S2 pro has less macro abilities than a Nikon 990?

James,

what do you think? Is it true? Say it's not so...

"The 990 has phenomenal macro abilities, far better than my new $ 3,000 Fuji S2 Pro."

Ebay Auction for a 990

Sounds like Marc doesn't like his S2 for Macro...either that or he REALLY likes his Coolpix...

Here's one of my favorite S2 shots (60mm lens):

Cheers

James

James,

If memory serves, your photo is a crop from a bigger frame, right?

Mike

Uncropped original:

Cheers

James

Now that looks more like what a 90mm lens (60x1.5) would give you (assuming the shrimp wasn't ready to let you stick that Ikelite housing three inches away from his eyeball)! Anyway, If nothing else, I think the 990 would be better for macro for one reason: you can frame the picture with the LCD rather than having to do it through the viewfinder. On the other hand, when you press the shutter button on the S2, you get a picture almost immediately. With a point and shoot the shutter lag can be maddening! Anyway, I guess it boils down to the photographer more than anything else. Heck, with a little patience (OK, a lot of patience) I was able to get this one with my Oly C-4040 (not the world's best macro camera *and* a point and shoot) and the Olympus add-on macro lens. Despite the fact that the white sand on the little "shelf" is a bit overexposed, I still find it to be a pleasing image.

Yeah, but an S2 RAW file generates an image that is over 4,500 pixels wide, compared to about 2,400 for the Coolpix. So you can "crop in" on a macro shot from the S2 by a factor of TWO and literally "double" your magnification. Since the 60 is so sharp, the shots are awesome.

Cheers

James

Since you're talking about what the software spits out, then yes, you're getting that many pixels. If you're talking what the sensor actually generates, then its more like 3024 wide (S2) to 2048 wide (990) -- still quite a difference, though. I have to admit I was surprised by the positive reviews the interpolated images are getting. Fuji's earlier attempts at generating larger pixel counts from the honeycomb CCD were less than well received. They seem to have gotten it right this time.

I guess my brain is still stuck a bit back in the film world where cropping is considered a bit evil. Another beer ought to take care of that!

Mike,

Considering that a large percentage of macro shots involve stationary creatures, I think the shutter lag issue is moot. For the other small percentage, the use of manual focus makes shutter lag almost nonexistant.

Without considering cropping of the image, especially since James S2 cropped shot just went from being a good 8.5 x 11 to a 4 x 5 printed shot. If say you were to compare the macro results of a Nikon 5000 (5MP) to the S2 (6MP)--quality of optics aside. Would Mike's statement hold true?

Take your 60 mm lens, add a 2x teleconverter to it and you should get 1:2 macro with your S2 This would probably give you more mag than a CoolPix and it would be easier to use (i.e. focus) :ph34r:

Dave,

What would be the distance between the lens and the subject? Roughly..

I’m not sure I really want to jump into this debate, but I feel some what responsible for my statement.

I not saying my Nikon 990 is a better camera than the Fuji S2 Pro. I’m selling my Nikon not my Fuji.

I do feel I get much better macro results using my Nikon verses my Fuji. It’s a know fact the the Cool Pix line of cameras have exceptional macro capabilities and you can verify this by reading many on line reports. I believe that it’s inherent in the fact that the size of the physical lens is so much smaller it gives much better depth of field than using larger full size 35 mm Lens. My personal evaluation was using the wide Nikon converter lens WC-E24 0.066X and setting the camera in the macro mode. This combination yielded excellent results. I could leave the camera in macro and shoot wide angle and then zoom in and get as close as to rubbing the front of my port with out losing focus. While getting much better hyperverical focus.

I do agree that the interpolated Fuji image lets you crop your image way beyond the capabilities of the 990, with great looking enlargements. This is one of the benefit I see in using larger Mega Pixel Chips. That’s one of the reasons I’ll be up grading to the new Kodak 14n Pro.

Again this is my experience , and I have know definitive answer to this question. I leave that to

others that have more technical educational backgrounds in optical design. I only know what’s working for me.

Marc

A 2x converter should halve your working distance. Can't remember the WD for the 60mm but I believe close focus is around 6". The 105 has a significantly longer close focus DX than the 60 mm and still gives 1:1 with a 35 mm camera. That would make it a better choice for using a teleconverter. That is what a lot of people who photograph pigmy seahorses use. :ph34r:

Considering that a large percentage of macro shots involve stationary creatures, I think the shutter lag issue is moot. For the other small percentage, the use of manual focus makes shutter lag almost nonexistant.

 

I think shutter lag makes shooting very difficult with stationary macro objects because the focus is so critical. You get it just right.. press the shutter.. it is too easy to move just a little before the camera shoots and your subject is out of focus. Good thing is you can try again and again.

 

James - I don't think it is fair to consider cropping ability when we discuss a camera's macro ability. The ratio generated by the camera at a given distance is what I would consider, and the ease of capturing that image. Also, keep in mind that in macro contests like bonaire, you'd have to submit the image as it was captured.

