Search the Community

Zanda Clay Forest, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 039a5917-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Baryang, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 037a5268-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Mt. Gurla Mandhata, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 036a5703-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Mt. Gurla Mandhata, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 035a5390-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Mt.Cho Oyu, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 034a6299-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Mt. Gurla Mandhata, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 033a5304-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Jokhang Temple, Lhasa, Tibet 032a8494-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Flying to Tibet (Tibet Airlines) 031a2217-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

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)

Bonsoir Everyone, I have done the download today 19/12 at 19:15 from Fujifilm Europe and only one file came through. Installed with no problems. Have a nice festive season Jeremy

As I have shown, a lot of lenses were produced by lens makers ( not internet commentators, but actual lens makers) such as nikon, pentax, zeiss,olympus, and were given the predicate macro and micro but didn’t get to 1:1 reproduction ratio. I suppose that one might agree that lens makers know a few things more about macro lenses than dictionaries compilers whose task is to register the use of language ( I have been studying languages & linguistics and I am aware of how a dictionary is compiled) but don’t make the things called macro and haven’t given them their name. So, if a language myth takes a foothold a dictionary will report it as it is used, even badly. However the lens makers have a different opinion on these terms. Some define and have historically defined as macro and micro ( although micro, linguistically, should indicate that the reproduction ratio should be greater than life-size so with an actual magnification of the subject) many lenses which reproduce lifesize and sometimes less than that. A substantial amount of them in this list is half size ( and actually there will be more if the would include some older lenses for example it lists the pentax 100mm f2.8 but not the earlier f4 ( which I own and use), the same is also true fro the early versions Tamron 90mm and Vivitar 90mm, also half size but not listed among these lenses below) From Wikipedia (a partial list of lenses not including many with reproduction ratios lesser than 1:1, but nevertheless apt to show that there are several Macro lenses which didn’t get any furthere than 1:2 and some a lot less than that , such as the Schneider Makro or the Kern macro switar) Lens focal length Reproduction Ratio Closest Focus Canon EF Compact f/2.5 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 6in. Canon EF-S f/2.8 USM 60mm 1:1 (life size) 8in. Canon MP-E f/2.8 1-5x 65mm 5:1 (life size) 7in. Canon EF f/2.8 USM 100mm 1:1 (life size) 12in. Canon EF f/2.8L IS USM 100mm 1:1 (life size) 12in. Canon EF f/3.5L USM 180mm 1:1 (life size) 19in. Fujifilm XF60mmF2.4 R Macro [16] 60mm 1:2 (half life size) 10.5in. Nikon AF-S DX f/2.8G 40mm 1:1 (life size) 6.4in. Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 55mm 1:2 (half life size) 10.8in. Nikon AF Nikkor f/2.8D 60mm 1:1 (life size) 8.75in. Nikon AF-S Nikkor f/2.8G ED 60mm 1:1 (life size) 6in. Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor f/3.5G ED VR 85mm 1:1 (life size) 9in. Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 105mm 1:2 (half life size) 16.08in. Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor f/2.8G IF-ED 105mm 1:1 (life size) 12in. Nikon AF Nikkor f/4D IF-ED 200mm 1:1 (life size) 20in. Nikon PC-E Nikkor f/2.8D ED 45mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.9in. Nikon PC-E Nikkor f/2.8D 85mm 1:2 (half life size) 15in. Olympus Zuiko Macro f/2 90mm 1:2 (half life size) 15.7in. Olympus Zuiko Macro f/2 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.6in. Olympus Zuiko Macro f/3.5 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.1in. Olympus ED-Zuiko Macro f/2 50mm 1:1 (35mm eqv. 2x life size) 9.5in. Olympus m.Zuiko Macro f/2.8 60mm 1:2 (35mm eqv. life size) 7.5in. Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited 35mm 1:1 (life size) 5.4in. Pentax D-FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro 50mm 1:1 (life size) 7.67in. Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR 100mm 1:1 (life size) 9.9in. Schneider Kreuznach PC-TS MAKRO-SYMMAR 4.5/90 HM[17] 90mm 1:4 (quarter life size) 22.8in. ( 1/4 size......!) Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro[18] 50mm 1:1 (life size) 5.3in. Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro[19] 70mm 1:1 (life size) 10.1in. Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro[20] 105mm 1:1 (life size) 12.3in. Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro[21] 150mm 1:1 (life size) 15in. Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM[22] 180mm 1:1 (life size) 18.6in. Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 30mm 1:1 (life size) 4.8in. Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 50mm 1:1 (life size) 7.8in. Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 100mm 1:1 (life size) 14.4in. Tamron SP 60mm f/2.0 Di II 1:1 Macro[23] 60mm 1:1 (life size) 9.1in. Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro[24] 90mm 1:1 (life size) 11.4in. Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro[25] 90mm 1:1 (life size) 11.8in. Tamron SP 180mm f/3.5 Di 1:1 Macro[26] 180mm 1:1 (life size) 18.5in. Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50[27] 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.6in. Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100[28] 100mm 1:2 (half life size) 17.6in. [29] [30] [31] [32] To these I would certainly add the Alpa Kern Macro Switar with only 1:3 reproduction ratio, but, called macro, nonetheless. Pentax 100mm f4 Macro ( half life size) Micro Nikkor ( half life size) What do they ( Kern, Pentax and Nikkon) know about lenses?

