The DOF is really small in Macro Photography even with small apertures(F/18 for example) due to the magnification rate. It also depends on the angle that you are taking your shoots, but as far as I'm concerned, no lens or camera will help you to get more DOF while macro photographing a subject, may I suggest Stack Focus, it's basically taking a series of shots for several parts of the subject and them merge them all up using digital software. For Explample, you can take a shot of the eyelashes and one for the iris surface to merge them in post production, the final result will be a shot with everything in proper focus.

The only difference between a macro lens and a non-macro of the same focal length is the macro lens' ability to focus from a much shorter distance.Many use macro lenses fro non-macro work because of their image quality, which is almost always fantastic.

I checked (quickly) DPR specs on Oly PM1 and did not find the optical magnification ratio (proportion) there -- only 'Live View Magnification." Is this the same thing? If not, what would be the benefit of including the optical magnification on the DPR spec sheet?

Dear Author,Sorry to say but your article in some points is not correct. To put things into perspective let's talk about what the magnification ratio means. The magnification ratio is not depends on sensor/film size. It depends only on how the lens magnifies the subject. The ratio stands between the subjects real size (lifesize) and between the subjects projected size what you will get on sensor/film. The magnification ratio 1:1 (AKA lifesize) means that the subject will occupy the same physical size on the sensor/film as it's on size. If the subject is 1cm x 1cm size, it will occupy on sensor/film 1cm x 1cm territory if the magnification ratio of the lens is 1:1. No matter how big is the sensor/film. If you use smaller sensors/films and will make prints with the same size (for eg. A3), of course you will get virtually bigger enlargements of the same subject but it is only because the smaller sensor/film does cropping. But the subject on all sensors/films will occupy the same size.

There are cases (such as the image above) where we wish to shoot at magnifications greater than 1:1. These so-called 'extreme-macro' magnifications are possible using special lenses or other equipment, and I'll discuss how that's done in a future article.

Continued...Remeber that magnification ratio is a the realtionship between the actual subject size and the size of its image at the focal plane. It make no difference what kind of media or what size media it is projected upon.

I would suggest to define macrophotography based on resolution: A true macro photograph is one that shows real-world details as small as 10 microns (0.01 mm) or smaller.

Canon has announced the latest lens in its EOS VR System. It's intended to be an affordable way for social media content creators to experiment with new media formats.

Why is this a bad idea (in both cases, so for the magnification and the focal lenght). It is common practice for the focal length everywhere to compare lenses on small sensor, 1", (micro) 4/3, APS-C and Fullframe cameras.

Example: Take 12MP fullframe Canon 5D with a 100 mm "true macro" 1:1 magnification lens and a 12MP 4/3 camera with a 50 mm "fake macro" 1:2 magnification lens. The same FOV, the same perspective, very similar level of detail captured. But according to the traditional definition, only one of the photos is a true macro photograph! Does that make sense? To me not so much.

All images in these articles were achieved WITHOUT ANIMAL ABUSE. I do *NOT* hurt, kill, maim, freeze, squash, glue, heat, refrigerate, skewer, disembowel or perform any other abuse on my subjects. I'll write about all my methods and techniques - I beg of you, please refrain from animal abuse until then.

The whole magnification thing has become a mess. In the old days, it all just depended on the magnification factor of the lens. Now sensor size and resolution also play a role.

Simply put, when we refer to the magnification factor of a lens we are describing an optical quality of the lens, not the possible magnification of the final output. The stated manification is the degree of magnification the lens produces at the focal plane, regardless of the resolving power of the sensor or film it is projected upon.

But now something very strange. At a holiday I did not want to carry too much so only took my 18-180. At close focus and f=180 it uses only 53 pixels to a millimeter. I bought a 5 diopter close focus lens and it became 107 pixels to a millimeter. But in the field strange things happened when focusing so I did new tests and found out I had to move backwards and to focus on infinity to have the biggest magnification! Now it is 190 pixels for a millimeter. Completely contrary to expectation, unexplicable, but very useful for identifying small insects! Of course the optical quality of the combination is not extremely good. Just to let you know. Maybe I should buy a close focus lens for the Sigma too.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

When your subject(s) fills the frame with no cropping involved, it is easy to determine the magnification ratio from a captured image provided you know the size of your subject and the dimensions of your camera's sensor, which can be found in the specifications section of the user manual.

Therefore a subject 10mm wide would be 10 mm wide on both the 35mm and 4x5 film. If both images were exposed on the same film, say tri x, and printed without changing the enlarger height, they would both yield images of the same size and same grain.

What's the point of this whole article? Seems to be some sort of vague engineering discussion. If my subject fills the frame, focuses, and gives me a pleasant compostion, what the h do I care what the magnification is? Am I supposed to be taking critical measurements off the image for scientific purposes? I'm sure there are better tools for that. And who on earth needs to Tweet or Facebook this? My life is going fast enough, I dont need to waste any more of it on frivolties that I already am. Sorry to carry on, but these DP 'tutorials' are just proving a general waste of time as they are just superficial overviews that dont provide sufficient info to really improve my skills.

one question i have with magnification and macro is its benefit for portrait work and video interview. I was going to get a 45 mm macro for video interview but is there any reason to get a 1:1 lens for that type of work when a non-marco of the same focal length will do, i have heard conflicting information. whats the benefit?

