[LeicaLens]

Haha, I didn’t catch that the first time; thanks Leica for pointing that out!

It was too tempting to pass up.

[LeicaLens]

Chancellor Baird Rutherford was born 06/17/2010 at 0800 via C-section, weighing 7 lbs 9 ozs, having some dark hair on his head (just like his Daddy), 19 inches long (just like his Daddy)), and very noisy and hungry.

FTFY 😯

And Congratulations!

[LeicaLens]

Just want some clarification on how much (if any) colour is allowed. A splash of colour somewhere is okay, right?
I was actually out the shooting on a very grey day, and took a aeroplane picture that would have fitted this theme perfectly. Unfortunately, I had B&W film in the camera…

[LeicaLens]

Good luck, clouddancer, and congratulations.

If they use any micro tube camera things on you, just be sure to ask them their white balance and aperture settings 😉

[LeicaLens]

Well, it might look a bit clumsy on the beach…

Otherwise, if it works ok, good deal. Though F11 is pretty slow. Manual focus only, right?

[LeicaLens]

That’s a great picture.
Perhaps even as awesome as the name of the bird itself!
(Really? Peach-Faced Lovebirds?)

Anyway, seriously a nice picture. Is the male the one on the right, trying to impress the female?
“Hey, baby, look at the size of MY wingspan!”

“Meh, I’ve seen bigger on a sparrow.”

“…”

[LeicaLens]

sleeping

I just did your ruler test. The narrowest width I can shoot is 17mm with my macro lens, exactly the width of the sensor, so that makes it a 1:1 true macro, right? For under US$300, that makes it a spiffy bargain.

Thanks for the advice/information.

[LeicaLens]

I have a really cheap macro for my Olympus Four Thirds. It can do 1:1, but you have to get really close to do this. However, because of the size of the sensor, 1:1 actually becomes 1:2 (so I read). Does this mean that I cannot take “true macros”, only “half-sized”?

No, whatever you read was wrong.

Magnification, in photographic terms, is purely an artifact of the lens, not the camera body. At 1:1 magnification, the image projected at the focal planes on each side of the lens is the same size.

So on a full frame camera at 1:1 you can capture 36x24mm, and for 4/3 its 17x13mm, but the magnification in both cases is the same.

I see. So my macro, at full 1:1 extension, is a proper macro? That’s actually very nice to know.
If I stick an extension tube on, I get even more macro power?
Hmmm, maybe it’s time for a new toy.

[LeicaLens]

this contest turned out as i’d expected. lots of great true macro shots, lots of faux macro shots, lots of not macro shots (albeit some good ones) and i had fun entering and viewing.

By “true macro” do you mean 1:1? The reason I ask is that this competition inspired me to look up a little bit more about macro photography and macro lenses in general, and I am a little confused (part of this confusion stems from my complete inability to deal with numbers).

I have a really cheap macro for my Olympus Four Thirds. It can do 1:1, but you have to get really close to do this. However, because of the size of the sensor, 1:1 actually becomes 1:2 (so I read). Does this mean that I cannot take “true macros”, only “half-sized”?

All three pictures I posted were taken with the macro, but I don’t think I could get the magnification I saw in some of the posts (what I think you mean by “true macros”). To achieve that, would I need extension tubes? Longer focal length macro lenses?

Any macro masters out there care to offer some advice? Pretty please?

[LeicaLens]

Niiiiice.

(Where’s the “green” with envy emoticon when you need it?).

I am looking to buy an MF camera, maybe a Rolleiflex, but I think my budget will only stretch to the poor man’s version: a Yashica.

And Happy Birthday!

[LeicaLens]

Good stuff!

[LeicaLens]

Thanks. Got it.

[LeicaLens]

Would headstones in graveyards count as memorials?

[LeicaLens]

if your scanner will do 35mm you might be able to do 2 1/4. it would depend on the software more than the hardware since you can make a mask for the negative and probably find a decent light source to shine through the negative but if the software has preset boundaries rather than ones you can adjust .. well that’s really the limiting factor.

re film processing IIRC it was higher here the last time i checked. but that may have been with prints rather than just the film or film and a contact sheet.

That’s interesting, thanks. I’ll have a look at my printer manual, see if it says anything.
It has a specially designed strip light in the lid for 35mm, so I suspect the software for it may be limited to that format, but you never know.

[LeicaLens]

The big stumbling block for me & medium format has been the glass. I mean, I’ve seen Hasselblad bodies for under $500, but by the time I get a back, and even a single prime add at least 1K to that :/

This is true as well. Which is one reason why the Mamiya seemed quite attractive. However, it seems to be bulkier than a Hasselblad, and designed really for studio work. As you mentioned, Hasselblad bodies aren’t overly expensive, but the lenses…ugh!

[Author]

Posts