Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RogerGW187

  1. Two points, then I've finished in this discussion. This mini-thread is getting boring. 1. Throwing large and repetitive chunks of Wikipedia at an argument does not bolster it, especially when there is a flawed assumption underlying that reference. (And doing so is anyway tedious. Just link to it; that's what URLs are for.) The assumption in this case is that the engineers who design and specify a lens also decide what it is called and how it is sold. If you've ever worked in manufacturing industry you will be aware of marketeers' propensity to claim more for a product than it was designed for and to grab any word that sounds impressive to describe it and its abilities. (Engineers understandably find this frustrating.) This is as likely to apply to close-focusing lenses that can't reach a 1:1 magnification as it is to any other oversold product. The fact that the marketing people have labelled such a lens "macro" or "micro" is proof of nothing beyond their eagerness to trade on customers' credulity. 2. It seems to me that you are arguing that the 1:1 definition is not only a misapprehension ('myth', in your term) but a modern misapprehension. You've got it the wrong way round -- the 'Humpty Dumpty'* definition is the newer. Being a student of languages and linguistics, you will be aware that the OED is an historical dictionary, giving not only contemporary meanings but also those from the past. The two earliest citations for "macrophotography" are: 1889 E. J. Wall Dict. Photogr. 114 "Macro-photography, a term used to denote the enlargement of the negative." 1940 A. L. M. Sowerby Wall's Dict. Photogr. (ed. 15) 438 "Macro-photographs, term applied to photographs of small objects reproduced at or about natural size...". You correctly observed that "if a language myth [sic] takes a foothold a dictionary will report it as it is used, even badly". It is clear from the above that the 1:1 definition gained its particular foothold at least as far back as 1940. So which is the modern misapprehension? Roger *"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." (Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll)
  2. I was waiting for the OP to chime in, at least on substantive matters, but he seems to have gone to sleep. I'll therefore continue the off-topic thread about the definition of macro. > I am afraid that the 1:1 reproduction ratio being needed for a lens to qualify as a macro lens is a myth. You seem happy to put your trust in bloggers, journalists and marketeers but, alas, few of them are conscientious or even knowledgeable custodians of the language. I prefer more rigorous sources. 1. For instance, the ninth edition of The Manual of Photography (pub. 2000) says this: "Not all ‘macro’ zoom lenses offer a genuine 1:1 image scale; the term ‘macro’ has become devalued and often just used to mean a close-focus capability." (They must have been thinking of you.) The Manual -- formerly the Ilford Manual of Photography -- is a long-established and respected reference on photography, first published in 1890. Three of its four authors are fellows of the Royal Photographic Society, the main British learned body on photography, as well has having relevant MScs and PhDs. The fourth is a 'mere' BSc. 2. John Humphrey, another FRPS, says this in his book, Close-up and Macro Photography: "Macro photography can be more precisely defined [than close-up photography]. It means the image on the sensor is at least as large as the image being photographed." 3. The Oxford English Dictionary says, about macrophotography: "Photography in which objects are reproduced larger than or at their actual size but without the degree of magnification that use of a microscope would give." 4. The online Merriam Webster dictionary says this, under "macro lens": "...a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image". 5. And, finally, even Wikipedia (multiple authors) goes with life-sized. From the entry on macro photography: "...a macro lens is classically a lens capable of reproduction ratios of at least 1:1, although it often refers to any lens with a large reproduction ratio, despite rarely exceeding 1:1." A pretty substantial myth, eh? Roger
  3. For me it would be the Nikkor, for two reasons: 1. The Fujinon 60mm isn't a macro lens but a close-up one. It goes only to 1:2 magnification. 2. The greater focal length of the Micro-Nikkor, which is a true macro, allows one to work further away from the subject. This might be important for shooting insects, for instance. I have the Fujinon, which I use on my X-T1 and X-T10, and owned the Nikkor (used on a D300). I'd say the image quality of the latter is slightly better but there's not much in it. OTOH, it might have a different colour response to that of a native lens. Roger
  4. Some photo editing software offers this, too. Alternatively, use a specialist EXIF editor, such as ExifTool (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ ). It can work on batches, to update backlogs. There's a GUI version.
  5. > I'll be going to Germany and Egypt. An interesting combination. I suspect you'll be doing plenty of 'candids' in the latter. Roger
  6. Hello Andrew, Don't turn your nose up at the 60mm. It might not focus as quickly as either of the newer lenses -- although it's quicker than it used to be after recent firmware releases -- but it gives excellent quality in a light and inexpensive package. See here for some examples (not the first), taken with an X-T1 on a monopod. It's an ideal focal length for portraits and its close-up abilities are superior to the other two lenses. Magnification on the 56mm is 0.09x, on the 90mm is 0.02x but on the 60mm is 0.50x (not actually macro, therefore, despite Fuji's misleading description). I hope you enjoy your trip. Where's it to, might I ask? Roger
  7. > ...worried about getting contaminants into the lens/sensor. Possible ploys: 1. Ask yourself how much swapping you need to do. I never change lenses in the field but use just one lens for each session. Embrace the discipline this imposes. 2. Use zoom lenses. 3. Take a good second camera with you that works on a different focal length range. Whenever I'm using a longer lens on the XT (60mm, say, or a longer zoom), I put my Ricoh GR (28mm equiv.) in a bag or a pocket. I use it for medium-wide shots. Wherever and whenever you swap, hold the body with the lens throat downwards. Roger
  8. I add my thanks to those above. Very useful additions to the armoury. Roger
  • Create New...