On 6/29/2010 6:59 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Hey! An actual on-topic question.
>
> Someone on another list is interested in purchasing a used (read low cost)
> DSLR for use in making macro photographs of his mineral collection. The
> samples vary in size from about 1/2 to 1 cm so I suspect life size
> magnification is probably adequate.
>
This may sound odd (and moves OT), but like Dave, I'd be looking at a
non-DSLR for maximum bang for the buck.
After minor browsing, I settled on the G7 as a likely candidate
Coverage at maximum macro = 1.8 x 2.4 cm. This is quite good, as the
corners get soft, so the specified 0.5-1 cm subject is in the sweet area.
Resolution of about 1500 pixels per cm.
RAW output. This can be important, as digicam JPEGs aren't always ideal
and can have troublesome full pixel artifacts. True at least of the A650/G9.
Barrel distortion easily corrected and isn't much anyway within the
designated 1x1 cm central area.
Flash shoe for that ring flash. :-)
Full time live view, with no mirror issues.
Looks like a nice one may be had for under $150, less than just a macro
lens for 4/3.
Size of 1 cm sq. subject within image area.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/G7macro&image=G7_Macro_Wide1xa.jpg>
Full pixel sample in the center.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/G7macro&image=G7_Macro_Wide1x_fp.jpg>
Same sample with a bit of LCE and sharpening.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/G7macro&image=G7_Macro_Wide1x_fpii.jpg>
The sharpened one would be cleaner if from RAW.
The C-5050 Dave suggests doesn't look bad, and if I had one, I'd try it.
But if buying, I'd go for a G7. The C-5050 has a minimum coverage of 2.4
x 3.2 cm and resolution of about 700 pixels/cm., so would capture less
detail.
Looks like the G7 is the best of the G series for the desired specs. The
G9 has the same lens and an insignificant increase in resolution, but
would likely cost more.
The A650 IS has the same lens and sensor as the G7/9. It also adds an
articulated screen, which might or might not be a help, depending on the
copy set-up. For the purpose at hand, though, one would definitely need
to learn to add and use the CHDK add-on firmware and to use something
like DCRAW or RAWTherapy for RAW conversion. Too many artifacts in the
JPEGs at high magnifications. No big deal for the somewhat software
adept, but somewhat inconvenient - and not practical for some folks.
I didn't look further into C-thingies. There may be some other
brand/model that fits, but the pickings will be slim that meet all the
criteria.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