Let me take this opportunity to point out that many lens makers employ a very liberal use of the term, and happily write 'macro' on a variety of zoom and prime lenses that are not capable of 1:1 magnifications. This is a sales tactic, and you can easily find so-called macro lenses that can only produce 1:4 or 1:3 magnification ratios. One can, of course, produce great results with such lenses, and it is often possible to achieve higher magnifications on these lenses with the use of optional accessories. When shopping for a macro lens, however, you'll want to look carefully at the magnification specs; most 'true' macro lenses will actually have 'macro 1:1' prominently displayed on the barrel. That removes any ambiguity.

It may seem strange, but that doesn't change the fact that magnification ratio is just a definition, and that's exactly how it's defined. This definition is required for other discussions, and believe me, nothing will ever change it... :)Indeed, in order to fill the frame with a compact as compared to a FF camera, significantly different magnifications are required, but when you think about sensor sizes, it makes sense.

The comapny's bringing its latest chips to some of its most popular computers, and making its nano-texture display available on a laptop.

Because magnification has nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film. What matters is how large the subject is projected onto the image plane, so there is no such thing as "35mm equivalent magnification".

For example, why is it useful to the poster with an HS10 & close-up filter to directly compare the magnification ratio of their system to a user of a 35mm SLR? It seems to have little direct bearing on the subjects they will be able to capture or the images the will be able to produce. The magnification may be useful as an intermediate value for calculation, but why insist that only 1:1 is 'true macro', when for practical purposes the capacity of the system is so dependent on other factors?

Also, how about if you want to photograph it flying? You can hardly toss it in the air with a cry of "Fly my pretty! Fly!" after you have frozen the poor thing!

For extreme macro I use the Canon MP-E 65mm. As for technique, there's too much to tell, please keep reading the series and you'll get answers to your questions.

All I want to know in the end is maximum pixels-per-inch (or resolvable lpi at best aperture) I can get of the subject, and at what distance that happens. I can see why magnification exists as a figure, now, though, since it's the only number that ignores the camera and just talks about the lens. Seems odd to me since it has been 15 years since I had a lens that wasn't integral to its camera. The use of "1:1" as anything special seems kind of like it only is for te same reason the year 2000 was special.

Perhaps the relevance of the '35mm equiv' aspect could be further emphasised to better avoid the misconception that it is meaningful to use this number as an absolute comparison between systems with different sensor sizes.

PS,The illustration at the top with the red and blue ray bundles should show an aperture. As illustrated it's beyond telecentric -- the entrance pupil is beyond infinity.

I should start by saying I have a very limited knowledge of optics - but the definition of magnification as size of the projection on the sensor over size of the subject seems strange to me. Surely pixel density must come into the equation? What if your sensor had a single really large pixel? If I print an image on a larger piece of paper - have I magnified it? I seems o me that what is spectacular about the picture of the bugs eye in the article is not the fact that the picture of the eye is larger than the eye of the fly - but that the detail on the picture at the size it is displayed is such that to the human eye it seems perfectly clear. It is not intuitive to me that magnification should be invariant to pixel density.

But that is not correct. Read the article again: Magnification is determined by how large the subject is when projected onto the image plane. So a 22mm wide subject, projected onto the full width of an APS-C sensor that is 22mm wide, would be a life size (1:1) image. That same subject, projected 22m across a 36mm full frame sensor, would still be a life size (1:1) image...

Adobe's continued working on its Content Credentials system. We sat down with the head of the initiative to discuss new developments and its future.

Last words....Using the same lens at it's closest focusing distance, the size of the subject at the focal plane would be the same on both the full frame and APS-c . If the subject fills the frame at 1:1 on the APS-c camera, the full frame will capture a wider field of view and have more space around it, but the magnification will still be the same.

If you make an 8 x 12 of the full frame at 300ppi, both prints would yield exactly the same magification. The 10mpx will yield an 8 x 12 at 300ppi without uprezing. To make a print from the 18mpx you will have to toss some pixels away by downrezing the file size.

I suppose the answer is that it is useful when comparing lenses of different focal length for use on the same size sensor (which in the old days was more fixed).

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, in macro photography perspective is very important. Just blowing up an image shot from a distance does not give the same result as actual close up photography.

At 1:1 magnification, a simple lens is exactly half way between the subject and focal plane. Additionally, the distance from the lens to the focal plane is exactly twice the focal length.

Certainly it is worthy of explanation; I can remember struggling a little with the concept at first, reading about it and understanding what was written, but refusing to take it on board because it seemed rather arbitrary... so months later, I'd see it mentioned again and think "surely there must be something more meaningful about this number that I haven't realised yet".

How long before we start having '35mm equivalent magnification ratio' like we have '35mm equivalent focal length' (rather than FOV which would actually be meaningful)... just to really arbitrarily obfuscate things for anyone learning about photography from scratch...

