Any discussion that prompts Moose to illuminate the intricacies of photography
are never a bother.
WayneS
At 4/13/2020 10:57 PM, Philippe wrote:
>Thanks dear Moose
>
>the original question was "why use a RING flash on a 100-400 eq."
>
>And after reading everyoneâ??s answers I still canâ??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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|