Jump to content

Leica Ms are rubbish for macro work...


Recommended Posts

M8+90/4 Macro-Elmar-M+macro adapter, handheld at 1/350, f11, ISO 320<p><center><a

href=" Spring Daisy 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

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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

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

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

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

<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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...