This information can be used to approximate the magnification, but lens design will generally affect this. Best is to do an actual measurement if the information is not readily available.

@Mostly Lurking, your information is incorrect and/or includes typos. In general, A:B is macro if A is greater than or equal to B. You say 1:1 to 1:10 is macro photography. That is incorrect. It would have been correct of you had said 1:1 to 10:1.

We caught up with a few product managers and engineers at Adobe Max, and talked with them about the new features in the company's photo editing suite.

Agree, but if we define magnification this way than thesis "macro photography means shooting at a magnification ratio of at least 1:1" looks a little bit strange. Compacts give significantly lesser magnification still they shoot macro ( so they have 1:1 being multiplied by crop factor).

US travel/adventure brand Aether Apparel has made a photographer-friendly waxed field jacket in conjunction with Leica. Is that something we need?

Would it be a good idea to start using a kind of "35mm equivalent magnification factor" by involving the sensor size, just like is is done for the focal length? So a 0.5x lens would have a 0.75x "35mm equivalent" magnification on APS-C.

One should NEVER freeze insects or arachnids or interfere with them in any way. Artie Morris doesn't tranquilise birds does he? Moose Peterson? John Shaw? nope. If you can't get the shot as is, then leave the insect or arachnid be. What you are suggesting is completely immoral and defeats the purpose of being a nature photographer in the first place.

A good macro lens is the one that allows you to shoot insects at enough distance to leave them sitting instead of becoming scared or shaded by the lens; any compact saying macro within 1cm of the lens is pretty useless for this!

At this point you may understandably ask, what's so special about a macro lens? Surely one can take any old 50mm f/1.8 lens and just move it closer to your subject until you reach 1:1 magnification. The problem, however, is that a regular lens will not be able to focus at such close distances. A more specific definition of a macro lens, then, is one whose minimal focus distance is short enough to allow photography of a focused subject in 1:1 magnification.

Macro lensCanon

We don't usually test a product for ten years before reviewing it, but after a decade of using the Lowepro Photo Sport 300 AW II on an almost daily basis, Managing Editor Dale Baskin tells us why he loves this pack.

I'm Back and Yashica launch a digital film module as a full product, nearly a quarter of a century after Silicon Film failed.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

That kinda troubles me as well... usually one should talk about certain terms in 35mm film equivalent due to the lack of better standard. Even in modern days most people know what the size of a negative film frame is.

Nikonmacro lens

While a higher resolution sensor might capture more detail per mm, that may not translate into more details in the final output.

You'll need the ruler too. If you knew the focal length and the minimum distance, you could calculate the magnification. Unfortunately the given focal lengths are for infinity focus. The focal length at minimum focus can be (and usually is) different.

Formaldehyde. That's the chemical we had in a small bottle with a dropper for insects in my biology days. It's also in photography chemical process and woodworking glues etc.

... or Do You want to buy a special and an expensive macro gear for it and spend money and time with software in the computer, today?

What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.

thanks .. excellent informaiton...i'm using macro filters .. availablel in market i.e 1+, 2+, 4+ 10+... what ration of magnification these things do.. and what about the reverse lense.. i've one kit lens 18-55 and a tele 55-250... can i use them as macro ?any suggestion.. ? thank you

In a nutshell, magnification is the degree of image magnification at the focal plane and is not dependent upon the media it is projected upon. Enlargment is the degree magnification of the captured image and is dependent upon the resolution of the capture media. Makes no difference whether it's film or digital, same rules apply. The size of the media is irrelevent.

The RF 24mm F1.4 L VCM and RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM are part of Canon's new 'hybrid' series of lenses designed to work with both EOS and Cinema EOS cameras.

The sensor in your HS10 is only ~ 6mm wide so if you're 'fitting in' 9mm your magnification ratio is indeed only ~ 1:1.5

I've used a Canon autobellows going on 30 years now, and continue to use it with my now EOS system. I use macro lenses on it, non-macro, and even a bellows-only lens. I know the potential magnification with some of these is well beyond 1:1, but I've never bothered to look at the scale or calculate the magnification. So you can be into macro without the scientific/technical end. Oh by the way I'm an engineer, but as you say, all I care about is the composition. Be gentle though because a growing segment of the population gets off on metadata and technical details, as evidenced byt the large segment that is Tweeting and posting on FB meaningless krap.

Macro lensphotography

No, that is a really bad idea. As the magnification goes up the depth of field goes down, getting enough good light to expose the scene becomes more difficult (less surface area reflecting light back into the camera), and even the 1/focal length rule for hand holding a lens breaks down. Impossible to have a conversation about macro without a fixed, easy to understand, definition of what it is. The fact that you cropped a photo and can see fewer millimeters does not change the magnification.

Yes. The ruler method of determining magnification is based upon the size (width) of the imaging media. In your case the A900 full frame size is 36mm wide and the A77 APS-C size is 24mm. If yiou were shooting 4x5, then you would see 5 inches of ruler, 2 1/4 film? You'd see 2 1/4 of ruler....and so on.

"I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the 'real world'."

