Olympus 45 Magnification

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
end

Patrick Cox
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Olympus 45 Magnification

Just curious what type of magnification you can get out of the Oly 45? I would like to use this lens to take some close up shots of my salt water aquarium. I know there is the Panny Macro but it is quite a bit more expensive and not as fast. Also I don't really need 1:1 magnification. (I saw B&H listed 0.11 but I don't really know what this means.)

Thanks!

Aug 04, 2012 at 08:18 PM

carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Olympus 45 Magnification

0.11 means 1:9, i.e. 9mm in real life will be 1mm on the sensor. For a MFT sensor, this means that you need an object 17.3mm * 9 = 155.7mm long to fill the sensor width, which is almost 16cm, or 6.1" long.

Aug 04, 2012 at 08:21 PM

cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Olympus 45 Magnification

Right here:

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1569&page=specs

0.22x if we're talking 35mm EQUIV

Aug 04, 2012 at 08:25 PM

FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Olympus 45 Magnification

Wow so the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 Macro then does 2:1 macro natively when looking at it from a 35mm equivalency.

Hmm what is the mag equivalent then for my Tamron 90mm on my NEX-7, it's 1:1 on 35mm.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/dg_macro_45.html

Aug 04, 2012 at 10:13 PM

carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Olympus 45 Magnification

cputeq wrote:
0.22x if we're talking 35mm EQUIV

I don't quite understand this comment. The lens is what it is and it gets 0.11x. Under what circumstances does it get 0.22x?

Aug 04, 2012 at 10:26 PM

curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Olympus 45 Magnification

carstenw wrote:
cputeq wrote:
0.22x if we're talking 35mm EQUIV

I don't quite understand this comment. The lens is what it is and it gets 0.11x. Under what circumstances does it get 0.22x?

I should get my popcorn ready

This is one of those topics which always turns into a heated debate

0.11x is of course 0.11x. However the 0.11x is relative to the sensor size. On FF a 0.11x magnification will mean that you can fill the frame with an object as small as 327mm. On m43, as you mentioned, you can fill the frame with an object of size 157mm. So in that sense you can capture objects about twice as small using a 0.11x mag lens on m43 compared to using a 0.11x mag lens on FF. I wouldn't worry about whether that should be called 0.22x equivalent or not. At the end of the day the principal is what matters instead of what we call it.

Of course the standard response to that is that you can take your FF shot and crop it to the same dimensions as the smaller sensor. And from that point on these discussions go down a path which has been traveled many times on these forums

Aug 04, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Patrick Cox
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Olympus 45 Magnification

FlyPenFly wrote:
Wow so the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 Macro then does 2:1 macro natively when looking at it from a 35mm equivalency.

Hmm what is the mag equivalent then for my Tamron 90mm on my NEX-7, it's 1:1 on 35mm.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/dg_macro_45.html

So let me make sure I understand this. Does that mean that if I shoot a flower for example with the Panny 45 at 1:1, then I shoot the same flower with a FF 90mm macro lens at 1:1, the flower in the Panny image will be twice as large in the frame as the flower in the FF image?

Thanks!

Aug 04, 2012 at 11:09 PM

cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Olympus 45 Magnification

Patrick Cox wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Wow so the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 Macro then does 2:1 macro natively when looking at it from a 35mm equivalency.

Hmm what is the mag equivalent then for my Tamron 90mm on my NEX-7, it's 1:1 on 35mm.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/dg_macro_45.html

So let me make sure I understand this. Does that mean that if I shoot a flower for example with the Panny 45 at 1:1, then I shoot the same flower with a FF 90mm macro lens at 1:1, the flower in the Panny image will be twice as large in the frame as the flower in the FF image?

Thanks!

After doing the math from my above comment (which comes from Oly's site and apparently Panasonic markets it that way too), I'm not sure it works like this.

The m43 marketing seems to be trying to have their telephoto cake (2x "reach") and eating it too (2x "macro").

While it's pretty easy to see how the telephoto works (as a crop), it's a bit strange when it comes to macro.

