> From: Rob Studdert > Subject: Re: OT: Digital camera or scanner for macro photography? > Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 15:30:29 -0700 > -------- > On 20 May 2002 at 10:56, Mishka wrote: > > > I think (pardon my ignorance), macro is the area where the brute > > pixel count is all-important. More pixels == higher magnification, > > that simple. > > The relationship is nothing of the sort. Magnification is related to > lens focal length vs sensor dimensions. Your analogy equates to film > grain deciding macro magnification.
I have to admit, I have done very little macro myself. But, unless I am missing something very basic, the magnification is related to the image size vs. object size. It should have very little to do with the focal length alone (ducking for cover). 100mm 6x7 lens allows to get to the same magnification as 100mm 35mm lens -- not on the negative, of course, but on the final print. Having 2 images, one with the subject 10 pixels wide, and another 1000, I'd say, the second one has higher magnification. Wouldn't you? And, yes, I do think that the film grain and lens resolution determines the magnification. You think it doesn't? > > Now could someone please explain me, what is that "added DOF of > > digital cameras"? > DOF is depth-of-field IOW the depth of acceptable focus, digital > cameras most often afford a greater DOF than their 35mm counterparts > for the same magnification ration due to their smaller sensor size > and their correspondingly shorter lens focal lengths. Again, I am at loss here. Why not shoot with 20mm lens at 35mm, crop the venter of the frame, and have the same DOF? But it doesn't make sense, does it? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
