Difference between macro and close up?

Messages
31
Name
Ruth
Edit My Images
Yes
Could someone please explain (in very easy language) the difference between close up and macro. Would it be something like a photo of a spider then the macro being focusing on its eyes or something?
 
Technically, Macro is when the image projected onto the recording medium (sensor or film) is the same size or larger than the subject, so a rectangle measuring 36mm x 24mm taken in true Macro will fill a Full Frame sensor (or 35mm film frame) completely. Some lenses are called Macro incorrectly - they can just focus closer than the non-Macro variants. Wikipedia goes into more detail but the above is (I think!) a fairly basic and accurate answer. HTH.
 
Technically, Macro is when the image projected onto the recording medium (sensor or film) is the same size or larger than the subject, so a rectangle measuring 36mm x 24mm taken in true Macro will fill a Full Frame sensor (or 35mm film frame) completely. Some lenses are called Macro incorrectly - they can just focus closer than the non-Macro variants. Wikipedia goes into more detail but the above is (I think!) a fairly basic and accurate answer. HTH.

This is a rigorous and widely used definition of "macro", but it has an implication that limits its practical usefulness somewhat in my mind at least.

Suppose the same scene is photographed with several cameras which have different sized sensors (a spider on its web for example, showing exactly the same amount of the web in the photo from each camera), for example a full frame camera (with a sensor 36mm across), an APS-C camera (sensor about 22mm across) and a super-zoom bridge camera (sensor about 6mm across).

If the scene is 30mm across it will be macro when photographed with the full frame camera but not the other two.
If a smaller scene is photographed, say 20mm across, it will be macro when photographed with the full frame or APS-C camera, but not the bridge camera.
Not until a scene is photographed which is 6mm or less wide will it be macro on the bridge camera. To put this in context, on a full frame camera a scene 6mm wide needs a magnification of 6:1. This is so much magnification that you can't achieve it on a full frame camera when using the extremely powerful Canon MPE-65 macro lens, which goes to a maximum of 5:1 magnification.

I deal with scenes of varying widths, some less than 10mm wide. Most are taken with a super-zoom bridge camera and strictly speaking none of them are macro, even though very many of them fall well within the range of what would be macro with a larger sensor camera.

I refer to my photos as close-ups to avoid arguments about whether they are "really" macros or not. :)
 
I don't really think it matters whether it's full frame, crop, bridge or compact.

If you photograph a pepper corn and the peppercorn is peppercorn sized on the sensor - it's 'macro' regardless of the amount of extra space around the subject on the larger sensors.
 
Like I said, there's a full definition on Wiki but the one I gave is plenty for Talk Basics.
 
1:1 reproduction on the sensor plane is independent of sensor size.

(and this is crop vs. fullframe 101)
 
I don't really think it matters whether it's full frame, crop, bridge or compact.

If you photograph a pepper corn and the peppercorn is peppercorn sized on the sensor - it's 'macro' regardless of the amount of extra space around the subject on the larger sensors.

In my example there is no extra space around the subject on the larger sensors. For example, suppose the scene being captured is a pepper corn. The pepper corn fills the full width of the image in each case. The real world width of the scene is the diameter of the pepper corn. If that diameter is, say 7mm, then if the image of the pepper corn filling the frame width is captured with a full frame camera or an APS-C camera it will by the "at least 1:1" definition be macro. If it is captured with a super-zoom bridge camera it is not. The exact same scene is by the definition not macro in one case, and is macro in the other two cases.
 
Like I said, there's a full definition on Wiki but the one I gave is plenty for Talk Basics.

I take it that your implication is that the fact that the definition can define one image as macro and another, identical, image as not macro is not relevant to beginners. I bet to differ. I think can lead to confusion.
 
1:1 reproduction on the sensor plane is independent of sensor size.

(and this is crop vs. fullframe 101)

1:1 reproduction on the sensor plane of a given scene is not independent of sensor size.

If you photograph a scene 6mm wide on an APS-C camera at 1:1 it will occupy 6mm of the sensor's approx 22mm width. If you photograph that same scene using a super-zoom bridge camera at 1:1 it will occupy the whole of the sensor width. Using 1:1 reproduction on both cameras produces a very different image on the two cameras.
 
