[Muse]

Is this considered a macro shot?

I don't know, but this is! Taken from thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/110592-macro-what-kind-insect.html It's a fly, taken with a macro lens in the Netherlands.

[Marc Sabatella]

Is this considered a macro shot?

There's no single hard and fast definition, but the usual one says that a shot is macro if it's 1:1 - that is, if the subject is rendering life size on the sensor. The sensor is about an inch across. That bee is probably about an inch. If you were able to get close enough so the bee filled the frame, that would be macro. Some would stretch the definition to still call it macro if the bee only fills half the frame. Your shot it pretty far from that. And assuming it's taken with the kit lens, that's why - it's incapable of rendering subjects that large, because it's not a macro lens.

[RioRico]

We can get into a labels game here. Some set 1:1 (full size) or greater as 'macro'; many others extend the definition to 1:2 (half size) also. Those are ratios between the image-on-the-sensor size, and the subject size. Many lensmakers label their glass 'macro' (or even 'micro') if they can attain 1:3 (1/3 size) or even 1:5. They may do so 1) because MACRO is understood in numerous languages, 2) to boost sales, and 3) because printing MACRO on the lens uses less ink than CLOSE FOCUS.

My 1000mm f/10 Rubinar MAKPO mirror has a minimum-focus-distance (MFD) of 1.5m. Is that really macro / makpo? One formula for magnification is: M = F/D (magnification = focal length / distance). So the magnification is 1.5:1, which is pretty close to macro. If I put the lens on 500mm of tubes, it's definitely there. Whereas my Sakar 500/8 mirror also has MFD = 1.5m, but without a LONG tube its best magnification is 1:3.

So what's the boundary between MACRO and CLOSE-UP? Wherever you want to draw it. IMHO 1:1 is definitely macro and 1:5 is definitely close-focus. In between is disputed territory. You'll be challenged more for calling a 1:3 image MACRO than by calling it CLOSE. Whether such labels MATTER (to anyone but lens-sellers) is another question...

[Marc Sabatella]

By way of analogy, this is kind of like discussing what the definition of "tall" is, and then asking if a guy who is 5'11" counts as tall or not.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 09-03-2010 at 10:50 AM.

[jonhock]

My Samsung Digimax V3, that I've used since January 2004 proudly displays that it can take a macro from 6 cm, right on the camera body via a sticker. I've always been impressed with its macro ability (2 macro settings, Macro and Super Macro). However, I've been unable to find a specification telling me how close I can get a macro with the 18-55mm kit lens with my new K-x. I'm more than curious. It's got me wondering which camera to reach for.

I have a little Samsung SL620 point'n'shoot that also takes fairly impressive close ups, but if I do macro I reach for my slr's. (Pentax zx-50, spotmatic F, or more recently, my new K10d) I have a set of non-auto k-mount extension tubes, but as previously stated in this thread by RioRico, they don't work well with a DA lens because when the 18-55 is taken off of the camera the aperture is at the minimum f22/f38 which just gives me/you a nice photo of dark. There are a couple auto-extension tubes on amazon for a start, but in the meantime I'll attach this photo that I just shot using my DA 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 along with a set of "Ketnor USA" close up lenses. I used all 4 diopters stacked; +1,+2,+4, and +10. The end of the lens was approx 1 1/4 inches away from the keyboard. I got this set of diopters on ebay from tekdude (in the usa) for about 12 bucks including shipping. I have the 58mm set and use a 52-58mm step up ring but he does have the 52mm set as well. This photo is not cropped, I sharpened it up a little with Elements 7 but other that that it is straight from the end of the lens. Drat, now I have to clean my keyboard
And yes, it is a lot of extra glass to shoot through, which is why I actually use a Honeywell Pentax Bellows II and an SMC Takumar 50mm 1:1.4 for my macro stuff. (oh, and a Asahi Pentax m42-PK adapter)

[jonhock]

Here, Muse, are a couple quick bellows shots W/no post process. And yes, the lighting could be a lot better.

[Muse]

That's impressive. Got me thinking microscope! My eyes aren't what they were when I was 8 years old. Macro shots can bring back that kind of close focus, actually improve on it, as the shot of the fly shows, yours too, especially that last one.

[agsy]

I think I got the picture . I now officially know what the definition of macro is.

Thanks for all the good info!

[Wijou]

I had the same thoughts on how good the Kit Lens would be for macro shots. Seems to be pretty good for me (newbie in dSLR) The image attached is of a Fairy Model (my wife collects them!) it's about 7" o/a length and 4" o/a height. It was taken hand-held to make sure sure the SR works when out side.
Used a slave flash to 'shine' through her wing!

[agsy]

Nice shot!

[Marc Sabatella]

I had the same thoughts on how good the Kit Lens would be for macro shots. Seems to be pretty good for me (newbie in dSLR) The image attached is of a Fairy Model (my wife collects them!) it's about 7" o/a length and 4" o/a height.

I agree this is a nice shot. but it's not even *close* to being a macro shot. You're taking a 7" long object and not even filling the frame with it - that's well below 1:7 magnification. Probably not even 1:10. A 1:1 macro shot would fill the frame with a 1" section of the figurine - like just the face. You'll find the 18-55 just can't focus close enough to do that, and that's why it isn't considered a macro lens.

[JeffJS]

Pentax A 50mm f2.8 1:2 macro, as close as I could get with the AF160 macro flash attached. A dedicated macro lens that doesn't cost a fortune. Sorry, but I still say the kit lens is Not a macro lens.



Pixel Peeper

[Wijou]

I realize, Marc, that the kit lens is NOT a Macro lens and I didn't intend the image to be such. all I was trying to get across was that the kit lens is a pretty good lens for 'close-up' shots. I have taken macro images before in the days before digital photography was available to the general populace (not sure when it actually was "invented") with the SLRs of old but this is my first experience with a Digital SLR. I am really impressed with the new Pentax line ups and think that I have found another niche to explore. Can't afford a true Macro lens yet (pensioner) but will continue using close up lenses and must emphasize with my next batch of images that they are that, just close ups. I thank you for critiquing my 'work' so far and please do continue to do so. We all never stop learning, I am seventy four and am far from an expert in anything, other than reaching seventy four. Ha!

[Marc Sabatella]

Even though I pointed out that your example is not really macro, I will reiterate that I think it's a great shot - I really like the lighting effect. I'd also add that while the kit lens is *not* a macro lens, you example and some of the flower shots posted show it can indeed do a good job of fairly closeup photography. That maximum magnification of 1:3 isn't impressive for shooting insects, but actually, for flowers and many other subjects, that's often all you need. So I certainly don't mean to write off the kit lens as useless!

[Wijou]

Well thank you Marc, kind words work wonders for the ego, eh? Seriously though, good to have knowledgeable people explain what can be improved in one's photos as opposed to just dismissing them as 'no good'. I've just uploaded some what I call Macro shots to my "Signature & Stuff" album, when you have time maybe take a peek and see what you think, I'll attach just one to this post so as not to take up too much space here.
Thanks again Marc, will have to donate , need more room, Eh?


These were taken with my inexpensive Sigma 70 - 300mm DG lens. Pretty good for the price