3.5-4.8 MC Macro. The closest I can get any decent focus at is about a foot, so a bit different to yours Daire For less that 40 quid for the body, lens, bag, P&P though I'm not complaining too much. I've asked Santa for a nicer lens for it anyway.