Ive seen a lot of post people talking about Macro but when I go looking formacro they only seem to have Micro is this just the term used by or is Micro another type of altogether
Ive seen a lot of post people talking about Macro but when I go looking formacro they only seem to have Micro is this just the term used by or is Micro another type of altogether
All experts were once beginners
Nikon D3100 18 55 kit lens Nikon 35 mm Nikon 70 300mm optex tripod
As far asare concerned, the term micro is the one they use to describe their macro .
A Nikkor 60mm micro is in reality just the same as a 60mm macro as far as focal length and the ability to portray a subject at 1:1 resolution.
The actual terminology has more to do with microscopic vs macroscopic where there are very slight technical differences but as far as most camera go you can read them as being the same.
thank you Andrew I was just feeling a little confused about the wording makes you wonder why all makers can't call them the same thing but you have cleared this up for
It's been a long time since I had to go back thru the ol' grey matter here ... but as I recall things -
"macro photography" is the use of & accessories to photograph something thru the range of 1/10 of life size to about 10x life size,
"photo micrography" is the use of a microscope and is used for subjects magnified more than 10x life size [ps the term is pronounced photo - mi - crog - rafy]
Why have called their "close up / macro" as a "micro-nikkor" I do not know
Of all the stuff in a busy photographers kitbag, the ability to see photographically is the most important
google me at Travelling School of Photography
I too have been wondering what the difference was...thanks for the info!
And if that's not enough, what's "close-up" mean?
CC, Image editing OK.
Thanks Phil I just wanted to make sure for when I am ready to go ahead I am not buying the wrong thing and Sezzy its great on the forum for reason's like this both wanted to know same thing and both got an answer so we both learnt today
Macro photography is close-up photography of usually very small objects. The classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject.
In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 6×4 inch (15×10 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. With 35mm film this requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, which demands a lower quality than 1:1. With digital cameras the actual image size is rarely stated, so that the magnification ratio is largely irrelevant; cameras instead advertise their closest focusing distance.
regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff
I was wondering the same thing about macro/micro. Thanks
never, ever call something by the same name as .
- macro >> micro
- USM >> AFS
- Speedlite << Speedlight
- IS >> VR
- 35mm fuill frame >> FX
- APS-C >> DX
- 's name for self-cleaning sensors which I forget >> 's name for self-cleaning sensors which I also forget
Doubtless there are others I can't think of at present.
To further the spirit of the- sumo wrestle(of how one marque does things by half and due to populist opinion(usually ) and the other(obviously ) does things contrary to popular opinion(as is the case with terminology, and in this instance strict adherence to classical definitions).
excerpt from 's website as to what, why how and when...
What's not remembered by a lot of folks is that the 'commonly accepted terminology' is not the same as the classical definition, as used many years(50 or more obviously) ago.The term “macro” refers to a publicly recognized generic name for intended for close-up photography. But, how about the term “micro ” ? Which term is scientifically acceptable, macro or micro ? Why did the developers in those days prefix the close-up with the term "micro" ? In this episode, we will see the professional spirit of the developers who put a premium on strictness.
The classical definition of macrophotography is photography of a subject where the image is recorded on film in the same or larger than actual size. This means that macro refer to the enlargement optical system similar to microscopes. However, the close-up available in the days of S-type cameras provided a reduction optical system, at best involving a magnification from 1/2 to life size. Therefore, those close-up were not classified as macro (an optical system allowing photography at a life-size or larger magnification). In those days, had already developed and marketed superior enlargement optical systems (microscopes, etc.). The developers intended to make a clear and exact distinction. They preferred a strict definition and refused to attach greater importance to ease of marketing.
I can't remember who exactly were the first manufacturer to use the term macro for an obviously not macro capable , I think Leitz?? maybe.. I've read about it/them, but never really bothered to much with the genre, but I did tread an article about how 's terminology is the correct version. have made 'macro' since before most other (commonly known) makers still in existence, and before ever did.
What's strangely amusing about Tannin's post is that it seems to be basically true. did in fact use terminology that originally (correctly)used, in a few of their macrophotogrpahy related (the 20mm and 35mm macrophotography ) made many years ago.
Macrophotography describes the process of larger than lifesized reproduction of the subject, and those two did just that, by magnifying the subject from 2x to 10x depending on which of the two version were used. BUT the were not straight forward to use as you expect a macro to be, and they were very small that were mounted onto a flat plate like board which is mounted to the front of a bellows housing.
So in fact 's use of the term Micro is the true and factually correct version.
But, what happened was that 'common acceptance' has altered the baseline which defines popular opinion!
have simply stuck to a system they used over 50 years ago, and not altered anything, other than the description in their marketing blurbs.
Micro now do macro type photography or are used to capture macro photos(but never NOT macrophotography!!) Macrophotography is a term, and due to the scientific nature of the process is clearly defined(as used to adhere too when they made macro (which I don't think are made by either company any longer)
I think other manufacturers make these specialised now, although do have a specialised 'industrial ' arm of their company, which is not related or tied too the photograph company.
