Showcase Olympus 50mm f/2 Zuiko OM Auto-Macro

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
The definition of "magnification ratio" is the ratio between the size of the image projected on sensor/film, and the real size. It's an optical attribute of the lens. And should remain constant no matter what sensor is used. Think about it this way, will the max magnification ratio change if you move a magnifying glass around? Another example, take a specific macro lens, at max magnification, take a picture of a grain of rice, will the size of projected image size change because sensor size changes?

So, talking about equivalence of "max magnification ratio" is wrong in the first place. There is no equivalence, it always remain constant.
I know all of that. But it isn't the point. It's the opposite of the point.
 

eno789

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 1, 2012
Messages
779
Location
NoCal, USA
Real Name
Brian
I know all of that. But it isn't the point. It's the opposite of the point.
The point is, it is wrong, unscientific, and misleading to say a 1:2 macro lens magically becomes 1:1 macro simply because the sensor is smaller. You can say it fills the frame more, but you cannot say "1:1 macro".
 

WT21

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
655
I had post #36 there, LoL.
Great to see you stick to your guns across the years!!! :)

(and post #36 is a pretty good explanation of the definition of 1:1. You can just say "post #36" next time I say "equivalence")
 

Jefenator

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
914
Location
Oregon, USA
Real Name
Jeff
Ah, semantics... :rolleyes:
I found my Olympus 50/3.5 and Nikkor 55/3.5 macros to be unsatisfactory for landscape shots. And of course that maximum aperture can seem a bit workmanlike. Usable f/2, 1:2 and good at distance - what more could one ask from a 50mm! :)
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
The point is, it is wrong, unscientific, and misleading to say a 1:2 macro lens magically becomes 1:1 macro simply because the sensor is smaller. You can say it fills the frame more, but you cannot say "1:1 macro".
And when someone starts saying that, I'll be on your side. Relative magnification of a give print or image is a thing and it can be talked about with reference to the constant magnification of the lenses used for their respective formats.

But nobody is saying otherwise. I don't understand who you're arguing with.
 
Last edited:

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #29
Same photo at f/2 and then at f/4. These are both at the minimum focusing distance (1:2 magnification).

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.


Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.
 
Last edited:

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31

WT21

TalkEmount Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
655
Okay. I've given this lens a bit more attention over the past month or so:


Spring
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr


Blossoms
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr


Creeping Out
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr


Shadows
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr


Brick
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr


Bikes in Bellingham
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr


Bikes in Bellingham
by Mike Aubrey, on Flickr
How much post processing do you find you need? When I shot this on m43, I found the contrast lacking (though the B&W was excellent). What are your thoughts on the Sony sensor?
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
Yeah, contrast is lower. I don't spend a lot of time on processing though. I have a LR preset that I use on import:
  • Auto tone & -100 highlights, +100 shadows
  • Strong Tone curve w/ +15 highlights, -15 shadows
Sometimes I tweet the curve highlights and shadows more than that, but it's never occurred to me until you mentioned it that it's the lens' that has low contrast since I do that for all my images on a picture by picture basis. But you're totally right when I look at the untouched RAW.
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
How much post processing do you find you need? When I shot this on m43, I found the contrast lacking (though the B&W was excellent). What are your thoughts on the Sony sensor?
I also had the advantage of nearly golden hour light in the bridge wall images and the more golden bicycle photograph, well, that and these ones are stopped down to f/5.6, too.
 

MAubrey

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
1,030
Location
Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
Real Name
Mike
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #36

Latest posts

Top Bottom