A few folk have asked why close-up shots of small things are called macro (big), and not micro (small).  They are big, because the lens they are taken with is specialised to focus sufficiently close such that the subject will completely fill the frame on which the image is being recorded -- either film or digital sensor.  A true macro lens might be classed 1:1, and at that, a postage stamp shot at the closest point of focus would exactly fill a postage-stamp sized sensor.  Nowadays, the term macro has been borrowed to mean simply close-up work.  Digital compacts, by their very design, are perfect for macro work, as they usually have minimum focusing distances of only 2 or 3 cm.

In the field, it's a bit awkward to carry a separate macro lens for an SLR when out for a day's fishing -- on top of everything else.  The simplest  solution is to carry a close-up filter, which is just like a monacle for the camera.  The downside is that depth of field is very very narrow.  The shot of the single grousewing below was taken with a close-up filter on the 28-135 mm lens.  It might look like I was trying to be arty with the shallow depth of field, but the truth is, I didn't have any other option.  The house spider was taken with the proper macro lens (a Canon 100 mm f2.8).  It was taken with a deliberately shallow depth of field.  I took others with a deep field, but they looked boring in comparison.  The olive was taken in the field as well, and it would have benefited from getting the whole insect in focus.  Unfortunately I had a narrow miss with the most important thing -- if you only get one thing in focus, make sure its the eyes!  The problem here was that I was hand-holding the camera, and deep focus would have increased the exposure time to way beyond what I could manage to keep steady.

Back to My Views page