Nick.. regardless of sensor size, a 6mm wide object at 1:1 will be 6mm wide on any sensor. Thus, it is independent of sensor size.

Your argument that it will appear different on the print isn't relevant to the definition of macro.
 
Nick.. regardless of sensor size, a 6mm wide object at 1:1 will be 6mm wide on any sensor.

Correct. And it will fill the width of the frame on a super-zoom bridge camera and not on a camera with a larger sensor.

Thus, it is independent of sensor size.

As in, the size of an an object when captured at 1:1 will be same size on the sensor independent of the size of the sensor. We are in agreement on that. Can we also agree that if an object 6mm wide is captured 1:1 it will fill the width of a super-zoom bridge camera but only occupy a part of the width of a camera with a larger sensor?

Your argument that it will appear different on the print isn't relevant to the definition of macro.

I have not mentioned prints!
 
Can we also agree that if an object 6mm wide is captured 1:1 it will fill the width of a super-zoom bridge camera but only occupy a part of the width of a camera with a larger sensor?

That is true. Buy this isn't in anyway relevant to the definition of what constitutes a macro image or the question posed by the OP.

You're persisting in giving the answer you want to give, despite the fact that it's neither useful nor relevant to the question asked. It can only serve to confuse the reader with pointless irrelevancies.

I will take the advice of George Carlin, and leave you to your own circular arguments.
 
That is true. Buy this isn't in anyway relevant to the definition of what constitutes a macro image or the question posed by the OP.

You're persisting in giving the answer you want to give, despite the fact that it's neither useful nor relevant to the question asked. It can only serve to confuse the reader with pointless irrelevancies.

I will take the advice of George Carlin, and leave you to your own circular arguments.

I'm glad we agree about the facts. Now, as you rightly point out, the issue is relevance.

I am not arguing that the 1:1 definition of macro is wrong. It is a very good definition, being clear, unambiguous and precise. My issue is whether it helps to clarify things for a beginner or confuse things.

This image was captured with a micro four thirds camera, with the scene filling the frame. It is a macro according to the "at least 1:1" definition.


13mm wide scene filling the frame on a micro-four thirds camera with an 18mm wide sensor
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

This image was captured with a super-zoom bridge camera, with the scene filling the frame. It is not a macro according to the "at least 1:1" definition.


13mm wide scene filling the frame on a super-zoom bridge camera with a 6mm wide sensor
by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

My contention is that a definition which regards an image as a macro or not a macro depending on the camera it was captured with can be misleading, and that knowing that is both useful and relevant to the question asked.

I believe that a definition which can produce ambiguous real-world results (as in, Question: "Is this a macro?", Answer: "Possibly, it depends on the camera") can serve to confuse the person trying to understand what macro is or isn't. That is why I don't use the term "macro" in relation to my images, as it can be confusing.
 
There is no formal or technical definition of macro or micro photography. Neither is there a simple explanation that fits everything, as the OP is now discovering.

The old 1:1 reproduction ratio definition (though that is not set in stone either) is vested in 35mm film, and as Nick points out, it's not very helpful when smaller formats are involved. And that includes the majority of users, so explaining the differences there is very relevant.

Edit: how about this totally unscientific definition that kinda gives the general idea - if it fits in the palm of your hand, it's close-up, eg flower portraits. If it fits on the end of your finger, that's macro, eg bugs and beetles.
 
Last edited:
Edit: how about this totally unscientific definition that kinda gives the general idea - if it fits in the palm of your hand, it's close-up, eg flower portraits. If it fits on the end of your finger, that's macro, eg bugs and beetles.

Yip, that'll do for all practical purposes! I think the technical explanations, although correct, are peripheral for must users and particularly people looking for an introduction to the subject.

The 1:1 reproduction ratio is largely a hangover from 35mm film, and most macro lenses were designed for this format because the overwhelming majority of interchangeable lens cameras were 35mm SLRs.
 
Edit: how about this totally unscientific definition that kinda gives the general idea - if it fits in the palm of your hand said:
Yes that's spot on :)
 
Back
Top