paul hart Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 M8+90/4 Macro-Elmar-M+macro adapter, handheld at 1/350, f11, ISO 320<p><center><a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http:// farm1.static.flickr.com/196/450687867_b59e16a0e9_b.jpg" width="400" height="400" alt="Spring Daisy" /></a></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Well it's not a macro shot since it's not even close to 1:1. Other than that, is there something this flower snapshot is supposed to prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john carter Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 For a handheld closeup, it looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Sea Chemistry, what is your definition of "macro". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 It doesn't have to be at 1:1 to be considered Macro. The macro range, as I recall, is from 1:1 out to 1:10. This shot looks like it must be around 1:3 or so. Nice work, Paul. It makes me want the lens! Why do you say, "rubbish?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 1:1 or better. It's not my definition. It's the actual definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted April 8, 2007 Author Share Posted April 8, 2007 Rob: tongue in cheek stuff, I'm afraid. Maritime Scientist: I don't claim it proves anything. One interesting option with photographs is just to enjoy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 I just got the 90mm Macro and the Adapter and for what it is , I find it a great combo and nice small package. Nice shot . Also you may want to look at a Visoflex III with the 90mm. I tried it the other day and it is also a great macro setup and the magnifaction is even greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucecahn Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 The Leica M is not rubbish. It just was not designed for macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_shihanian Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Main Entry: macro lensFunction: nounEtymology: macr-, from the fact that the focal length is greater than normal: a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with up to life-size magnification of the image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Ocean is correct with the definition. However, I agree with Guy. <p> The Viso is such a beautiful/useful accessory and should let one do real macros. <p> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/83257830@N00/439858299/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/439858299_262c6f93bb_o.jpg" width="600" alt="Bee" /></a> <p> Example shot there from Epson R-D1s and C-V Heliar (used as a P&S setup). Magnification is about 1:3. I am waiting for my Viso III to do <i>real</i> macros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Then, Leica is wrong. What about a <i>Close-up-Elmar-M 90/4 + Close-up adapter-M?</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Blackwell Images Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Macro photography - From Wikipedia "Macro photography refers to close-up photography; the classical definition that the image projected on the 'film plane' (i.e film or a digital sensor) is the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens must have the ability to focus on an area at least as small as 24×36 mm, as this is the size of the image on the film. This is known as 'life-size magnification' or simply 1:1." But... "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 4×6 inch (102×152 mm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers." “When you come to a fork in the road, take it ...” – Yogi Berra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Use a Visoflex and you'll change your mind. The Visoflex was the accessory Leica specifically designed to provide for both telephoto and macro shots with the Leica M series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 <i>Then, Leica is wrong. What about a Close-up-Elmar-M 90/4 + Close-up adapter-M?</i> <p> Jose, AFAIK, only Nikon got the nomenclature right. Micro and Macro Nikkors. Leica did make true macro lenses (Summar, Milar and Photar of various focal lengths and for various magnifications) to be used with appropriate accessories. <p> Every other manufacturer (Sigma, Canon, Olympus, etc) got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 It is like a 117mm in 35mm format, thought. I think it will be my next Leica lens, just to shot face portraits. I would like to check it before, to see how it performs at infinity... Shame it is only f/4. The price for a great overall size & great 39mm filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Small and with 39mm filters... I see <i>Micro</i> Elmar is more appropiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_wylie Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Never waste irony on photographers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Webter's: <p> Main Entry: <b>macro lens</b><br> Function: noun<br> Etymology: macr-, from the fact that the focal length is greater than normal<br> : a camera lens designed to focus at very short distances with <i>up to life-size</i> magnification of the image <p> Emphasis added by yours truly. <i>The actual definition</i> is a nonsense phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 "The actual definition (from Webster?)is a nonsense phrase." I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvio_b Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 And here is a $300 digital P&S macro shot. It really worth to pay $2500 for that macro Elmar. Duh... Silvio<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 <a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/236684441_f52d9aa396_o.jpg" width="700" height="734" alt="Broken flower" /></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvio_b Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 another one<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvio_b Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Boy, it really pays off to buy $6000 Leica for macro work. Silvio<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 "And here is a $300 digital P&S macro shot. It really worth to pay $2500 for that macro Elmar. Duh... Silvio" Not for web displays. No, it isn't worth the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now