No worries, I can see you have been busy.

Whilst I explained how to achieve it, I realised that I hadn't actually explained what 1:1 (Macro) magnification means.

It's easier to explain in film terms but the same applies to digital sensors.

It means that the image you have on the film frame or digital sensor is actually life size. That is, if you were to take a photo of a part of a ruler at 1:1 magnification using a film camera. When the film is developed, you could lay the ruler on the piece of film and it would be an exact size match, inch for inch, millimetre for millimetre.

A 2:1 magnification would result in a 1mm portion of the ruler measuring 2mm on the film frame.

Most zoom lenses don't achieve much better than 1:2 magnification. That's half life size.

Apologies if this explanation is oversimplistic. Hopefully you get the idea.

First, what does the term macro mean to you?

Macrophotography generally requires at least 1:1 magnification or greater. A life size or bigger image in other words.

To achieve this with only a standard lens is not possible. You may be able to get very close but you will not achieve true macro.

There are several ways to achieve a 1:1 or greater magnification.

1: Use a true macro lens at its minimum focus distance. All the major manufacturers produce them but a manual focus 90mm or so will be ideal. Auto focus can be a hindrance when doing macro shots.
2: Fit extension tubes between your camera and lens. The middle of a toilet roll can be used for a DIY solution. Ideally the lens needs to be something like a 50mm prime.
3: Fit a bellows unit (adjustable extension tube) between your camera and lens.
4: Reverse mount a 50, 35, or 28mm lens to your camera. For this you will need an adapter or devise a DIY method to do it.
5: Stack two lenses together. With a 200mm lens fixed to the camera and a 50mm lens reverse mounted to the front of it you will get approx. 4:1 magnification. Again, you'll need an adapter (stacking ring) having the right filter thread sizes for the two lenses used.

There may be other ways, but I don't know of any.

Lots of light is generally needed to allow a smaller aperture to combat the very narrow depth of field that is typical in macro work. That's probably why your camera is insisting on its use.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Hefty. £80+ does seem a lot of money for a few pices of bent plastic. Neat idea though and they seem to have been well received by some pro's.

I do think they might be a bit more durable than cornflakes packets though.

It'll be the auto flash that caused the problem then as it's output/flash duration would have been determined by an on-board sensor, and it got it wrong.

Hoods that fit are:-

screw-on hood: PH-RA49 (PH-R?49 = Plastic Hood-Round-?-49mm)
clip-on hood: PH-SA49 (PH-S?49 = Plastic Hood-Square-?-49mm)
screw-on hood: RH-RC49 (RH-R?49 = Rubber Hood-Round-?-49mm)

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/normal/FA50f1.4.html

Page 10 of this manual lists lenses and their appropriate hoods.

I was thinking that maybe lenses without an aperture ring might get upset but all mine work fine with that option set to 'permit'.

So, am I to understand that nobody here has used these devices?

They look pretty neat to me.

If your camera was set to Manual exposure mode and the shutter/ISO/aperture settings remained the same and the output power of the flash was the same in each case, only 2 things could have caused the underexposure assuming the flash was not in any 'auto exposure' mode:-

1: Flash to subject distance was greater in the underexposed image. Or
2: Camera or flash didn't work as expected. That is to say, either the shutter/ISO/aperture setting was not correct at exposure time, or the flash output power was not the same in each case.

Have you checked the EXIF data to ensure that all camera settings were the same?

I came across this today. Does anybody here have any experience of them, good or bad?

The short answer is yes . . . and no.

If you are using a totally manual flash set to more than 50% output power the answer is probably no, it won't work.

The flash will discharge at the set level for the red-eye and will have to recharge before it can fire again.

Re-charging will probably occur far too late for the second (exposure) flash to fire.

If however you set the output power such that you can get two flashes in quick succession, (1/4 power or less) it should work. Both the anti red-eye flash and the exposure flash will occur at the output power you have set.

That said, when I tried my Pentax AF540FGZ in manual mode and full power, the red-eye function worked fine giving a short flash duration first, then a full power flash shortly afterwards.

The same was not true for my manual AF240FT flash when set to 'H'. On 'L' (low output) it worked fine, hence my answer above.

Hope that helps.