Begginer Difference between macro and proxy

[Jack]

This discussion is more for beginners macro photographers. However i would like to ask, how do you understand the difference between macro and proxy photography?

I know macro is when you shoot at 1:1 ratio or below. Proxy is a bit more close up but i would say that still can be classified as macro photography.

Whats your thoughts?

I will have to mention MinitecaPhotographie

 

[MinitecaPhotographie]

A lot of people think that a photo made with a lens on which it's written macro is of course a macro shot.
On most of classic macro lenses, the 1:1 ratio is only reached at minimum focus distance.
There is no questions is you use an MPe65 or the 25mm Laowa which can only do macro shots.

 

[subbu]

Technically "Close-up" photography can not be called as "macro". Simple analogy is if the size of the image on the sensor is equal to the size of the subject you're photographing in real life. anything with or beyond 1:1 magnification qualifies for macro and is achieved with a macro lens/tubes/bellows/macro filters. On the other hand most lenses are capable of producing a close-up image..

 

[Jack]

A lot of people think that a photo made with a lens on which it's written macro is of course a macro shot.
On most of classic macro lenses, the 1:1 ratio is only reached at minimum focus distance.
There is no questions is you use an MPe65 or the 25mm Laowa which can only do macro shots.

Agree with you, example i do have 100mm L f2.8. Which is very handy lens as you can do 1:1 macro or very nice and sharp portraits. I don't think i will invest in a lens which does only one thing, unless I'm fully dedicated in that.

 

[Jack]

Technically "Close-up" photography can not be called as "macro". Simple analogy is if the size of the image on the sensor is equal to the size of the subject you're photographing in real life. anything with or beyond 1:1 magnification qualifies for macro and is achieved with a macro lens/tubes/bellows/macro filters. On the other hand most lenses are capable of producing a close-up image..

Most lenses, but also you won't usea telephoto lens to take a picture of a flower from 1m distance.

 

[subbu]

Technically "Close-up" photography can not be called as "macro". Simple analogy is if the size of the image on the sensor is equal to the size of the subject you're photographing in real life. anything with or beyond 1:1 magnification qualifies for macro and is achieved with a macro lens/tubes/bellows/macro filters. On the other hand most lenses are capable of producing a close-up image..

Jack, i have seen lot of fellow photographers using 70-200 for flower photography. Also Nikkor 200-500 for butterfly pics.. people shooting with high MP cameras (50+) then can easily crop and make the pic look like a "close-up" or "near macro"..

 

[Helix_2648]

There are a lot of lenses for flower artworks or wildlife photography but a macro is a macro and that means, that it's (or above) 1:1. So a 20mm bug on a 22,55mm APC-C sensor at the close up limit is what I would define as a macro. Would mean (e.g. for my EOS 90D) that the bug would have 6186px in length with a total picture length of 6960px.

A 2:1 or 3:1 is also a macro but 1:1,5 would be a close-up photo.

 

[Jack]

Technically "Close-up" photography can not be called as "macro". Simple analogy is if the size of the image on the sensor is equal to the size of the subject you're photographing in real life. anything with or beyond 1:1 magnification qualifies for macro and is achieved with a macro lens/tubes/bellows/macro filters. On the other hand most lenses are capable of producing a close-up image..

in my opinion, by cropping the photo, it doesn't get closer. Is most likely that it will be affected the photo quality.

 

[Jack]

There are a lot of lenses for flower artworks or wildlife photography but a macro is a macro and that means, that it's (or above) 1:1. So a 20mm bug on a 22,55mm APC-C sensor at the close up limit is what I would define as a macro. Would mean (e.g. for my EOS 90D) that the bug would have 6186px in length with a total picture length of 6960px.

A 2:1 or 3:1 is also a macro but 1:1,5 would be a close-up photo.

That make sense. I think people do take close up as macro photography. I also would say that depending on the subject, composition as well. Sometimes a macro photo could look as close up.

 

[MinitecaPhotographie]

There are a lot of lenses for flower artworks or wildlife photography but a macro is a macro and that means, that it's (or above) 1:1. So a 20mm bug on a 22,55mm APC-C sensor at the close up limit is what I would define as a macro. Would mean (e.g. for my EOS 90D) that the bug would have 6186px in length with a total picture length of 6960px.

A 2:1 or 3:1 is also a macro but 1:1,5 would be a close-up photo.

According to me, like for every lens on the market, the reference is the FF sensor. Focal length is always done for a FF sensor while the lens is designed for an APS-C sensor. So why people are shocked when I give the effective magnification taking care of the crop factor which give the reference to FF sensor size. I can't understand...