I have no idea if have a similar manufacturing arm in their company tho.
I find it amusing how people's perception of these insignificant aspects of a particular genre of life is shaped by popular acceptance instead of what's technically correct, or maybe historically correct, but evolved into an alternative version.
The history of it all is readily found and there for all to see/view and disseminate.
I bet you also didn't know that the only reason for 's existence is due to the fact that they used to produce for cameras(in the very early years) that were better than 's own !
ie. If it weren't for , would have never existed in the first place.
.. but that's a story for another time.
Yes its good to get these answers to question even tho to some it may seem like a silly question but now its been explained its all clear now or should I say magnified you would just think that they would stick to the same word I mean I know and understand or so it seems even though there are a lot of other camera makers It would seem to me thatand have the market in there hands
Danger Will Robinson, DANGER! Arthur's post is completely backwards. Do not take it at face value!
What he is saying is that the term “macro ” derives from "the classical definition of macrophotography", which is 1:1 or greater. (That is true.) However some manufacturers abuse the term ( this is true to - , Tamon, probably others, but not and I bet not either), so decided to use a wrong term instead, and this is described by themselves as we "preferred a strict definition and refused to attach greater importance to ease of marketing"! How stupid and contradictory can a marketing department get?
A simple reminder: macro do 1:1 magnification or better. That's how a macro is defined. Anything less than 1:1 is not a macro . Some manufacturers ( , , a few others) abuse the term by applying it to which are not macro at all. In theory this should be a matter for the fair trading authorities but they don't seem to bother. call their macro "micro", which is wrong but nobody minds that as (unlike some others) they are not trying to dupe the public, just to pretend that they are a bit more special than they really are - which is something have done for years without any particular harm to anyone. (And more than a few owners too.) (No! Not you Arthur! You are as down to earth as they come, and although you are special in your own particular way, you never pretend to be anything you are not.)
Is all of this calculated to put 's marketing department in a bad ? Well probably yes. But marketing departments the world over are much the same. Notice, as an example from my list above, the quite stupid misspelling of speedlight on 's part, merely because they didn't want to admit that thought of it first. (You will see my << arrows pointing in the opposite way to indicate this.)
Now Arthur, enough of this petty bickering ... I have a mutual photographic project to propose. I'll make a start on that thread a little later on this morning, all being well.
Last edited by Tannin; 21-07-2011 at 10:39am.
I think if you read the sentence again Tony, you've just agreed with 's terminology on what describes a macro , and what describes a micro !!
anything less than 1:1 is not a macro ! That is, if the does up to 1:1, it's a micro , and if it does beyond 1:1 it's a macro .
The distinction between a micro and a standard is that the micro can focus from infinity all the way up to 1:1 magnification as a single barrel .
Of course all are 1:1 capable, with the addition of extensions between and camera, but not all are capable of macro(ie,. beyond 1:1).
A macro should have the capability to produce 1:1 or better. If the is restricted to only 1:1, then it's not 'accurately' described as a macro , because it can't do better.
While it has macro capabilities, it's still not purely a macro .
At the time produced with a reproduction ratio of up to 1:1, and some only up to 1:2, (ie. not better than) and they used the term micro for that type.
They(as did ) subsequently produced a series of equipment( 's was called Multiphot) where the only produced greater than 1:1, and these were labelled Macro (as also did!!) .. but more specifically macrophoto.
So consider that as a company that produces a lot of different gear and types of gear that they produce truly macro level , and also these pseudo macro as well. They need to have some form of differentiation for the different level of work that this gear is capable of producing so as to not cause confusion amongst the buying public.
Call it marketing speak or whatever you want too, but if you produce a series of capable of macro, but in fact real macro which goes beyond 1:1, and you also produce a series of that go up to 1:1(but not beyond), is it not a moral obligation to differentiate between the two vastly different types of products?
If they produce a true macro say with the specs of: 35mm f/2.8 that does 2x-6x magnfication, but also produce a general purpose type that allows from infinity to 1:1 focus capability, they have an obligation to use differentiating naming convention for each gear type.
Although in saying that, they did use the Multiphot branding on their only macro varieties.
Anyhow, if you take all of this into consideration, then 's terminology makes not only perfectly good sense, but amazes me that it hasn't been taken up in a more general manner!
That is, with the situation that have.. their MPE is a macro, and yet so is their 100mm f/2.8 . Vastly different types of , even tho they do technically have one aspect of photography in common.. 1:1 capability.
Apart from this, they have no other common aspect(other than the fact that they contain glass elements, and are both used on an SLR camera format)
You can't argue with the science of it all, but because general consensus is not bound by any scientific requirements, there will always be dissent on what the real terms are.
Me personally, I go with the general consensus, even tho my moral obligation is to the way of doing things.(OK.. call me immoral if that makes you happy!)