Once you have a macro lens, how do you accurately calculate its level of magnification at an arbitrary focus distance? The easiest way, by far, is to use a ruler, as shown in the examples below.

Many technical fields of photography -- engineering, biology, archaeology spring to mind -- rely on being able to make direct size comparisons of subjects.

Macro photography is more than just a matter of magnification, it is also a matter of perspective. Just enlarging a piece of an image that was shot from a distance will not yield the same kind of image as on that was shot close up. Likewise using a longer macro lens that allows a greater working distance from the subject will not yield exactly the same image as using a shorter lens very close to the subject. It's a matter of perspective.

"(...) 22mm/22mm equals a 1:1 magnification ratio." in 35mm terms terms it would be 1.64:1 magnification ratio. If you simply say 1:1 the details about subject size are lost.

What we want in a macro shot - Background What we want in a macro shot - Detail The what and why of wildlife macro photography What we want in a macro shot - POV and special scenes

When the manufacturers say they've created a camera for 'creators' or vloggers, that doesn't mean they've turned their back on photographers.

Some of the greatest challenges in macro photography arise from the simple fact that we shoot from very close distances. Thus the magnification of our subject becomes of primary importance. The magnification ability of a given lens is stated in its specifications but in my experience, few photographers understand the meaning and implications of this designation. To understand the concept of magnification, it's worth taking a very brief look at how a photographic image is created. Every point in a given scene reflects light rays. The front element of the camera lens 'captures' these rays and then focuses them onto the imaging sensor, producing a projection of the scene at the location of the sensor.

But at 300 DPI, image shot on a 10mpx sensor would yield a print of 8x12 without interpolation, wearas the image shot with an 18mpx sensor would yield a print of 11.5 x 17.25. At 8x12, the 18mpx image would actually have to be downrezed. At that size the 10MPX image would contain as much detail as the 18mpx. But at larger sizes the 18mpx would have more details.

I use a number of different close up photography tools including reversal rings, extension tubes, etc. By using the methods described in the article I can determine the exact magnification that each method is capable of delivering.

Why 1:1 is so special is because that is the minimum magnification that can truly be called a 'macro'. Here are the definitions:>10:10, normal photography.10:1 to 1:1, close-up photography. (Yes, there are over-laps.)1:1 to 1:10. macro photography.1:>10 micro-photography.

Canon's newest, non-extending 70-200mm F2.8 L zoom for RF-mount includes features aimed at both photo and video shooters. It also works with Canon's RF-mount 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.

Thank you for your clarification. BTW, I am really looking forward to the next articles about this very interesting subject.

It's somewhat arbitrary, but it's also not arbitrary. For a simple lens, it is macro if the lens is as least as close to the subject as it is to the focal plane. For a non-macro lens, it is always closer to the focal plane than to the subject. The lens is exactly half way between the focal plane and the subject at 1:1.

You might want to ask that question here: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=25&sid=0deeb0520592e53ebc79710ba31aeb2b

And while longer focal legnth macro lenses allow a longer working distance they do not provide the same perspective as a shorter focal legnth macro used very very close.

I always make the distiction between in camera magnification and post production magnification by refering only to the former as magnification, the latter is more appropriately described as "enlargment"

If you want natural images, you don't catch the insects. It's quite simple. And if you hope to capture images showing behavior, it''s quite obvious.Finding, approaching and photographing insects is something you learn by trial and error. It takes time, and more time.

Another common use for macro lenses for non-macro work is that these lenses tend to provide a flatter field of focus than non-macro lenses with less distortion, and as such are optimal for eg. artwork reproduction uses.

I should point out that with a regular macro lens, 1:1 magnification is achievable only at the very closest focus distance. Using a longer focus distance necessarily means the magnification will be lower. Indeed, for a fixed focal length, magnification is inversely related to subject distance. This relationship isn't linear, i.e. if I get a 1:4 magnification from a shooting distance of 40 cm, I won't necessarily get a magnification of 1:2 (twice that) from a shooting distance of 20cm. However, getting closer will always result in a larger magnification and vice versa, meaning that for our purposes we can use the terms magnification and proximity somewhat interchangeably.

I expect a special AF macro software of cameras (firmware ... it is posible for Pentax K-5, K-7 etc.) for several macro shots with a good bokeh of fast lens and travelling AF points from the front to the back for compound exposition with choosing a range of blur field as bonus :)

OK here's an analysis of the article from a former physics teacher. His use of the term magnification is misleading. True magnification only happens when the image on the sensor (or film) is greater than 1:1. When printed or viewed on screen the image is magnified in relation to the size on the film or sensor but in that case all viewed or printed images are magnified for viewing. When the resulting image as viewed is larger than life then magnification results. Other factors such as pixel count, lens quality and Monitor size have to be considered because there is the issue of effective magnification where the amount of detail retained has to be taken into account. Magnification without retaining a corresponding amount of detail is useless. Sorry to be picky but I had to get that off my chest.

That 'crop- factor' provides magnification is a fallacy, perpetrated by statements such as 'on an x crop factor camera, it's th same as a x mm lens.' If isn't the magnification they're talking about, it's the Field of View. The magnification is the same.

