Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the >difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully >understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, >but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? >What difference does it make then?
The only difference is that fills the whole frame of an ist-D at 1:1 wouldn't fill the frame of a film SLR at 1:1. They'd both have the same magnification ratio (1:1 of course!) but on the film camera there'd be more empty area around the subject. >And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life >size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that >true? My experience is there really aren't any set definitions for this kind of thing. Kodak tried to get everyone to agree on their own definitions of "micro", "macro" etc a long time ago and they were soundly ignored. I consider "micro" photography to be images of *much* greater than 1:1 magnification. Using a microscope, basically. But that's just me :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