I just pulled a test with my Oly 45mm.

Closet focusing a tape measurer = right at 5.5 inches, from left edge of the sensor to the right.

5.5 inches = about 140mm

m43 sensor = about 18mm wide.

SO....

1:1 macro magnification means one could close-focus on something 18mm wide and fill the sensor.

1:0.5 (or written 1:2) mag means one could fill the image with something 36mm large

1:0.25 (or 1:4) mag could close-focus on something 72mm large

1:0.12 (or 1:8) mag could close-focus on something around 140mm long.
This is what the Olympus 45mm will do - it will close-focus on something 140mm long, about 5.5 inches.

The Panasonic will close focus to 1:1, or 18mm wide.

From what I can tell, a FF 1:1 will look the same (for the most part) as a m43 1:1 image.

Aug 04, 2012 at 11:33 PM

curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Olympus 45 Magnification

cputeq wrote:
Patrick Cox wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Wow so the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 Macro then does 2:1 macro natively when looking at it from a 35mm equivalency.

Hmm what is the mag equivalent then for my Tamron 90mm on my NEX-7, it's 1:1 on 35mm.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/dg_macro_45.html

So let me make sure I understand this. Does that mean that if I shoot a flower for example with the Panny 45 at 1:1, then I shoot the same flower with a FF 90mm macro lens at 1:1, the flower in the Panny image will be twice as large in the frame as the flower in the FF image?

Thanks!

After doing the math from my above comment (which comes from Oly's site and apparently Panasonic markets it that way too), I'm not sure it works like this.

The m43 marketing seems to be trying to have their telephoto cake (2x "reach") and eating it too (2x "macro").

While it's pretty easy to see how the telephoto works (as a crop), it's a bit strange when it comes to macro.

I just pulled a test with my Oly 45mm.

Closet focusing a tape measurer = right at 5.5 inches, from left edge of the sensor to the right.

5.5 inches = about 140mm

m43 sensor = about 18mm wide.

SO....

1:1 macro magnification means one could close-focus on something 18mm wide and fill the sensor.

1:0.5 (or written 1:2) mag means one could fill the image with something 36mm large

1:0.25 (or 1:4) mag could close-focus on something 72mm large

1:0.12 (or 1:8) mag could close-focus on something around 140mm long.
This is what the Olympus 45mm will do - it will close-focus on something 140mm long, about 5.5 inches.

The Panasonic will close focus to 1:1, or 18mm wide.

From what I can tell, a FF 1:1 will look the same (for the most part) as a m43 1:1 image.

I was with you for most part except your last comment. As you said an m43 1:1 will focus down to around 18mm wide (or 17.3mm to be exact), and so the 17.3mm of tape measure will fill the screen. If you try the same experiment with an FF 1:1, the 18mm will only fill half the frame and total frame will capture 36mm of tape measure. So certainly wont look the same.

Aug 04, 2012 at 11:52 PM

curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Olympus 45 Magnification

Aug 04, 2012 at 11:53 PM

cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Olympus 45 Magnification

curious80 wrote:
cputeq wrote:
Patrick Cox wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Wow so the Panasonic 45mm F2.8 Macro then does 2:1 macro natively when looking at it from a 35mm equivalency.

Hmm what is the mag equivalent then for my Tamron 90mm on my NEX-7, it's 1:1 on 35mm.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/dg_macro_45.html

So let me make sure I understand this. Does that mean that if I shoot a flower for example with the Panny 45 at 1:1, then I shoot the same flower with a FF 90mm macro lens at 1:1, the flower in the Panny image will be twice as large in the frame as the flower in the FF image?

Thanks!

After doing the math from my above comment (which comes from Oly's site and apparently Panasonic markets it that way too), I'm not sure it works like this.

The m43 marketing seems to be trying to have their telephoto cake (2x "reach") and eating it too (2x "macro").

While it's pretty easy to see how the telephoto works (as a crop), it's a bit strange when it comes to macro.

I just pulled a test with my Oly 45mm.

