Looking at the lovely picture of a caterpillar on a leaf amongst the many comments were a number like this.
Is the term Macro just used loosely! Or have I got it wrong? I though macro was 1 to 1 or better? Or does this refer to what would be 1 to 1 on a full plate camera. I see same with "contact prints" and "N-Prints" thought they should be same size as film/CCD but I see many so called much bigger than CCD but smaller than old 120 film size.
Not trying to be funny in any way. Real question. I think personally relating to size of CCD is daft as they vary so much. But I guess there is a traditional/historical size which is considered as "Standard" when referring to items which technically should relate to film/CCD size.
Same with lenses. My long lens will fit my film SLR or D-SLR and so is rated as 400mm on Film camera and around 270mm on D-SLR or is it 600mm not sure which way it goes? but it's the same lens. So should I call it a 400mm or 270mm lens?
When I used the old 120 brownie I knew were I was. Not enough light just didn't work. But as I have gone on to 35mm and even 110 cameras. And now a range of digital and some I have no idea of size of CCD I find I am often misunderstood because I attach some antiquated meanings to words.
And there are also a load of new words. Tone mapping, Shadow luminance, Max radiance etc. I have tried to look them up but each dictionary seems to give different meaning. May be USA, Aus, and UK do use slightly different words but with all software and cameras being world wide I would not think we have "Hood" and "Bonnet" problem with cameras. Cars do tend to be build different but can't see cameras being same!
Got a feeling this may cause some debate. So I have start new thread hope that's OK.
Bookmarks