Scott Peden wrote:
> ....................
> I have an EX 25 on the way and am still watching for a 65-116, though that
> is going to be hard on the empty wallet, so I['m working on filling the
> wallet again.
>
I really don't know why you need a 65-116. In fact, I'm becoming
convinced that you aren't taking the best approach to this whole business.
First, let's test my assumptions. I had a very pleasant visit to the
Blake House gardens yesterday. I haven't paid much attention to small
flowers in the recent past. So here was an opportunity to try taking
pics of quite a few of them. Bright sunny day, but around the creeks,
there are redwoods and other trees creating lots of quite shady spots.
As I understand it, you need to be able to take pics of v. small
flowers, etc. fairly quickly and without tripod. So I tried that. Almost
no complete losses, but I did need more DOF in some. First time I've
done this in some time and first time ever with this equipment, so I
have some learning to do.
In any case, here are the results, including those with too little DOF.
Two or three flowers are over 1". The others all smaller, down to about
1/4 inch. Is this generally the kind of results you are trying to get
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net//BlakeHouse0703/>?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|