On 20 May 2002 at 17:55, Mishka wrote: > 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.
Herein lies your misunderstanding, the quoted magnification (ie 1:1) is related to the image size on the film (or sensor) vs the size of the real object. > 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? No, it depends upon the dimensions of the pixels relative to each other? Also grain has no bearing on the magnification of the image. The effect of grain visibility may affect the size that you chose to make the final print but that's entirely up to you. > 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? That's precisely what is happening, it's just that most people want to use the whole of the frame and most wide angle lenses for 35mm suck for macro :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