But I use the generally accepted terms, macro for photos, macro for , but I'll use the term Micro when it comes to the actual naming of the particular (in 99.9% of instances), even tho I'll describe it a that does macro photography.
OH! and FWIW, the first macro capable (without extensions) was the Kilfitt in 1955(wiki).
Sigh. Not at all.
"Macro" = 1:1 = all of the genuine macro on the market today, from , , , Tokina, , and so on. (A partial exception is the ancient and peculiar 50mm macro, which requires a dedicated accessory to achieve 1:1, and is sold with that caveat clearly explained.)
To my knowledge, there is only one with significantly greater than 1:1 capacity on the mainstream market today. This is the MP/E 65, which they call a "super-macro". (Shouldn't that be "micro"?)
I think we agree that "macro" <> those various general purpose zoom made by the likes of and and branded "macro" to confuse the unwary.
so by this 'generally accepted' version of a macrolabelling, any with the capability of focusing from infinity up to 1:1 is a macro .
So what of the 1:1 and beyond ?
This is where the confusion in terminology should be put to rest!(but it's not like it's a pressing urgency to resolve).
You said yourself, a macro is one that is capable of 1:1 and beyond magnification ... whereas there is only one (that I know of) that can do this!!( 's MPE).
The terminology used to describe the ability doesn't match the purpose of the .
So(as rightly point out) a macro that can produce 1:1 and or greater magnification should be called a macro .
A that can produce up to 1:1 should be called something else.
Today it's all really irrelevant, and 's terminology has to be taken into context.
Way before / / and just about any other manufacturer even knew of macro (1961), used a particular nomenclature for their , based on other currently available types.
This labelling was called micro, which describes what the is capable of .. infinity up to 1:1.
Don't confuse Nikons use of the term micro for the as microscopy.
It's a well known fact that for microscopy, you need a microscope to produce a result .. not a micro !!
do not call their micro's microscopes(which is a totally different kettle of glass elements. It is clearly a Micro .
Many folks have confused themselves with this terminology as well, and is easy to do, except that the distinction is clear!!
The differentiation made perfectly good sense because of the prevailing conditions at the time.
At the time, produced Microscopes and now produced Micro for general photography.
They are different beasts.
I see 's marketing department as self deprecating in this instance, because: If the situation was such that the company could have taken advantage of the term macro in a false manner(as a macro is now used), they should have seized the opportunity for this particular type of .
Here was an opportunity to use marketing to add to the value of a product, in calling a clearly non fully conforming macro type to boast of it's capabilities, but they didn't take any advantage of the fact.
That is: we know a macro to be capable of 1:1 and greater magnification, but even tho the specs only allow for only a part of that macro genre(and not the full gamut of magnification), then have only done themselves a disservice. They haven't really used it as a marketing tool to any advantage to themselves(as have , , and any others that have 1:3 capable and call them macro too).
I don't know of any macro that do not go to 1:1 and or beyond, and they only ever had one micro with zoom ability(70-180mm) which was natively 1:2 and could be persuaded to go to 1:1 with an extension tube.
it must also be clearly stated that even tho and have been singled out as perpetrators of marketing mischief in this realm, the reality is that their dedicated macro (fixed focal length types) are usually proper 1:1 capable devices. It's only in their macro zoom where the issue of marketing bovine droppings make for a bad smell.
None of their zoom are true macro that can achieve 1:1 magnification.
One thing is for sure, tho. It ain't going to change.. at least not in our lifetime. have recently introduced a new macro , in the 40mm Dx .. and guess what? .. it's still called a Micro
Is there any zoomthat is a true macro ? I can't think of any?
's 70-180 did 1:1.3(just looked it up again, and I originally thought it did 1:2 and you added tubes, but I got it confused with another I've had my eye on at the same time).
1:1.3 isn't too far off the mark I guess, and is a lot closer to the usual maximal marketing guff spewed out by and on some of their zooms!(1:3)
Two aspects of this that attracted me too it: is not variable over the focused distance(as a lot of macro will be prone too. That is, if you set your to f/5.6 at 180mm, it doesn't surreptitiously develop tunnel vision and in reality become an f/8 180mm . Most macro do this, so you set your and it stays there. As an example of how other do this.. 's 105VR Micro is an f/2.8 at moist focused distances, but once you focus down to 3m, it then closes itself down to f/3, and so by the time you've focused down to it's MFD(and 1:1) it's really an f/4.8 .
I guess that with a variable design anyhow, and in reality quite a slow one at that (being f/5.6) this should be the case anyhow!
The second aspect of this ability that looks attractive is the MTF graph. I've never seen any other produce this type of MTF graph, but the contrast measured is better at the long end of the zoom scale, than it is at the shorter end.
Look at any manufacturers zoom MTF data, and you always see them produce better MTF figures at the shorter end than at the longer end.
(for those that want to know, the MTF figure is also taken as a ability to resolve detail.. ie. ).
I remember Vanbar having one for sale not that long ago, for the princely sum of $1800, and this is long after the production of the was discontinued.