How would you define Macro?

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by RobinP

I always think of macro as being 'larger than life-size' so if 1:2 means twice life-size then yes, it is macro.

I also have a Sigma 70-300, the APO HSM version for Nikon but I haven't had the chance to give it a good try-out yet but it seems to be a very good lens.

1:2 in this instance means half life sized, I think!

I've recently been using a Canon MP-E65, that can give up to 5:1 (Five times life size.) An amazing if difficult to use lens.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by glsammy

1:2 in this instance means half life sized, I think!

I've recently been using a Canon MP-E65, that can give up to 5:1 (Five times life size.) An amazing if difficult to use lens.

yep 2:1 would be twice life size

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by richardkm

macro is actually anything larger than one quarter life size.

Not according to paul harcourt davies - who is widely acknowledged to be "the man" for macro in the photographic community, he says

Originally Posted by Paul Harcourt davies in his book small things big

Strictly speaking the term "close up" embraces scales of reproduction from 1/20 life size to roughly half life size. True macro photography applies over the range from life size (1:1) to 25x life size , though the upper end is difficult to capture with normal photographic equipment.

incidentally this book (published by David and charles isbn 0 7153 1688-5) is well worth seeking out for anyone with an interest in things macro. its quite pricey at circa 20 quid but you may be able to find a copy at your county library.

[Leif]

Eeyore is correct in his definitions, though only Nikon currently use the terms in that manner. Generally macro just means close up. Some non-macro lenses can do surprisingly good close ups. I have a Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO Macro which goes to 1:3, and whilst not matching a true macro lens, it does give excellent results. And more importantly, trying to creep up on an Emperor Dragonfly with a 400mm lens is much easier than with a 200mm one. This lens is also fairly cheap to acquire. though you will need a decent tripod, cable release, and mirror lock up.

Originally Posted by eeyore

Not according to paul harcourt davies - who is widely acknowledged to be "the man" for macro in the photographic community, he says

...

incidentally this book (published by David and charles isbn 0 7153 1688-5) is well worth seeking out for anyone with an interest in things macro. its quite pricey at circa 20 quid but you may be able to find a copy at your county library.

He is certainly not acknowledged to be 'the man' by me. In most example photos in his book the lighting is very poor, with burnt out highlights the norm. And more often than not the backgrounds are confused and ugly. To my eye his photos are amateurish. Sorry to be argumentative, but I just think his pictures are often not very good.

I would also suggest:

Close Up On Insects by Robert Thompson.
Close Ups in Nature by John Shaw.
Photographing Butterflies and Other Insects by Paul Hicks.

The first book has some stunning photos which are truly inspirational. And taken with a medium format camera. The last one is a lovely little book, very down to earth, and useful IMO. John Shaw's book is very pedagogical, and he teaches the basics very well, assuming you want to take photos like his!

Regarding the original question, the front cover photo on Paul Harcourt Davies's book was taken with a Sigma Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Macro lens, and it is a very decent photo. He has several examples of good images taken with Sigma zooms.

I have also used a Nikon 75-150mm F3.5 zoom lens with a Nikon 3T diopter for close ups, and gotten very decent results. Sharpness was excellent, but the weakness was the contrast, which did not match that of my 200mm micro lens. (Is a Trabant as good as a Porsche?) Good technique is more important than the lens, at least until your technique is sufficiently good that the lens is the limiting factor, and in my case that took a few years to achieve.

[eeyore]

I'm not going to get into an argument here - and am happy to agree to differ - all i meant was that paul harcourt davies has certainly written a lot about macro photography and made a lot of money both out of photos in magazines etc (so it seems that not every picture editor shares your opinion), and from books on the subject, and is therefore in a position to give an authorative definitive definition of the term

I have the robert thompson book too (and several others) but i must admit that thompson lost my trust in his expertise when he wrote that " only Medium format is really suitable for macro work as 35mm and digital really do not deliver sufficient quality" hmm not in my experience....

however despite differing on authors i am happy to agree with your last statement - good technique with a set of tubes and a 50mm f1.8 will get better pictures than bad technique combined with the most expensive lens on the market

[Beryl]

I have a sigma 70-300mm DG macro am very happy with it

[Leif]

Eeyore:

I judge Thompson by his photos which IMO are first rate, in part because he has the entomological knowledge. MF film versus 35mm film is a question of taste and I can see where he is coming from. His comment about digital might have been made when digital was in its infancy, and hence it makes sense. If not, then I agree it is a daft statement to make. Still, absurd beliefs or not, his photos are good.

I am told that getting published is not about quality per se, but providing what is wanted when it is wanted i.e. business skills. I see some real stinkers in print. (Or at least I in my position of aloof arrogant self appointed expert consider them stinkers. ) That said, this is all so subjective, and each person is entitled to an opinion. An argument is pointless, and disagreement is normal.

As an aside, so many pictures in print these days are supplied by amateurs without payment that it must be hard for (some) professional nature photographers to make a decent living. And I almost feel that picture editors are choosing pictures because they are free/cheap rather than good.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Leif

Eeyore:

I judge Thompson by his photos which IMO are first rate, in part because he has the entomological knowledge. MF film versus 35mm film is a question of taste and I can see where he is coming from. His comment about digital might have been made when digital was in its infancy, and hence it makes sense. If not, then I agree it is a daft statement to make. Still, absurd beliefs or not, his photos are good.

.

I take your point about his photos - they are indeed good , and i'm not bothered what system he uses himself - however writing that in a book entitled "close up and macro a photographers guide" strikes me as both elitist and likely to alienate a lot of amateurs from the discipline which is not a good thing

phd on the other hand yes some of his pictures suck - though a sizable proportion dont - but he does talk a lot of sense about macro on a budget(tubes, close up filters, lense reversal etc) which is more likely to make the beginer think "yes i can do this" than "this is only for experts with expensive kit"