Indeed so, Wayne and standards are standards. What on earth is the use of
"FF equivalent". It's as if I can make a 2:1 image bu cutting a 1:1 image
in half.
Piers
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023, 10:36 Wayne Harridge, <
wayne.harridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> ...Wayne
>
>
>
> > -----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
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > > 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, whether
> > 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 is
> > 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/
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|