Hi all. Great topic. Frustrating issue. Working in Lightroon CC (6), I had following workflow till now with all successive cameras (Nikon D200, D7000, D800 then Fuji X-T1 / X-T10 / X100T): manage one single LR catalog with ~40000 pics, mostly RAW import RAW from memory card at import rename to YYYYMMDD_original_name.RAF at import sort into monthly folders (ie. 2015-01 till 2015-12 to limit number of pictures per folder) at import generate Smart Previews at import generate 1:1 Previews apply basic keywords let previews generation finish or start already editing: discard about 20% straight away, over several passes spread over months can reject up to 50% develop best pics copy paste development if necessary (export best pics) Notes: I now edit with an iMac 5K 27" 2014, all pics and previews on SSD importing 100 D800 NEF (36 MP) takes 9 minutes 50" importing 100 X-T1/X-T10/X100T RAF (16 MP) takes 13 minutes 17" (+30% more time for -50% less pixels) D800 NEF imports were already ~+30% slower than D200/D7000's Yes I know I'd better take keepers only for starting, but that's not always possible (wildlife or shallow focus issues) and creatively I need the editing process. Sometimes my workflow is so frustrating slow that I'm even looking at changing my Fujis! But of course the issue is LR, not Fujifilm. Now moving to this new workflow: taking RAW + jpeg fine manage one single LR catalog with ~40000 pics, mostly RAW import RAW + jpeg from memory card at import rename to YYYYMMDD_original_name.RAF at import sort into monthly folders (ie. 2015-01 till 2015-12 to limit number of pictures per folder) at import generate Smart Previews at import generate 1:1 Previews apply basic keywords apply a saved filter on jpegs only let Smart Previews generation finish or start already editing: discard about 20% straight away, over several passes spread over months can reject up to 50% after editing finished generate 1:1 previews to all pics develop best pics copy paste development if necessary (export best pics) (delete jpegs) I checked that the iMac 5K was performing as well as a similar 2560x1440 desktop PC with similar specs, SSD as well. I checked that splitting my library across multiple catalogs didn't improve import speed. I checked that starting from fresh LR install with no presets at all didn't increase speed as well. Honestly I still enjoy LR offer but not Silkypix, ACR & Photo Mechanic. Capture One is an option but needs substantial time investment and money.

EF-X500 Flash to be announced on January 15 :: HSS 1/8000 :: GN 50 :: Available in Spring More here: http://www.fujirumors.com/ef-x500-flash-to-be-announced-on-january-15-hss-18000-gn-50-available-in-spring-ricoh-gr-vs-x70-size/

Landscape photographer 025b5972-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Gamba castle, Gamba County, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 024b8308-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

A family Kora around a prayer flags shrine under Mt. Gurla Mandhata (Kora means a ritual circumambulation of a holy place) 023b6783-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Dinggye grassland, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 022b8043-01-3 by yhcvn, on Flickr

A village under Mt.Everest (leftmost) & Mt.Cho Oyu (rightmost), Tingri County, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 021b7871-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr

A hulless barley field at Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 020b7540-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Mt. Lapche Kang and hulless barley field, Shigatse Prefecture, Tibet 019b1182-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Ombu, Nagqu Prefecture, Tibet 017b0597-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Ombu, Nagqu Prefecture, Tibet 016b0552-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Waiting for sunrise at Zanda Clay Forest, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 011b5942-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Clay forest near Qangze, Zanda County, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 010b1037-01 by yhcvn, on Flickr

Zanda Town in the Clay Forest, Ngari Prefecture, Tibet 009b0798-01-2 by yhcvn, on Flickr