Now we take a tiny camera with crop = 18 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm and projected size is 2 mm. Magnification = 1:9 ? But we continue to see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

What happens if the subject is the same size in real life as its projection? If we shoot a 1cm fly and its projection on the sensor measures 1cm as well, the magnification is 1:1. The 1:1 ratio has an important meaning for macro enthusiasts. Technically speaking, macro photography means shooting at a magnification ratio of at least 1:1. Therefore, a 'true' macro lens has the ability to produce a magnification ratio of 1:1, or higher.

The maximum magnification is always at closest focus distance: that is rarely engraved on the lens but easily ascertained from the published specifications, so it's easy enough to know before you buy the lens.

has anybody else found that dpreview's forum message index froze 7 hours ago ? All posts are 7 hours old or older. Or is it my brower playing some nasty game with me ?

Magnification can be negative as well. 1:100 is also a magnification, just like 2:1. In the former case the magnification is 0.01 times the original size and in the later case it is two times. As a former physics teacher you should know that.

In short, the relevant important factors for a photographer such as myself are radically different from those being discussed. I have been looking for information to help me replace my Canon Powershot SX70, a Camera which I’m sure most “macro photographers” would Look down, their nose on. Nevertheless, I’ve gotten some great enlargements of bees from that camera. However, I am thinking of investing in some thing a little more specialized. Unfortunately, these discussions are not helpful whatsoever.

Macro Lensphone

You may ask how I got to the 10 microns. Well, I took the good old Canon EOS 10D with a 1:1 macro lens. Now 22.7 mm of real world are projected onto 22.7 mm of sensor covered with 3072 sensels. That gives 135 dots per mm. Taking AA filter and demosaicing into account as well as lens imperfections, the real resolution can be estimated to 75% of the theoretical maximum. That leaves us with 101 dots per mm, equal to resolution of 9.9 microns. 10 microns just look better...

Thx Erez for the lucid explanation.I am an Iridologist, not a camera buff so always have need of good explanations like this.Shooting the spherical surface of the human iris all day with my Canon Rebel Xti, Sigma 105mm macro 1:2.8 lens and iridology-modified w a xenon + fiber optic lighting/flash unit I still get a lot of sharp eyelashes and out of focus iris surface! I'd like better DOF so this does not happen...say, about a half inch DOF so even if an inexperienced iris photographer in our clinic shoots, we'll get every iris in crisp focus. I should mention that the f/ setting for a light blue eye and a dark brown eye have to be widely variant.Any suggestions?

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.

Hello,I want to take detailed pictures of 2 mm long stick.Can you suggest me some good technique on how to do it and what camera and lens combination will be most suitable

But in real-world, it will produce bigger magnification lthough you can crop the DSLR to match that result. I'll be doing a comparison between a DSLR with 55-250mm and my HS10 soon.

You are confusing magnification, which is fixed at the time an image was taken, with creating an enlargement which is done after. Making the subject look larger in the frame, after the shot was taken, will not reveal additional detail that was not already in the photo. But increasing the magnification before the shutter is pressed can allow for more detail to be resolved...

I think that crop factor should be added to magnification definition, in this case both considered pictures would have same magnification.

Part three...if the pixel density of the full frame and APS-c frame are the same, and the full frame image was cropped to match the APS, the resulting image size would be the same.

Magnification - or more precisely, the magnification ratio - is simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality. Perplexed? Here are some examples. Suppose that we're photographing a small child, 1 meter in height. Imagine that the height of the child's projection onto the sensor is 1cm. The magnification ratio is 1cm/100cm, or 1/100. Magnification is typically notated using a colon, so we write it as 1:100, and pronounce it, 'one to one hundred', meaning the child is 100 times larger in real life than its image as projected on the sensor. Similarly, if the subject is a 10cm long lizard, and its projection on the sensor is 2cm long, the magnification ratio is 2cm/10cm or 1:5. The lizard is five times larger in real life than its projection on the sensor.

Second example: I take again a Sony A77 (24 megapixel APS-C) and a Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D (6 megapixel, APS-C).I put the same macro lens with magification 1:1 on both cameras and take a picture of the ruler at maximum magnification. I will end up with 2 pictures that show the same: 24 mm of the ruler. However, when I crop the A77 picture down to 6 megapixel, I suddenly have again 2 pictures with the same resolution of 6 megapixel, one showing 12 mm and the other 24 mm of the ruler.

I think I should clarify:If a flower is 2.5" wide, and you shoot in landscape mode, it is not a macro if the whole face of the flower is visible. If you shoot it so that only 1.9" of it is visible within the edges of the widest edges of the image it is macro. The cutoff for the definition is 2". Macro can therefor be achieved either by shooting at close range, or cropping an image to fit the definition.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

Thanks Kolas for this calculation. My best combination gives 428 pixels per mm, so smallest details are about 3 microns. I did not realize that the micron was so nearby.

Beyond 11 x 17, both files will need to be uprezed to maintain 300ppi, so both files would be suffering a degradation of image quality at larger sizes.

