Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2010, 07:11 AM   #31
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 211
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by agsy Quote
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.



09-02-2010, 08:53 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by agsy Quote
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.
09-02-2010, 03:25 PM   #33
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
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...

Last edited by RioRico; 09-02-2010 at 03:34 PM.
09-02-2010, 07:32 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
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.
09-02-2010, 10:57 PM   #35
Site Supporter
jonhock's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NorthEast Pennsylvania, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 377
My 2-cents worth,

QuoteOriginally posted by Muse Quote
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)
Attached Images
 

Last edited by jonhock; 09-03-2010 at 08:22 AM.
09-03-2010, 11:18 AM   #36
Site Supporter
jonhock's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NorthEast Pennsylvania, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 377
Bellows

Here, Muse, are a couple quick bellows shots W/no post process. And yes, the lighting could be a lot better.
Attached Images
   
09-03-2010, 06:22 PM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SF Bay
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 211
Original Poster
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.
09-05-2010, 02:23 PM   #38
Veteran Member
agsy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 545
I think I got the picture . I now officially know what the definition of macro is.

Thanks for all the good info!

09-11-2010, 09:44 AM   #39
New Member
Wijou's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22
Kit Lens 18 55mm

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!
Attached Images
 
09-11-2010, 09:55 AM   #40
Veteran Member
agsy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 545
Nice shot!
09-11-2010, 06:43 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Wijou Quote
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.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 09-12-2010 at 08:30 AM.
09-11-2010, 07:02 PM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
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

09-12-2010, 07:44 AM   #43
New Member
Wijou's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22
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!
09-12-2010, 08:35 AM   #44
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
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!
09-12-2010, 10:42 AM   #45
New Member
Wijou's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22
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


Last edited by Wijou; 09-12-2010 at 02:48 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
18-55mm, 18-55mm kit lens, ability, camera, k-x, kit, lens, macro, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k-x lens , kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL , what 50mm f1.4 can do over kit lens? crossing Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 19 01-15-2010 03:23 PM
DA 18-55mm AL II vs DAL 18-55mm (kit lens) vs DA 18-55mm WR rustynail925 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-08-2010 02:06 PM
18-55mm WR compared to the original 18-55mm kit lens HogRider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-26-2009 12:01 PM
Macro-ability - just some test shots... TrevorC Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-08-2009 07:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top