Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Well, it was always just an arbitrary number. It's just *more* arbitrary now.
As with the standard lens thing, you are missing the point of terminology.
We have terminology with relatively fixed meanings to aid communication. Shoot down definitions at your whim, call them arbitrary if you like, but these definitions are required for the purpose of ease of communication.
As an example, there is a product made from milk. Someone arbitrarily decided to call it cheese.
If you want to call it an apple, that's fine, whatever floats your boat, but don't expect anyone to figure out what you mean, since your just as arbitrary definition is nonsense, as is your lack of willingness to define things in fairly solid terms.
BTW, growing up in the photo business, I was taught that the term macro was a fairly loose definition that meant focusing closer than what a normal lens would do, but 1:2 was considered minimum performance for a lens to be a macro.
The zoom lenses of the 80s moved the bar somewhat and the definition became 1:4 for many people, especially those in sales. The more technically minded of us called them close focus lenses to differentiate them from true macros.
This hasn't changed. What has changed is the technology that gives us the final image.
Technically, if a sensor is 1/2 of an inch across, then for a lens mounted to it to be defined as a macro, it would have to be able to focus on and allow a frame filling picture of something in the range of 1/2 into to 1 inch long, be it a bug, or a cigarette butt or anything else.