I always thought that narrow depth of field was the bane of
macrophotography. Specialized macro lenses are almost always slow and
have a range to tiny apertures. A lot of people who go to DSLRs now
are hanging onto their tiny sensor digicams for their macro work
because of that very reason.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jun 9, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Johnny Johnson wrote:
> At 12:10 AM 6/9/2006, AG Schnozz wrote:
>
>> The biggest problem with 4/3 is the DoF. Right? RIGHT?
>>
>> Come on, admit it, you've been worried that the cropped format
>> of 4/3 means that macro is garbage. Well.... Maybe. Maybe not.
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I was under the impression that one of the
> features/consequences/whatever of the small sensor was that it gave
> increased depth of field (in the order of twice the depth of field as
> a 35mm film camera) which should be an advantage when doing macro
> work and would only be a disadvantage when you wanted extremely
> shallow depth of field for something like portrait work. Would you
> mind pointing me to some reading material of a technical nature that
> discusses what makes the 4/3s format unsuitable for macro?
>
> Thanks,
> Johnny
>
> __________________________
> Johnny Johnson
> Cleveland, GA
> mailto:jjohnso4@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|