I can't help myself. I tried going deeper. I wanted to see if a 2x teleconverter would wreck the 20mm working distance. Turns out it didn't. It was reduced a tiny amount, but I can still take pics without too much extra fuss. This image is the "9" in the "1993" date on a dime. The magnification ratio is 16.3:1
>You can calculate the magnification rate if you take a photo of a ruler. >28mm lens closest focus:>1mm = 46.6px (measured with the line tool in Ps from a photo of a ruler)>6000px (full resolution image width) / 46.6px = 128.75mm image width>128.75mm / 23.5mm (D3400 sensor width) = 1:5.47 mag. ratio (the subject is 5.47x smaller than real life) >Same 28mm lens Reversed:>1mm = 497px>6000px / 497px = 12.07mm>23.5mm / 12.07mm = 1.94:1 mag. ratio (the subject is 1.94x larger than real life) >Very generally,>1:1 = macro>2:1 = super macro>1:2 = close-up>1:10+ = normal photography>100:1 = microscopicSubject distance changes these numbers a bit, but with macro the size of the DOF is pretty thin so that doesn't matter very much. It is really only a problem when you try to calculate things with normal lenses and non-macro. So, if you maintain the same focal length for your macro work with the same lens you'll know what magnification ratio everything will be. If you use a zoom lens, any time you change the focal length to a new one, you'd need to recalculate it again for that setting.
>>3471111Not bad. What is the magnification ratio?
>>3471005Neat subject, but is it lacking a little contrast?
>>3471122Having good equipment really is a blessing.
