> You are slipping into tricky territory here, not the reality, but the
> terminology.
This is one thing I think dpreview does well -- they measure macro
ability by the smallest size of subject that you can take a shot of in
absolute terms, rather than the ratio between sensor size and subject size.
This is an area where smaller sensors have an advantage -- my old
coolpix 4500 has a lens which focusses in to cover a frame that's 17mm
across. 17mm is pretty small -- you can have fun with macro shooting
with something that size. ("2:1" in 35mm terms -- you'd need extension
tubes to get that small a subject to fill the frame, I don't think any
OM-mount lens goes past 1:1 out of the box. There's a lot that'll do
1:1, but past that I don't know of any).
However, if I just scaled the whole thing up 4 times to the equivalent
of a 35mm sensor, that would be 68mm across, which isn't anything
special any more. What's more, the _actual_ lens is around 10mm at
closest focus, which means you get a lot of depth-of-field, which is
again a good thing.
So, if you want to take photos of small things, a smaller camera
definitely has some optical advantages. (heck, ergonomically, there's
less body getting in the way so I can sometimes get in closer to the
subject than I could with a 35mm-sized lens).
Downsides, of course, are less resolution, and more noise.
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|