An apology was proffered - why would this be responded to in such a rude way -oh it's the internet. Gee I'm stupid like a fox.

I agree completely. On top of that, I never consider magnification in the field. I only try to achieve my desired composition, and so magnification is but a byproduct.I only explained magnification because:a) It's good to know what people are talking about and to solve misconceptions.b) It's highly relevant for future technical discussions.

A faster sensor, improved autofocus and video see Nikon's third-gen mid-range full-framer go toe-to-toe against Canon's EOS R6 II and the Sony a7 IV. We feel its all-round ability lifts it to the top of the pile.

In reality, the details of how the lens focuses will affect things, so the distance from the projection center to the sensor may change.

> What I don't understand is why '1:1' is so special?Because most (D)SLR macro lenses reach 1:1 at close focus, and because specific macro issues (thin DoF, loss of light, etc) show up to such extent that one can't just ignore them as with lower magnification close-ups. And, one needs special equipment to magnify more than 1:1.

Assuming you're talking about the Leica/Panasonic 45mm macro for the four-thirds system, it won't hurt, and indeed that lens would be pretty good in that role (assuming you're shooting with the camera on a support). Having said that, you won't need or use the macro range unless you're testing the subject's iris response, and in practice a zoom will probably be more useful. Nonetheless that particular lens would be a good choice - and it can't *hurt*. Sadly there's a dearth of good portrait lenses for micro four-thirds, although conversely there's a huge surplus of old 35mm 50mm f/1.8s and f/1.4s you could adapt, if you don't mind manual focus.

Great article, interesting comments. However, irrelevant to someone like me who just wants to take pictures of bees doing what they normally do. You can’t focus at an inch that’s for sure. The equipment has to be manageable for someone who is moving around and who is hand-holding it.

Sorry, not all! Started to read and scrolled down the screen. Stopped at dragonfly and read the notes below it where you wrote: "sensor is 22mm wide, so the magnification ratio is 22mm/60mm, approximately 1:2.7." That was the point what I misunderstood. Now a read the article and have to say that it is absolutely correct. Sorry about my post, hope you can forgive.

The new Fujifilm X-M5 has sparked renewed interest in Fujifilm’s other compact X-series cameras. We couldn’t help but wonder if a new X-E camera might be on the horizon, and if so, what it might be like.

Freezing insects work, as does the chemical whose name escapes my brain, used to use in biology, which kills the insect. This is well known.

As to how to define macro photography, I think the best definition is simply photos of small subjects in the same size range as a coin.

I think an article like this is pointless without an example with compact cameras (small sensor, preferably several sizes). Which would show that frame coverage (in mm) or "equivalent" optical magnification is more useful than the "naked" one.

I hate it when life is going so fast that I don't have time for articles such as this, but not quite so fast that writing a post to complain about it isn't worth my time. It's a strange conundrum, eh?

But in your case, the pixel density of the 24mpx APS-c is greater so you would be able to get a greater degree of enlargement at 300DPI.

re: the article - I guess from a technical point of view, it's nice, but it isn't strictly required knowledge from my experience imho. I've been shooting macro for near 10 years now, so I'm not exactly a newbie, so newbs may find this article of interest.

What I don't understand is why '1:1' is so special? Using a smaller sensor, lower magnification ratios will yield essentially similar results (in terms of subject size relative to captured image, of course other variables like DOF will be different).

Thus a macro lens ought to have the maximum magnification at a specified distance written on it, assuming you put the lens on a normal camera (mostly aps-c) so we can be able to choose from real-world usefulness.

Can a creative project change your life? Photographer Sam Aziz discovered that it can, after embarking on a project to take portraits every day for an entire year along a single iconic street in his hometown of Philadelphia.

The International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum has announced its 2024 class of inductees, a group that includes photographers, visionaries and historians.

That's only sort of right. You should be precise about the "shooting distance". The only sensible distance is the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil (which is almost always inside the lens). In an ideal camera in which you can change the lens power while maintaining the pinhole geometry (e.g., an adjustable-power lens at the aperture), then halving the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil will exactly double the magnification.

A widely available parameter on a given camera is the 'minimum focusing distance.' Knowing the sensor size, can I calculate the (optical) magnification just from this parameter? Or do I have to use a ruler at that distance to get the object size?

Of course it''s really handy to know exactly how much magnification a so called macro lens is really delivering. It might be that the so called macro lens really isn't delivering the goods. I know I've got a few of those. I never purchased them with macro in mind. If macro capability were something I was looking for in a lens then I certainly want to know exactly how much magnification the lens is really delivering before making my purchase decision.

Some may question why this information is even relevent. Well it's relevent in deciding which lens or accessories to buy to achieve the degree of magnification desired.

Consider an example. You have a frame 24x36 and make a photo where subject size = 18mm, projected size is 36 mm, so maginification is 2:1, that's correct, but remember - we see that 18mm subject takes the entire frame.

The advantage with film is that even at a relatively small print size like 8x10, a super fine grain film like Tech Pan would look smoother and sharper than the same image shot of tri x.

