Actually, I want the best close up's I can get. On occasion I can get a 5 mm
object just right, though a lot of the 'on occasion' was me hand holding the
camera reversed macro at 14 mm. I usually don't go there now, 34-45 mm
reversed gets me more in focus and a little more depth.
A good many of the flowers I take pics of are 1/2" or less across, I'm
interested in them filling the frame and being able to see into their depths
as there are critters in there and other odd stuff I've never imagined.
Bringing most of the stuff home to photograph, well, it's gone then, so a
bellows is out.
If you've missed my earlier posts on this, a short walk is 4 miles, most are
at least 6 hours away from the car/or a man made environment, so the bellows
is to much to carry when I am usually taking public with me too. So I'm
trying to stay compact and fast most of the time.
I was using the C-5050 before, but I really like the E-500, if I can get
through the macro stuff (the potential is much better with the E-500) and
the low light shooting (money for a faster lens) I'll be happier than I was
with the C-5050, I'm sure.
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Dan Mitchell
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:54 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
> 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
==============================================
|