Right, 1:1 is actual real same size image on the sensor. At 1:1, a US penny would fill the height of a DX sensor, or 2/3 the height of a FX sensor.
IMO, this made more sense with film, in that we could look at the film and measure it on the film. Our digital sensors obviously similarly have a real physical size, but it is more abstract, we don't ever see the image presented that way. Sensors vary in size, but thumbnails on the computer screen might be a halfway approximation.
Hi Nikonites. I have a question. I do have thee Nikon 5100 and use the 16mm to 300mm lens which is good for close up macro. What lens should I use to get a full body macro image, where I don't have to be up close to the object/subject?
The Tamron 16-300 mm lens is NOT exactly a macro lens, it is a regular lens that focuses very close. Should be very handy, the specs do say its closest focus is 15 inches with about a 1:3 reproduction size . But macro lenses typically go to 1:1 (or at least 1:2). Which will be far fewer inches from subject. And while they do focus at infinity, they are more optimized for these closest distances.
1:3 is maximum of 1/3 size of real life on the sensor. 1:1 is actual real life image size on the sensor.
full body macro image, where I don't have to be up close to the object/subject?
I did not understand "full body" for macro, and macro has to get close to the subject.
The concept of 1:1 is that the subject distance is
equal to the focal length (some number of mm) .... distance in front of lens is equal to distance behind lens ... then by similar triangles, the two sizes (subject and image) are the same size then.
This image was for a different purpose, about computing field of view (not close enough to be 1:1), but it should show the idea of reproduction size
Due to extending the field of view, if the subject is 10x farther than the focal length, then the reproduction is smaller, or 1/10 the size of the subject (on the sensor).