Question for the Technical Gurus

[george013]

George,

Out of respect for this forum and Mikes thread I will not spend any more of my time correcting you other than this;

There are no references implied in my post 24, to either other posts OR links, it is a basic practical method of determining magnification and can also be used for verifying a 'calculators' results (within the realms of tolerance).

Take time to read posts, if unclear ask questions not start making rash assumptions and trying to tell someone they are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.

I don't know the problem. We agree so be happy.

But out of respect for this forum and Mikes thread, can you react on my arguments?

George

Why does this happen all the time?

[Stagecoach]

I don't know the problem. We agree so be happy.

But out of respect for this forum and Mikes thread, can you react on my arguments?

George

Why does this happen all the time?

If you have a specific disagreement with something factual or a view that I have actually included within one of my posts I am only too happy to discuss/debate it.

If you are looking for input from me regarding your arguments/views/interpretations of macro calculators I neither have the time or interest to participate.

[george013]

If you have a specific disagreement with something factual or a view that I have actually included within one of my posts I am only too happy to discuss/debate it.

If you are looking for input from me regarding your arguments/views/interpretations of macro calculators I neither have the time or interest to participate.

With all respect to this forum and Mikes thread, your response looks quite egocentric.
Let's stop with it. No progress.

George

[pnodrog]

Why does this happen all the time?

I suspect that it is often because your analysis of what others have written is sometimes inaccurate resulting in corrections that are either unneeded, inappropriate or repetitive. Personally it does not bother me if you misinterpret what I have written or the point I am trying to make but it may irritate others when you have not taken the care to accurately understand the point being made.

Everyone (you and I included) needs to be very careful we fully understand the implications of what has been written before we leap in to try and make corrections.....

[Mike Buckley]

Paul: I finally got around to using the online calculator you provided by selecting a camera that has the same sensor size as mine. The results are similar to though not exactly the same as the other two calculators I used. Considering that I'm not hoping for precisely accurate results for all the reasons already mentioned in the thread, that works for me. Thank you for providing it!

[DanK]

I have participated a good bit on this site for some years. I have learned a lot from others and have--for the most part--enjoyed it. However, the frequency of threads with unnecessary arguments, disparaging comments, and even hostile comments seems to be growing. We need to tamp this down.

A few specifics here:

George, I don't believe anyone here is arguing with you about the definition of magnification, so I can't see what you are arguing about. (Boab: that is the meaning of "straw man.")

Re Brian Valentine's comments: he is one of the best and most experienced macro photographers I have encountered. He was simply stating a fact (the standard-lens equations that rely on MFD and nominal focal length don't work well with macro lenses) and showing the results of real-world trials. I done a number of similar tests, by the way, with various macro lenses and lengths of extension. The reason, I think, is the change in effective focal length as one approaches closest focus. It might be that working with the actual distance from the lens element would work, as you suggest, but that is not inconsistent with his comment, and it is largely irrelevant, as most modern macro lenses are internally focusing and make it impossible to measure the position of the moving elements.

Boab--what I, and I think Grahame, pointed out is not a contradiction of the definition of magnification nor a straw man, but rather practical considerations that arise when one does macro photography with tubes, which both he and I do quite a bit. The characteristics of the sensor are irrelevant to magnification, but not to the final image produced. If one wants to maximize the number of pixels on a macro subject, both the level of magnification and pixel density matter, and the latter is often (but not always) associated with sensor size.

I'm not going to participate further this thread.

[Mike Buckley]

OFF TOPIC

the frequency of threads with unnecessary arguments, disparaging comments, and even hostile comments seems to be growing.

Agreed.

My anecdotal experience is that those threads tend to pertain to the more technical aspects of photography as opposed to the more artistic aspects. That's ironic because, for someone like me who has little to no technical background or expertise, it seems that the technical discussions should so easily adhere to scientific facts to which everyone who understands them would seemingly agree.

[Dave Humphries]

Ok time to draw the line here I think!

Thread closed.