Magnification is magnification!
Why do marketers have to confuse the discussion with "equivalent" crap.
Magnification is a simple concept, you just have to realise that the image
"real estate" is also a factor in what you see in a print or on the screen.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus <olympus-
> bounces+wayne.harridge=structuregraphs.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
> Behalf Of Moose
> Sent: Friday, 10 February 2023 3:35 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] New 90mm Zuiko macr
> On 2/9/2023 1:44 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
> > Come closer Moose writes:
> > <<<<but as expected the
> > <<<working distance is a bit tight. Close focusing distance in S
> > macro mode (odd ball switch <<<which moves lens elements and lose max
> > aperture goes to F5 or F5.6, (reviews were discordant)) <<<is 8.8 "
> > with working distance 2.5." (2:1 magnification). Working distance at 1:1
> <<<only 3.7".
> > That's weird. Just set 60/2.8 to 1:1, and working distance is ~3.25 in.
> > Yes, it is weird. Pulled those numbers from reviews--not clear if the
> > "S macro" switch was engaged--suspect much shorter FL with that switch
> > set. People describe hearing lens elements moving around. It seems
> > the 1:1 setting on the 60 mm must be true 1:1 mag
> > and not FF equivalent, i.e image produced is really at 1:2.
> Which image?. The reproduction ratio, which comes from the cameras used
> in making printing plates, is literal, not relative. A contact print is 1:1,
> 8x10" or half frame.
> The "Eq" Oly mentions deals with the relative sensor sizes. Shoot a 2 Peso
> Mexican antique coin, which happens to be 12 mm, @ 1:1 on FF, and the coin
> will fill half the height of the sensor. Shoot it @ 1:1 on µ4/3, and is will
> fill 92 %
> of the height of the sensor.
> Printed on 4x5 paper, the coin from the smaller sensor will be almost twice
> the size of thee FF print. Ignoring the format shape difference, 1:1 on µ4/3
> the equivalent of 2:1 from a FF sensor.
> > The nomenclature is confusing and Oly didn't make it any better by often
> citing the FF equivalent magnification but the image is a crop.
> See above. "i.e image produced on the sensor is really 1:1, while the image
> printed, or on screen, at a different magnification or dpi, is really at 1:2.
> Relative Ratio Moose
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/