Closet focusing a tape measurer = right at 5.5 inches, from left edge of the sensor to the right.

5.5 inches = about 140mm

m43 sensor = about 18mm wide.

SO....

1:1 macro magnification means one could close-focus on something 18mm wide and fill the sensor.

1:0.5 (or written 1:2) mag means one could fill the image with something 36mm large

1:0.25 (or 1:4) mag could close-focus on something 72mm large

1:0.12 (or 1:8) mag could close-focus on something around 140mm long.
This is what the Olympus 45mm will do - it will close-focus on something 140mm long, about 5.5 inches.

The Panasonic will close focus to 1:1, or 18mm wide.

From what I can tell, a FF 1:1 will look the same (for the most part) as a m43 1:1 image.

I was with you for most part except your last comment. As you said an m43 1:1 will focus down to around 18mm wide (or 17.3mm to be exact), and so the 17.3mm of tape measure will fill the screen. If you try the same experiment with an FF 1:1, the 18mm will only fill half the frame and total frame will capture 36mm of tape measure. So certainly wont look the same.

You are correct...i was so busy making sure my math was correct that I didnt realize I had proven myself wrong

Aug 05, 2012 at 12:52 AM

carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Olympus 45 Magnification

curious80 wrote:
carstenw wrote:
cputeq wrote:
0.22x if we're talking 35mm EQUIV

I don't quite understand this comment. The lens is what it is and it gets 0.11x. Under what circumstances does it get 0.22x?

I should get my popcorn ready

This is one of those topics which always turns into a heated debate

0.11x is of course 0.11x. However the 0.11x is relative to the sensor size. On FF a 0.11x magnification will mean that you can fill the frame with an object as small as 327mm. On m43, as you mentioned, you can fill the frame with an object of size 157mm. So in that sense you can capture objects about twice as small using a 0.11x mag lens on m43 compared to using a 0.11x mag lens on FF. I wouldn't worry about whether that should be called 0.22x equivalent or not.

Well, in this case it shouldn't, because the Olympus 45/1.8 is an MFT lens which cannot be used on FF. With a 0.11x MFT lens on MFT you can fill the frame with a 6" object, just like with a (different) 0.11x FF lens on a FF camera. The actual size on the sensor is irrelevant here, only the number of pixels change anything (other than IQ).

You can play math games if you have a FF macro lens which you want to use on MFT though, as above. Essentially, double the magnification for MFT (not quite accurate, as the two sensors are not exact multiples of each other).

Aug 05, 2012 at 08:51 AM

carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Olympus 45 Magnification

This is one of those topics which always turns into a heated debate

0.11x is of course 0.11x. However the 0.11x is relative to the sensor size. On FF a 0.11x magnification will mean that you can fill the frame with an object as small as 327mm. On m43, as you mentioned, you can fill the frame with an object of size 157mm. So in that sense you can capture objects about twice as small using a 0.11x mag lens on m43 compared to using a 0.11x mag lens on FF. I wouldn't worry about whether that should be called 0.22x equivalent or not.

Well, it shouldn't. With a 0.11x lens on MFT you can fill the frame with a 6" object, just like with a 0.11x FF lens on a FF camera. The actual size on the sensor is irrelevant here, only the number of pixels change anything (other than IQ).

Note that the 0.11x on MFT lens is equivalent to a 0.055x on FF, not 0.22x, if it could cover the frame, which it can't, so this is pointless.

Aug 05, 2012 at 08:56 AM

curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Olympus 45 Magnification

carstenw wrote:
curious80 wrote:
carstenw wrote:
cputeq wrote:
0.22x if we're talking 35mm EQUIV

I don't quite understand this comment. The lens is what it is and it gets 0.11x. Under what circumstances does it get 0.22x?

I should get my popcorn ready

This is one of those topics which always turns into a heated debate

0.11x is of course 0.11x. However the 0.11x is relative to the sensor size. On FF a 0.11x magnification will mean that you can fill the frame with an object as small as 327mm. On m43, as you mentioned, you can fill the frame with an object of size 157mm. So in that sense you can capture objects about twice as small using a 0.11x mag lens on m43 compared to using a 0.11x mag lens on FF. I wouldn't worry about whether that should be called 0.22x equivalent or not.

