Macro 1:1 and 60mm VS 100mm which is larger?

joel28 said:
What does the 1:1 ratio mean? Is it a setting on the lens?

It means that the object in the image is at life-size instead of like 1:2, which would be 1/2 life-size.
 
When you say life-size, do you mean the "actual" size?
 
How do we achieve that? By going closer to the subject?
 
How do we achieve that? By going closer to the subject?

You achieve that by shooting your 1:1 macro lens at its minimum focal distance. So yes, you get closer until you can't focus any more.

Sent from my Galaxy S III
 
I think this "1:1" as "true macro" is so overrated. It's all about minimal focusing distance. Who cares if the lens is 1:1 or not.

This shot was made with a 24mm wide angle prime. By no means a macro lens.

4981287758_67bc527319_b.jpg
 
1:1 is a ratio and means:

The size of the subject reflected on the sensor by the lens : The size of the subject in real life.

Ergo a 1:1 photo has a reflected image on the sensor which is exactly the same as the subject is in real life. A 2:1 magnification would mean that the subject is reflected on the sensor at twice its size in real life; and a 0.5:1 magnification means that its reflected at half its life size.

In practice 1:1 is the "standard" set for "true macro" in photography and is what pretty much all prime macro dedicated lenses achieve. (there are one or two primes which either go above or below this value and a slew of zooms - oft 70-300mm - which use macro, but at best can only get to 0.5:1).


As for how it gets there - complicated optics stuff. Getting closer isn't necessarily the whole of the story as you have macro capable lenses all the way from 35mm to 200mm. Each one being a 1:1 capable macro lens means that from 35mm to 200mm the magnification is the same at the closest focusing point; and because the magnification is the same then so to is the frame captured. Ergo you don't get more magnification from a 200mm over a 35mm macro lens. What will change is that the 200mm lens will give you the 1:1 ratio at a distance from the subject greater than the 35mm. In short the longer the focal length of a true macro lens, the further away the camera will be from the subject (though you'll still be pretty close).
The other difference is that the longer focal lengths will create far more background blurring in the photo - something that you will generally only see at the extremes (eg comparing a 35mm to a 200mm). Further whilst the background blurring changes the overall depth of field (area of the photo that is in focus and sharp) will remain the same (although with a shorter focal length macro lens sometimes it can appear to be greater because background areas are not as strongly blurred).
 
I think this "1:1" as "true macro" is so overrated. It's all about minimal focusing distance. Who cares if the lens is 1:1 or not.

This shot was made with a 24mm wide angle prime. By no means a macro lens.

The thing is if you know the magnification of a photo you can calculate measurements on the photo itself (you know the magnification applied and you know the size of the sensor used, so you can easily determine a scale for the photo - although manufacture tolerances mean that there might be slight variation from lens to lens and thus making it inaccurate for fine measurements its good enough for most peoples use for measurement recording (better if you can put a ruler next to the subject of course, but this is not always possible or practical).

Having a standard also helps a lot when choosing a capable lens for a specific task, further the true macro capable lenses of longer focal lengths can be very important for some subjects, such as insects, since they allow shooting from further away. Yes you might be able to get the shot very very close up with a wide angle lens - but you've also far more chance of spooking the subject and also overshadowing the photo with the camera and thus blocking out light for the photo )whilst also having very limited space to add any lighting of your own).
 
I think this "1:1" as "true macro" is so overrated. It's all about minimal focusing distance. Who cares if the lens is 1:1 or not.

This shot was made with a 24mm wide angle prime. By no means a macro lens.

4981287758_67bc527319_b.jpg

Come back when you 24mm prime can get shots like this (without extension tubes, of course):


5D3_5649enhanced by Quentin Biles, on Flickr

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
I think this "1:1" as "true macro" is so overrated. It's all about minimal focusing distance. Who cares if the lens is 1:1 or not.

This shot was made with a 24mm wide angle prime. By no means a macro lens.

4981287758_67bc527319_b.jpg

Come back when you 24mm prime can get shots like this (without extension tubes, of course):


5D3_5649enhanced by Quentin Biles, on Flickr

Sent from my Nexus 7

I'm sure he knows that, he does have a 180mm f2.8 macro in his bag.

But for me it's more about taking portraits of bugs "faces" where you want 1:1 or closer. Also the closer you can get the less you'll have to crop.

Now if he shot that moth at 1:1 on a larger medium....
 
I was responding to how he seemed to downplay the importance of 1:1 reproduction in macro photography. Like it was just a marketing term that wasn't important.

Sent from my Galaxy S III
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top