Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Mini Macro questions

Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:35:15 -0700
Jeff Keller wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> Scott Peden wrote:
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>       
>> More musings on your dilemma. Why is full frame so important? What do
>> you intend to do with the images? Unless you are planning to create
>> large prints, requiring full frame just makes everything harder.
>>
>> I know the E-500 is entry level and not up to some, more expensive
>> cameras, but the central portion of the image should be fine for filling
>> a computer screen and at least 5x7, probably with a little care, 8x10.
>>     
>
> Moose, I think you misunderstood. 
Not at all. I was responding in the terms Scott used, not technical 
jargon. He wants the flowers "filling the frame"
> He's trying to fill the image with a tiny object 
Exactly. And I am asking if that is the best way to get what he wants. 
Filling the frame with a small flower is much harder than filling 1/4, 
or even half, of the frame. If display sizes are modest, cropping to a 
smaller part of the frame may do the job without all the extra equipment 
and effort.
> and have the inside of a flower be in focus. 
I did not address the DOF issues, I was focused on another area.
> He's not after a full frame camera. 
I understand that. Although with the right lens, it might be a slolution 
to several parts of the puzzle. More on that later. In any case, that's 
not what I was talking about
> Also the quality of the images from an E300 im my opinion is better than an 
> E1. An 8Mpixel can't do a 8x10? 
Again, we come to the basic miscommunication. I'm talking about the 
quality of an 8x10 from say 1/4 of an E-500 frame.

Thanks for bringing up the possible misreading of what I was saying.

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz