Hello. I'm new to UHH and so I have a question or two about Post processing hardware. After years of shooting film and training in the darkroom I made the digital jump and started out with Photoshop +LightRoom on a PC. Software changes soon required new hardware, over and over, until my PC could no longer be upgraded; I'd hit the wall. I then made the jump to Apple. First with a MackBook and LCD monitor. Worked fine but soon it couldn't be upgraded any longer either so I got my first MAC. I'm definitely in the Apple camp and on my second MAC now and ready for a third! Will it ever end? No doubt it's fun getting new stuff but I want consistency. Would you go for the latest and greatest MAC with gobs of memory and a decent video card OR jump back to PC with just as many upgrade requirements and seemingly faster processing speeds? I'd appreciate knowing your approach to the incessant needs and wants when it comes to hardware? Thanks. jL

I'll stick with Gerald Undone.

Your example is compensating by distance.
All things being equal ... the 100mm lens will have the greater depth of field.
The smallest diameter lens with all other things being equal...will have the greatest depth of field.

This is why 4/3 lenses tend to have a lot of depth of field. It's not the sensor...it the smaller lens diameters.
You can balance it out by moving closer of forward...like your example did.
But...the lens by itself in comparison...the longer lens will win out DOF wise...and a smaller diameter will increase that edge.

Comments, additions, corrections and other input will be appreciated!

Proposal and Details for a Food, Cooking, Restaurant Section
All of us eat, most of us cook at one point in life or another, and many of us visit restaurants. Some are as enthusiastic about food and cooking as they are about photography. Quite a few members occasionally or regularly post photos of foods they have prepared or enjoyed at a restaurant. I propose a section be added covering those topics as noted in the title.
It is certainly an area which offers commercial opportunity, with online recipe photos, restaurant photos, cooking equipment photos, etc. There are also many tricks of the trade which could be shared and learned. I believe this would be a useful, value added expansion which might be quite popular.
Content
Plated, self-prepared, restaurant prepared or other finished dishes photographed as served. Everything from the appetizer to the Brandy after is eligible. The old term for all stages of a formal dinner from “Soup to Nuts”.
A photogenic step or two in the cooking process – not a step by step “How To” covering the entire process. Neither should dialog accompanying detail the entire process.
Attractive or interesting display of ingredients and or implements
Restaurant photos: Your food as presented, ambiance, décor, table setting, crystal, the front of the establishment, even shots of your party, but not staff (unless permission is given). No other patrons.
No restaurant reviews, particularly nothing negative. It would be appropriate to identify as an old favorite or new find, etc. If a very rare unfortunate meal is encountered, let it pass for this site.
Original recipes can be added as a PDF or offered on request. No scans of copies from published materials. Nearly any recipe can be found on the internet and provided as a link.
It is recommended that before a new to you recipe is proposed, it be cooked and eaten, corrected and adjusted to taste.
Issues in question for self cooking:
Recipe on request via PM (Link or PDF) or always included
Section Moderators – enthusiasts who volunteer, can be a rotation?

I agree there is variation in the definition of Macro.
My old textbook is the Kodak Workshop Series, Close-up Photography and Photomacrography, 1977 (formerly two books) and they had a third volume that I don't have, Photomicrography. Here are their definitions; the words are not all still used today.
Close-up = 1: to 1:1
Photomacrography = 1:1 to 50:1
Photomicrography= 25: to 1500:1
Note that the last two overlap. I assume anything as high as 25:1, whichever you call it, would use a microscope, though it might be possible to get there with lenses made for vertical copy stand work. Kodak called work done at the limit of ordinary lenses, often around 2 feet, as "medium close-up" photography.
These books are for serious scientific work, and still sometimes found on eBay. The cover of the book has a magnificent beetle shot on 8x10 Ektachrome film using a Kodak Cine lens, 25mm f1.7. That is such a wide lens for 8x10 that the beetle must have been right up to the glass and filled the frame, with pin-point lighting. Using a normal 16mm-movie lens (reversed) took advantage of the lens design for large projection of small things. I have one of those lenses and S. K. Grimes made the proper adaptation for me to use it on my Canon digital camera (for macro).