First example: I take a Sony A900 (24 megapixel, fullframe) and a Sony A77 (24 megapixel, APS-C). I put the same macro lens with magification 1:1 on both camera and take a picture of the ruler at maximum magnification. I will end up with 2 pictures that are both 24 megapixels, but the A900 picture shows 36 mm and the A77 picture shows 24 mm of the ruler. This should both be called 1:1 magnification?

It's not common these days but many older macro lenses have magnification engraved on the moveable barrel so it can be read as the lens extends. Look at the focus scale in conjunction and you have what you want.

Oh take note that my HS10 + Raynox DCR-150 can fit in 9mm in the frame so technically magnification ratio is bigger than 1:1 of this article but when computed based on your formula it will only be *1:1.46. =D

I do not use magnification, I only need to know how to measure the length of say an insect under certain standardized circumstances. With a Sigma 150 macro on Olympus E-3 at closest focus I have 210 pixels for a millimeter. With a 2x extender it becomes 428 pixels to a millimeter.

EXX, sensor size plays no role in magnification. It is about the relationship between the object and the image. That relationship is the same regardless of sensor size. If your object is 1 mm in size and the magnification is 1:1 then the recorded image is 1 mm is 1 mm on an FF sensor as well as on an APS or FourThirds. That's what 1:1 magnification is.

Nature, landscape and wildlife are some of the most technically challenging fields of photography, and macro photography comes with its own unique set of technical considerations. In this article I'll be discussing one of the most important ones; magnification.

Thank you for the great article!A lot of people seem to find it hard to understand what "macro" is...I belong to some online macro communities, and the easy "rule of thumb" is:If 2 inches (5 cm) fits WITHIN the frame it is macro.

the problem is that the focal length changes during focussing. typically, focal lengths are measured at infinity. when you focus near by, the focal length is often less (sometimes much less) than the focal length at infinity. how much less depends on the design of the lens. this is the reason for the optical magnification appearing on many lens spec sheets.

Hi i am new to photography..i usually take my images using a microscope but have realised that i cannot enlarge the images to any great size..which is what i want to be able to do...enlarge to large sizes such as 1900x1500 ..can anyone suggest what camera and macro lense to buy so i can still take my close up images (similar to that of a microscope) but but have the correct pixel or resolution within the camera to blow up images to large scale wall canvas/art..any advice greatly appreciated..

Indeed. I've long argued that it really makes more sense to talk about what I call the "print-to-life" ratio: the ratio of the size of the subject in the print (or computer screen) to the real-life subject. The print-to-life ratio is the product of what we may similarly call the life-to-sensor ratio (the traditional "magnification") and the print-to-sensor ratio (the traditional "englargement").

The sensor size is irrelevant. You can approximate the magnification from the focal length and minimum focus distance, but it's very important to know what the MFD is measured from.

I think that the claim "Sensor size does not alter magnification" is arguable. To be more exact magnification definition itself does not quite fit the "real world".

Erez Marom is a nature photographer based in Israel and a regular contributor to Composition magazine. You can see more of his work at www.erezmarom.com and follow him on his Facebook page and deviantArt gallery.

You define maginifcation as "simply the relationship between of the size of the (in-focus) subject's projection on the imaging sensor and the subject's size in reality". I think it has to be coupled with crop factor.

As explained in the article, most true macro lenses have something like "Macro 1:1" engraved on them. There are very few macro lenses that give more than 1:1 and they all announce the fact.

With that in mind a 35mm equivalent 1:1 macro shot would mean a 36x24mm rectangle filling the frame (aspect ratios aside - take the diagonal of the frame as a measure) no matter what the sensor size or lens focal length/focus distance, the given magnification definition given on the article is correct though.

Sonymacro lens

I understand most conventions around macro photography and do quite a lot of macros myself, but with the advent of various-sized systems, compacts and zooms macro conventions could really use a serious revamp For example, a 1/2.5 sensor compact fits in the frame the same subject as a full-frame with 100mm macro. FoV aside, for the user and even for practical purposes the final image produced by the two ensembles is quite similar in terms of reproduced subject.I used a number of close-ups platforms from the specialist MP-E 65 lens from Canon to compacts, and I am trying to focus on what the used system allows me to frame rather than ratio. In this respect I would rather think of "how many millimeters will my camera/lens fit in how many megapixels". Only downside of this is that on interchangeable lens cameras the body is also a factor to take into account, but i see it as more useful reference, especially for compact cameras that deliver quite stunning close-ups at their closest focus

"The problem, however, is that a regular lens will not be able to focus at such close distances". Unless you reverse them ;)

The theme for our November Editors' photo challenge is 'Fog'. Show us your favorite fog photos for a chance to be featured in our winners' gallery later this month. This challenge is open to photos taken at any time.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Projecting an impression of the subject onto the image plane that is the exact same size as the subject. So if the subject is 22mm square it will cover an area of the sensor, or film, that is 22mm square.

