The wrong tool ? Hi, all ! I used a Canon 50 (f/1.8 SM) for a macro of this flower on my Canon EOS T6. Funny is that the specs says the minimum distance is 1.5 m and I took those...

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

Hi, all !
I used a Canon 50 (f/1.8 SM) for a macro of this flower on my Canon EOS T6.
Funny is that the specs says the minimum distance is 1.5 m and I took those
photos at ~70 cm from the subject and (forgot to remove it) with an UV filter.
First shot and not edited. Simply sent the camera's JPEG. Then I took the, say,
thumbnail...

A.B.

Flower

(Download)

A "thumbnail"
A "thumbnail"...

(Download)

TomC. Loc: Bel Air, MD

Please convert your m's and cm's to inches. We can quickly and better understand what you are trying to say.
Thanks.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

TomC. wrote:

Please convert your m's and cm's to inches. We can quickly and better understand what you are trying to say.
Thanks.

That's easy.
1 inch = 2.54 cm and... Well, my Opera browser gives any conversion simply by selecting the given measures.
Are your lenses marked in inches ? Interesting comment...
Thanks for stopping by.

TomC. Loc: Bel Air, MD

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

That's easy.
1 inch = 2.54 cm and... Well, my Opera browser gives any conversion simply by selecting the given measures.
Are your lenses marked in inches ? Interesting comment...
Thanks for stopping by.

It's a matter of mental visualization. The lenses are what they are. I don't have to think about it when I choose a lens or try to do a mental conversion.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

TomC. wrote:

It's a matter of mental visualization. The lenses are what they are. I don't have to think about it when I choose a lens or try to do a mental conversion.

Fine. But: why should I if the rest of the world adopt the Metric system...?
I have a nice JSP routine that enables quick conversions. Will try to find and
post it here.

TomC. Loc: Bel Air, MD

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Fine. But: why should I if the rest of the world adopt the Metric system...?
I have a nice JSP routine that enables quick conversions. Will try to find and
post it here.

Years ago, when I still worked, I had the pleasure of working on German mechanical drawings. I was redesigning an object for our use. I quickly got accustomed to the metric system and had no problems at all. If the U.S. would adopt the metric system permanently, I've always surmised it would only take a couple weeks for everyone to get accustomed to it. Once you stop converting things in your mind, the transition will run smoothly. It's getting over the initial shock to your brain that you have to get over and then settle in.
I think you should be a nice guy and convert it for anyone who is not accustomed to it. The rest of the world may be metric, but the U.S. isn't and hardly anyone knows anything at all about the metric system.
IMO, if someone is going to be mentioning something that's metric, I would convert it to save them the trouble of looking it up.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

TomC. wrote:

Years ago, when I still worked, I had the pleasure... (show quote)

Ok. See the text reformulated and corrected (including the distance from the lens to the subject. I measured and got less
than 70 cm/27.56 in.).
"Funny is that the specs says the minimum distance is 1.5 m/4.92 ft and I took those
photos at ~55 cm/21.65 in from the subject and (forgot to remove it) with an UV filter."
Enjoy.

TomC. Loc: Bel Air, MD

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Ok. See the text reformulated and corrected (including the distance from the lens to the subject. I measured and got less
than 70 cm/27.56 in.).
"Funny is that the specs says the minimum distance is 1.5 m/4.92 ft and I took those
photos at ~55 cm/21.65 in from the subject and (forgot to remove it) with an UV filter."
Enjoy.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Ok. See the text reformulated and corrected (including the distance from the lens to the subject. I measured and got less
than 70 cm/27.56 in.).
"Funny is that the specs says the minimum distance is 1.5 m/4.92 ft and I took those
photos at ~55 cm/21.65 in from the subject and (forgot to remove it) with an UV filter."
Enjoy.

Sorry for me returning to this thread. I really messed it up. I was reading the specifications
of another lens and forgot which one I was using. Just reviewed the EXIF and confirmed my error.
Sorry for that, my unforgivable error.

Rob48 Loc: Portland, ME

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Sorry for me returning to this thread. I really messed it up. I was reading the specifications
of another lens and forgot which one I was using. Just reviewed the EXIF and confirmed my error.
Sorry for that, my unforgivable error.

Anhanga, I must say you were very gracious with this guy and are to be commended in your restraint.

By the way, interesting observation.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

Thanks. Learned from years on the net and ham radio. It is better to take it easy.
I am in Peace.

Rob48 Loc: Portland, ME

Anhanga Brasil wrote:

Thanks. Learned from years on the net and ham radio. It is better to take it easy.
I am in Peace.