It is. It seems that there's an acknowledged definition that "True Macro" means at least lifesize reproduction in the camera sensor or on the film. On this page: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/macro.html I found this:
"The term "macro" is used very loosely and tends to mean any photographic situation where you get close to the subject. Real macro photography is where you are working around 1:1 ratio and closer thereby giving an image on film that is equal in size or larger than the subject being photographed. The range from life size on film (1:1) up to ten times enlargement on film (10:1) is be the strict definition of macro photography. The range from 1:10 (1/10 life size on film) to 1:1 on film should properly be called "close-up" photography. Most lenses don't get very close at all so that close-up you tried of that nice flower or interesting bug often turns out disappointing. Zoom lenses usually have a "macro" setting where they may get close enough to give maybe 1:4 ratio (image on film is 1/4 the size of the subject). Any normal 4"x6" print made from that negative will yield a picture of the subject about life size due to the approximately 4x enlargement needed to make the print. But if it was a small flower/bug it still will be a small flower/bug on the print" However, this doesn't stop lens manufacturers marketing their lenses to their liking :-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. januar 2006 15:50 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: SV: Macro in A 70-210 f/4 ? Macro is one of those devalued terms. I always thought that Macro photography started at a reproduction ration of about 1:2 to about 2:1. Higher magnifications become micro photography. Igor Roshchin wrote: >Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:37:21 -0800 >John Whittingham wrote: > > > >>>So, I am still a bit confused, why the lens is not called "macro"? >>>Because it is macro only @70mm? >>> >>> >>A true Macro lens would be capable of a 1:1 life size or greater (on the film >>negative) magnification and be genuine Macro, the 70-210 manages one quarter >>of life size 1:4 and thus has a close focus ability (pseudo Macro) >>Some Macro lenses such as SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/4 require the addition of a >>extension tube (#3 IIRC) to achieve true Macro >> >> >> >>>The KMP site does not list this lens as having a macro capability >>> >>> >>Many magnification ratios are listed for the lenses including the 70-210 @ 1:4 >> >>Hope this helps, best regards, >> >>John >> >> >> > >Yes, this makes it clearer. Thank you! > >So, when Tamron or Sigma lenses are called "macro", but have a reproduction >ratio of 1:2 (say Tamron 70-300) or 1:2.9 (Sigma 28/1.8, >Tamron 28-300/3.5-5.6), - this is a frivolous use of the term. >They should've been called "close focus capable". >Correct? > >I just found a similar definition in the Wikipedia: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography >It suggests that recently the term "macro" became used if >the 4"x6" (~10cmx15cm) print has at least 1:1 size of the object. >That might be explaining the loose usage of the word "macro" >by some manufacturers. > >Thank > > > > > -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