I have been trying to explain exactly what you did for quite some time, and have been routinely crucified by some of the members of the DP Review forums. Nice to see a well written article on this site that backs up what I have been saying all along: Magnification is fixed the moment that the shutter release is pressed. Anything that is done after an image is taken to make the subject look larger in the frame is an enlargement and does not change the magnification.

The magnification factor of the lens is not effected by the resolving power of the media it is projected upon. But the resolution of the sensor will determine how large the image will be at native resolution.

Photography, like any other art, demands both compelling content and expert technique to create a pleasing result. In my previous article, I discussed some of the aesthetic choices involved in creating a successful macro image. Technique, however, is an absolute must; it's the artist's tool to convey his artistic vision.

Seems the traditional definition of macrophotography linked to 1:1 or greater lens magnification received a lot of attention in the comments. The truth is, times have changed since film days. Resolving power of today's digital sensors (especially those in compact cameras and cellphones) greatly exceeds that of any film. Therefore one can capture similar amount of detail with camera setups of various sizes.

If you were to shoot a 1:1 image on 35mm film and then on 4x5, the size of the subject would be exactly the same on both films. The 4x5 would show much more space around the subject but the actual subject size would be identical.

However, the charactoristics of the capture media will have an effect upon the degree to which the image can be enlarged. This is true for both film and digital. It's a matter of resolution.

The 18 mpx will yield a print up to 11 x 17 without uprezing. The 10 mpx would have to be uprezed slightly so there would be some loss of details but would yield a print of exactly the same magnification.

Zoom lensvsmacro lens

"If my subject fills the frame, focuses, and gives me a pleasant compostion, what the h do I care what the magnification is?"

But if you were to make full frame 8x12 prints of a macro image from an APS-C 10 mpx and an APS-C 18 mpx sensor, the magnification in the print would be the same. If you were to make very large prints, the 18mpx picture would be sharper than the 10mpx, but the magnification would still be the same.

There is no such thing as a "bug lens". I photograph active subjects with macro lenses in the 60mm range. The more you learn about their habits and quirks the easier it is to get the images that you want to take. Gallery as proof -I list the gear and camera settings with every image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dalantech/

We've seen in the examples above that sensor size can be used to calculate magnification, but the degree of magnification itself depends on focal length and subject distance exclusively (assuming that the lens is not used with any extenders or magnifying filters). Sensor size does not alter magnification. With a fixed focal length and subject distance, an APS-C sensor, for example would just crop the frame compared to a full-frame sensor, not enlarge it. Magnification is a property of the projection, regardless of the size of sensor (or film format) you are using. With a full frame sensor you'd just make calculations using 35mm as the sensor width instead of 22mm, but the subject would then be proportionally larger, cancelling out the sensor size difference. Sensor size does have an effect on the image's appearance though, a topic I will address in an upcoming article.

The easiest way to determine the magnification is to photograph a metric ruler and then divide the width of the sensor by the number of millimeters you see in the photo. Just like the author mentioned in the article...

No, because cropping creates an enlargement of the subject in the frame but does not change the magnification. Enlarging the subject will not reveal detail that was not already in the photo, but shooting at a higher magnification will.

What is amacro lensmm

Remember, image magnification is the charactoristic of the lens. How big an image we can get from the captured image is the degree of enlargment, not magnification.

Not sure what 10:10 is supposed to be. Usually, one of the numbers is 1. It doesn't need to be, though. It's just a ratio, which can also be expressed as a number. A 1:1 macro image and a 1X macro image are the same thing. A 3:2 macro image, 1 1.5:1 macro image and a 1.5X macro image are all the same thing. The image is 1 1/2 times the size of the subject.

Why does the color of the eye change the Fstop that you are using? Just stop your lens down to F11 or F16 and if you are using auto focus turn it off and focus manually.

Unlike the traditional one, this new definition deals directly with the result - the photo - and not with the equipment used to obtain it.

Recently, a discussion in the DPReview forums posed the question: "What have you learned that you would tell beginners?" We thought we'd share what your fellow readers had to say, along with some insight from our editors.

You say "This relationship isn't linear, i.e. if I get a 1:4 magnification from a shooting distance of 40 cm, I won't necessarily get a magnification of 1:2 (twice that) from a shooting distance of 20cm."

Macro Zoom lensCanon

A shield bug is apt to sit still or move slowly. The robber fly may have to be poisoned and stuck on a pin. Looks like this polyoptic fly has some "lens dust."

Ok I will pretend for a moment I understood the confusing magnification "rule" with respect to distance, sensor size, etc. Now back to simply trying to take good photos!

Actually it does make sense! Creating an enlargement by cropping, either in post or with a smaller than full frame sensor, creates an enlargement of the subject but it does not increase the magnification. Cropping the subject, no matter how you do it, will not reveal additional detail that was not already there but increasing the magnification by projecting a larger impression of the subject onto the image plane can give you more detail...

HiIf the image scale of the lens is 1:2, will there be an effect on photographing paintings and illustrations that are obviously not 3D

I am starting to take up macro photography and now has a DSLR Nikon DX 18-135mm camera. Can someone suggest a fairly good macro lens (not necessary Nikon) but compatible for my pursuit. Thank you.