MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Hi, another question from this sometimes dense relative newbie to the world of DSLR photography. I have been noodling around again - always manage to learn something new when I do this.
When I look at the specs on lenses on sites such as B&H, I noticed a term that I do not quite understand: "maximum reproduction rate". What is it? Should it concern me? Why or why not? For example the Tamron 150-600 for the Nikon shows a ratio of 1:5, the Sigma 50-500 a ratio of 1:3, and the Nikkor 55-300 a ratio of 1:4.
Please do not get too technical. I am a retired tax accountant and have NO trouble wrapping my head around the tax code, but am sometimes having a heck of a time learning/understanding the language of DSLR photography. The understanding is the most important thing to me.
Many thanks in advance for what I know will be some good answers.
Mike

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/25559/what-is-the-maximum-reproduction-ratio-of-a-lens

20 secs on google

blackest Loc: Ireland

" 14 down vote accepted


The reproduction ratio means the largest that you can make a subject on the film/sensor compared to its real-life size. In the case of your lens, it means that the image on the film plane will be 1/7.4, or 5/37 of the actual size of the object when it is as close as you can possibly focus the lens.

If your camera has a full-frame (24x36mm), an object would have to be at least 177.6mm by 266.4mm to completely fill the frame using that lens at its closest focusing distance. A Nikon/Sony/Pentax APS-C (DX) sensor would be filled with an object 118.4mm x 177.6mm; a Canon APS-C would be filled with an object 111mm x 166.5mm. In this case, on a μ4/3 camera, that reproduction ratio will fill the frame with an object 99.9mm by 133.2mm.

A lens of this class is rarely used for extreme close-up or macro work due to the very small working distance between the lens and the subject, even if it could be made to focus more closely. (You can, however, achieve very high magnifications with short-focal-length lenses like this one by mounting them reversed on the camera using a special adapter, with or without extension tubes or bellows.) The lens can be considered a "short normal" or a "moderate wide angle", depending on who you ask, and is intended for general photography. In larger formats (35mm, medium and large format), a "normal" lens can often be pressed into macro service, but the "normal" focal length of the 4/3-sensor world means that the lens-to-subject distance gets very small, and keeping the camera from shadowing the subject becomes difficult.

Macro photography is a term used to describe reproduction ratios at or around 1:1. That is, the image on the camera's film/sensor approximates the actual size of the object. Lenses labeled "macro" usually have a reproduction ration of at least 1:4; many photographers wouldn't consider a lens to be a "true macro" unless it goes to at least life size (1:1). Microphotography refers to reproduction ratios significantly greater than 1:1 (the old definition used to start at 10:1; I don't know what the standard is today).
" 10 seconds from the linked page

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

20 secs :?: Damn I wished I could read that fast. I bet it took me a minute and 20 secs. :oops:

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

"Thanks" to twindad, blackest, and Marionsho for your responses - sarcastic as they were. I am NOT stupid. I know how to google and actually found that same link to which you all referred in <10 seconds.
It actually did not answer my questions. Hence my posting.

amehta Loc: Boston

A ratio of 1:1 is "life size", which means the image on the sensor/film is the same size as the actual object. So if you take a picture of a dime (18mm diameter), the image on the sensor will be 18mm in diameter. A maximum reproduction ratio of 1:3 means that the image is 1/3 life size, so the image of the dime will be 6mm in diameter.

With a Nikon DX camera, the sensor is 24x16mm.

This should concern you if you want to do any close-up photography. Otherwise it does not matter.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thanks, Anand! As usual, you came through. You put it very clearly and concisely. I suspected that it is something that should not concern me, due to the type of photography I do. You confirmed that for me.
Thanks again,
Mike

amehta Loc: Boston

:thumbup:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mad, having the ability to reproduce large can very much concern you.
And if you ever want to do macro/micro, and many do, that ratio is of the highest importance.
For example, unless you are at 1:1 or higher, it's not even considered macro.
And macro lenses, because most use a floating element design, are usually some of the sharpest lenses made, which may also interest you.
Many may not be interested in macro, but say at your daughters wedding, you want to do a close-up photograph of the ring, a common shot, it would be nice to know which of your ten lenses has the highest repro rate or DoF, to produce the MOST artistic shot.
Mad, it's just another number in photography with which we need to be knoeledgable about.
You may rarely use it, but it's always given in the specs and complete reviews because it can be a very important number.
Mad, it's time to start purging some of those tax codes, and replace then with reproduction ratios and CoC stats. :lol:
SS

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thanks for the additional info, SS. I really do appreciate it. They say learning new things keeps you young. At the rate I'm going here (can't get over how much I constantly learn from all of the members here ), I should live to be at least 150. My retirement is funded, or so I thought, until I rediscovered an old passion - photography. Now I have G.A.S. to worry about. That has crept up on me way faster than my advancing age.
As for the hard drive in my head that I call a brain - I agree completely. I need to delete or at least overwrite some of the tens of thousands of pages of the tax code I have stored there with something just as fascinating - the language of digital photography. Most of the time, I think the tax code was MUCH easier. Of course that could just be due to the fact that that is what I did for over 50 years.
Thanks again,
Mike (or Mad - doesn't matter to me)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Thanks for the interesting reply Mike. I'll plan your 150th party for you
8-)
Maybe you'll be over your G. A. S. by then :D

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Mad, you're welcome!
Hey, I've been shooting for going on 50 years, and I'm still a baby. I'm walking wobbly now, can't wait till I can run fast!! :lol:
SS

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Just like texting, the replies can be confusing, and taken wrong. I truly didn't know that twidad took, maybe 20 seconds, to locate the link. I thought he took that long to read all that. :shock: I thought he was a speed reader. I sure didn't want to imply that you were stupid. I hope you get your question answered.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

You're not supposed to read the header and the rest of the page, but I see your point. It took me at least 45 seconds.