Well, it shouldn't. With a 0.11x lens on MFT you can fill the frame with a 6" object, just like with a 0.11x FF lens on a FF camera. The actual size on the sensor is irrelevant here, only the number of pixels change anything (other than IQ).

Note that the 0.11x on MFT lens is equivalent to a 0.055x on FF, not 0.22x, if it could cover the frame, which it can't, so this is pointless.

Not true. With a 0.11x FF lens on a FF camera you cannot fill the image frame with a 6inch object. The smallest that you can go is 12-13 inches.

And it has got nothing to do with image circle. If you want, you can put the same FF 0.11x lens on both MFT and FF. That doesn't change anything.

Aug 05, 2012 at 04:05 PM

carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Olympus 45 Magnification

Oops, that's right, I got a bit too eager there. Anyway, IMO, the macro region is about the last place FF equivalence makes sense.

Aug 05, 2012 at 04:17 PM

curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Olympus 45 Magnification

carstenw wrote:
Oops, that's right, I got a bit too eager there. Anyway, IMO, the macro region is about the last place FF equivalence makes sense.

I don't tend to worry about the" FF equivalent" designations. They lead to confusion and disagreement. But yes the ability to fill the frame with smaller objects than FF does have its practical benefits. Its the same principal why many point and shoot cameras tend to have very good "macro" modes. From a technical point of view the magnification of their lenses is not very high and not close to 1:1. but they can still pick up details in very small objects.

Aug 05, 2012 at 04:28 PM

carstenw
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Olympus 45 Magnification

I don't know, I find that as long as we don't think of focal lengths in terms of angles of view, but in mm, then the FF equivalent makes sense, for getting an idea how much you will see with a given lens. And for those who want to compare depth of field, the equivalence also makes sense, as long as it is carefully noted what is equivalent.

What I don't like is that as soon as someone suggests a lens to someone, for example the OIympus 45mm f/1.8, then someone else comes along and says "well, that is a 90mm f/3.6 equivalent", which it isn't exactly, only for angle of view and depth of field purposes, but for light purposes, i.e. exposure, it is a 90mm f/1.8 equivalent. This subtlety is often swept under the rug by those whose agenda is to knock lenses with more depth of field.

Aug 05, 2012 at 04:48 PM

cputeq
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Olympus 45 Magnification

carstenw wrote:
What I don't like is that as soon as someone suggests a lens to someone, for example the OIympus 45mm f/1.8, then someone else comes along and says "well, that is a 90mm f/3.6 equivalent", which it isn't exactly, only for angle of view and depth of field purposes, but for light purposes, i.e. exposure, it is a 90mm f/1.8 equivalent. This subtlety is often swept under the rug by those whose agenda is to knock lenses with more depth of field.

+1000.

I got into a rather heated debate over at DPR a long time ago (gee imagine that) about this very issue. This dumbass was claiming the m43 camera wouldn't expose the same as a FF camera if they both had the same apertures.

You just can't argue with 'stupid' and I eventually gave up.

Aug 05, 2012 at 05:04 PM

curious80
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Olympus 45 Magnification

carstenw wrote:
I don't know, I find that as long as we don't think of focal lengths in terms of angles of view, but in mm, then the FF equivalent makes sense, for getting an idea how much you will see with a given lens. And for those who want to compare depth of field, the equivalence also makes sense, as long as it is carefully noted what is equivalent.
....

I agree that equivalence is useful as long as the assumptions behind it are clear. The focal length equivalence is perhaps the clearest and least controversial of all, but every now and then some people still manage to get confused about it and get into arguments

. Aperture and DOF equivalence is an area where people's assumptions and convictions vary so much that I just try to stay away from it unless I am ready to write a full essay with it to completely spell out the details.

Aug 05, 2012 at 05:13 PM

end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell end