Thanks dear Moose
the original question was "why use a RING flash on a 100-400 eq."
And after reading everyone’s answers I still can’t see its justification.
It was just curiosity for I no longer have that lens, and have never had a ring
flash.
Sorry for bothering you all with this. We might simply forget :-)
Amities
Philippe
> Le 14 avr. 2020 à 07:25, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> On 4/13/2020 1:35 PM, Philippe wrote:
>> Thanks I had one such - but my original question remains, sorry.
>>
>> Well, I might as well also die ignorant :-)
>>
>>
>>> Le 13 avr. 2020 à 21:03, Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> From: Philippe <photo.philippe.amard@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> FL eq 100-400 - do you really shoot macro with that FL?
>>> One of the great things about that lens is a minimum focus of 1.2 metres. I
>>> don't know what reproduction ratio that yields, but it does give you
>>> near-macro capability.
>
> Brief answer for me. Yes, I do shoot macro, with even longer FLs.
>
> Less brief raises a question, and any answer requires some definitions:
>
> Question: What do you mean by Macro?
>
> 1. Many zooms of the 35 mm film era proudly wore the label "Macro" with mag.
> of 0.25x, or repro ratio of 1:4. A lot of purists felt macro started at 1:2,
> 0.5x.
>
> 2. The lens that started this has a mag. of 0.21x. That sounds pretty low.
> But, it's for a 4/3" sensor. If I print equal size FF and 4/3 sensor shots of
> the same subject, filling the height of the film/sensor with it, the apparent
> magnification is the same, but the images on film/sensor are of much
> different sizes, FF ~ twice 4/3".
>
> Thus, in a practical way, 0.21x on 4/3 is equivalent to 0.42x on FF and
> qualifies as macro by some definitions.
>
> I often shoot with a 400 mm lens and achromatic C-U lens. At closest focus,
> it covers a subject area of 40x30 mm, which is FF the eq. of 0.86x, or
> 1:1.16. As this magnification is considerably greater than that of the OM 50
> mm macro lenses, it is certainly macro.
>
> As to why I do so,perhaps this photo is a good answer.
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/BgxKymwHzWXRiKQ68>
>
> Cropped horizontally, but not vertically. I take quite a lot of photos of
> modest to tiny creatures that would flee if approached at the working
> distance of conventional FL macro lenses.
>
> Or perhaps this shot? <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=20427>
>
> For tiny, un-moving things, I go conventional, Oly Macrophoto Stand VST-1 and
> either OM 20/2 and 38/2.8 on FF A7 or Oly 60/2.8 macro on E-M5 II, in 60
> MP-ish HR Mode.
>
> Long and Short of It 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/
|