1:1 is 1:1; but when comparing the actual image taken from an E1 versus a
full frame camera the E1 image will be an effective 2:1 compared to the full
frame shot. Put a 1:1 lens on a full frame and take a shot of a ruler. You
will get 36mm on the horizontal axis. Put the same lens on an E1 you will
get close to 18mm. Print them both without knowing the film/CCD size and the
E1 image would appear to be 2x larger, or at 2:1 compared to the 1:1 full
frame shot.
I also have a Minolta A2 with a tiny sensor. With a close up filter I can
cover 36mm on the horizontal plane. I still consider that 1:1 because if I
print it covers the same area (minus the aspect ratio differences) of my FF
at 1:1. In other words, if I print them they are the same. The A2 is really
something like 1:4 because the sensor is so small, but I don't care. The
size of the flower, bug, or butterfly doesn't change.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Walt Wayman
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:58 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: 80mm macro experiences?
Abe Lincoln once asked, "If you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs
would a sheep have?"
When someone quickly answered, "Five," ol' Abe said, "No. Calling a sheep's
tail a leg doesn't make it one."
We say a 50mm lens on the E-1 is the equivalent of a 100mm lens on a 35mm
camera. But it's still really a 50mm lens. 1:1 just means the size of the
image on the film, or sensor, is the same size and the object being
photographed. Because you've cropped half of it off doesn't make it any
bigger.
If I took my 90/2.8 Tamron macro and put it on one of my Graphics and shot
something 1:1, I would get a circle in the middle of a much larger piece of
film, but it would still be 1:1. Same thing if you use it on an itty-bitty
piece of film, or sensor, and only get part of it. 1:1 is 1:1.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: NSURIT@xxxxxxx
>
>
> In a message dated 3/9/2006 9:46:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> hiwayman@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> It'd still be 1:1, wouldn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure. Might it not be an effective 2:1. Bill Barber
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|