rbfanman

"Micro" is Nikon's designation for it's 'Macro' lenses. True Macro gives one to one (1:1) magnification.

Then there are "Microphotographs", which is photos which are shrunk to microscopic scale...such as microdots used by spies.

Then there are "photomicrographs" which is photographing objects which are microscopic in size....the eyes of insects, and such. The magnification may be hundreds, or thousands, of times normal.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Sometimes terminology can get in the way. Using a microscope to take pictures is called photomicrography, although it is sometimes referred to incorrectly as microphotography.

If you want close-up pictures of something very small, call it whatever you want. If there are specific requirements spelled out with technical terminology for a specific job, then you have to differentiate the difference in words.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I started thinking about the same thing a month or so ago. Thanx for the question. I've already learned a lot.
A friend told me his new Olympus camera, not only has macro mode, it also has micro mode. Said he took a picture of two gnats "doing it" and it came out perfect.

Now GAS is setting in, must resist. :lol: :lol:

Marion

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

When you say reversed mounted lens I am curious to your method. Lens stacking involves reversing a shorter focal length lens onto a longer lens and the mathematical equation is pretty simple, base lens focal length/reversed lens focal length + the magnification of the base lens... so for instance if you reversed a 50mm lens onto a 100mm macro lens the highest magnification you could achieve would be 3X, 2 + 1 for the magnification of the macro lens.

With a simple reversed lens I don't think that there is a formula, but I used to do a lot of macro with a 28mm reversed onto extension tubes, I think that the highest magnification that I achieved was just below 4X with a full set of tubes.

If you are curious as to the magnification that you are getting from a particular setup if you take a picture of a mm scale and then divide your sensor width in mm by the number of mm you were able to capture in your picture you will get your magnification for that set up... so if your camera has a 22mm sensor for example and your picture is filled by 5mm on the scale then your magnification is 4.4X

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

Both terms ("macro-" and "micro-) derive from ancient Greek and unless used correctly, they are likely to cause confusion, like the one encountered here. "Macro" is the opposite of "micro". Macro designates something 'large' or 'long' or 'excessive', while micro means 'small' or 'minute'. After all, Nikon did its homework and named its lenses correctly. There already exist in all European languages terms like "microscopy", "microbe" and many others to describe the study of very small things or "macrocosm" (=the great world), "macrograph" (=a photograph equal to or larger than life) or "macroscopic" (=visible to the naked eye and opposite of microscopic) and many others.
It is hard to argue with long established uses of words but UHH may wish to establish a committee of experts to reconsider the use of words and suggest alternatives.
Sarantis

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

This helps me understand, but I need it simplified even further...

If we are talking 1:1, and taking a photograph of an ant, then is the ant life sized on the sensor? Obviously we can enlarge it all we want in a print, but where exactly is the ant life sized? Or 10X life size if we're talking about a 10:1 ratio?

I'm thinking you answered my question with your response above - on the sensor, right?

thanks,
ron

Nikonhermit Loc: In This Place

You are doing MACROphotography.

In MICROphotography, your aim is to REDUCE the image size-for example, a whole page of text to the size of a tiny dot, which could be woven into an innocent-looking piece of paper, a technique much fancied by the cloak-and-dagger crowd around WWII. (Nikon creates serious confusion here by calling their macro lenses Micro-Nikkors.)

Lastly, in PHOTOMICROGRAPHY, you are shooting through a microscope with the aim of considerably enlarging the object.

marty wild Loc: England

I think people get confused with close up's and macro

Big Bill Loc: Phoenix, AZ

BINGO!
We have a winner!

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Last time I looked there was not a forum for Microscopy, which is not surprising come to think of it.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

10:1 would mean that it is 10 times life size on your sensor, at that magnification there are few things that fit in your frame. the highest magnification that I have ever shot at is less than 5:1 and there was not much that I could find that would fit in the frame.

Unless you are photo stacking anything over 3:1 is not very practical for most macro shooting because of both framing issues and more importantly a razor thin focus plane (DOF), if you are shooting grains of salt or sand... then yes, 10:1 makes sense but for live bugs and flowers and such.... not so much.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It sounds like we need another section. :D

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I would agree. There are those on the UHH Macro forum that use the MPE-65 which goes from 1:1 to 5:1. They will shoot @ 5x and then crop to get some critters that are the size of the letter "D" on a dime. Attached is a 4x image of fine grained sand. I used a cheap microscope objective mounted on a full set of extension tubes. Most microphotography employs quite expensive objectives that are mounted on the front of another lens. For those interested, Nikon sponsors a contest. www.nikonsmallworld.com and follow the links. Some stunning images there.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, neither of my 55mm "Micro Nikkors" gets down to 1:1 by itself. They are flat field, though, and work fine on a bellows.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Well ok. If we can get one for "Funeral Photography"


:mrgreen: