Hi all
To my eyes the macro shots from Dan Mitchell
are absolutely amazingly good. Make me feel bad about my expected
results from film macro.
On the other hand, Mike Lazzari's 50/2 doll shot came up well even on my
screen at 400%, from a 67? kb file
Brian
>
> > [Coolpix 4500]
> > Added bonus...it also does macro, focusing
> > down to about 2 cm.
>
> That's what I have, and I really like it. It's got a good, sharp (if a
> bit slowish, but that's what you get with tiny bits of glass) lens,
> decent zoom range, all the manual/auto controls I need, great
> ergonomics, and the split body feature is occasionally very useful
> (though one of those fold-out screens would have a similar effect).
>
> I also picked up the .63x and 2x converters, because I really missed a
> decent wide angle, and now I can get down to 24mm. (On-topic again --
> the default lens that lives on my camera is a 24/2, because I like that
> extra bit of space in the shot)
>
> How good is the macro? Here's a shot of the numbers from my credit
> card (no, not enough numbers to be any use, but they're a standard size
> to get the idea of how big the object is) -- it blows me away that I can
> see details this way that I had no idea existed when just looking at
> things with the naked eye.
>
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/nikon/macro/visa_full.JPG
>
> Or for a more organic feel:
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/nikon/macro/eye_full.JPG
>
> or for a twist on the normal photo of graph paper:
> http://www.danielmitchell.net/gallery/albums/nikon/macro/DSCN0639.JPG
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
