Someone recently pointed out on one of Wolfie's images which he put in the macro section, that it wasn't really macro - and then Wolfie kindly pointed out the same thing to me on one of mine
.
Now before we go any further I'm not having a go at Wolfie, or anyone else I'm just curious. Macro is supposedly defined as 1:1 - which if I understand it correctly refers to 1mm of real life subject which will take up 1mm on your sensor. But assuming that to be correct is it still relevant when applied to full frame, APSC and 4/3 sensors or should you apply a crop factor to the ratio.
Alternatively is "macro" a term which determines what you get in the way of lens capability when you go shopping. I don't think so. A quick google of different manufactures lenses shows that Nikon and Sony do seem to stick to 1:1 (although Nikon calls it "micro") but Canon, Olympus, Sigma & Tamron all market "macro" lens which are 1:2 or more.
When you look at an image on this site or any other how can you tell if its 1:1or not. The ratio isn't in the exif and you've no idea how much the original image has been cropped. And then what of Orionmystery's fabulously detailed images with a lens that can go to 5:1. Is that macro or super macro?
Is "macro" still a meaningful term for anything? All viewpoints welcome.