 

Kasey

I have yet to see a true macro comparison. If you have both types of cameras it can done quite easily. I do, but haven't tried it.

With SLR's we talk about macro ratio, e.g. 1:1. This would mean I can focus on a 36mm by 24mm rectangle at some distance. The distance varies by lens.

Digital macro ranges are merely listed by minimum focusing distances, since trying to define it by film standards is problematic. The question in this example would be 1) Can I fill the entire frame if I shoot a 36mm x 24mm rectangle with a CP990 and 2) What is the distance from sensor to the subject.

In question #1, you will find out the film ratio equivalent of the macro capability.

Question #2 will let you know how close you have to be to the subject to get the maximum ratio.

Having shot all three Nikon macros, the problem with the 60mm is that the distance for 1:1 is 8" I believe. It is almost impossible to get that close. Most shots with the 60mm are not 1:1. If indeed the digicam can get 1:1 or better, it must be tempered by the required distance.

The 105mm provides greater working distance, 12" I believe, without looking it up. At 1:1 the lens is actually at 85mm focal length.

It is doubtful a 2x TC will work well with a 60mm lens. Most TCs work best with lenses over 100mm. Mileage varies by model. A 2x TC will give you 2:1 at the same distance as without the TC. A diopter will reduce minimum focus distance at a cost of focusing at further distances. This will give you more than 1:1 by allowing you to get closer to the subject. Think of it as a magnifying glass.

I've used the 2x TC with the 105mm on several occassions for super macro work. It really doesn't work very well. The 2 stop loss of light really effects AF and the images were not nearly as sharp.

Using the 3T diopter does not cause a loss of light, but you do lose some sharpness away from the center of the image. (The 1.5 d-SLR crop should help, but I haven't tried it yet).

Now, when I tried the 2x TC and the 3T diopter together, I couldn't even find my subject much less focus on it. Super macro is difficult without a tripod.

Now, with an S2/D100 you get a crop of the normal film view. The same 1:1 macro lens on a film camera will now be the equivalent of 1.5:1.

Like I've always said, the 1.5 focal length multiplier helps macro and hurts wide angle.

I think the 990 would be better for macro for one reason: you can frame the picture with the LCD rather than having to do it through the viewfinder.

Why? You are seeing the same thing. I found it easier to frame looking through my viewfinder than some dizzying LCD screen.

Why? You are seeing the same thing. I found it easier to frame looking through my viewfinder than some dizzying LCD screen.

I find it easier with some macro subjects to hold the camera away from my face (at arms length sometimes). I have found that sometimes critters are more receptive to a camera being right next to them than both a camera and me (my underwater deoderant must not be working!). Also, in tight spaces and when there is some surge, being able to separate myself from the camera gives me the opportunity to see more of my surroundings while I'm shooting. This way I can get a few shots without touching the reef that I would have passed up before (Yes, I do routinely pass up shots when I see I cannot get them w/o touching the reef!)

Considering that a large percentage of macro shots involve stationary creatures, I think the shutter lag issue is moot

Yeah, but when there is some surge, I'm not stationary!

Mike

I think the 990 would be better for macro for one reason:  you can frame the picture with the LCD rather than having to do it through the viewfinder.  

This is definitely a matter of opinion, as we've already seen from the responses so far. I personally never really adjusted to focusing or even composing the shot via the LCD. For whatever reason I feel more comfortable through the viewfinder. I also found that focusing via the LCD screen, I couldn't always tell what I had actually focused on in a macro shot. There were numerous times I thought I'd gotten the perfect shot of some minisule shrimp on an anemone, and ended up with a great shot of an anemone instead. The screen was just too small for critical focus for me.

Tom

I couldn't always tell what I had actually focused on in a macro shot

I hadn't thought of that right away, but you are right. I do find it easier to tell when something is in focus through the viewfinder of my SLR. I came back from Bonaire recently and thought I had a couple pictures of a little crab I thought looked pretty cool. Looked OK on the LCD but when I brought them up in Photoshop, they weren't in focus. Trade-offs, trade-offs . . .

Trade-offs, trade-offs . . .

Amen to that, it's all about trade-offs...

Tom

I find it easier with some macro subjects to hold the camera away from my face (at arms length sometimes). I have found that sometimes critters are more receptive to a camera being right next to them than both a camera and me (my underwater deoderant must not be working!)

This is true. It's your noisey bubbles. If it were deoderant deficiencies, I'd never get a shot off. My personal hygiene habits diminish greatly on dive trips.

I also found that focusing via the LCD screen, I couldn't always tell what I had actually focused on in a macro shot. There were numerous times I thought I'd gotten the perfect shot of some minisule shrimp on an anemone, and ended up with a great shot of an anemone instead. The screen was just too small for critical focus for me.

Me too.

So Scorpio Fish, would you prefer the 105 over th 60 under water ?

And how does Jamesw feel about this ?

I am unable to choose between the 2, and your input would be apreciated.

Before my S2 I owned a CP990 and the macro shots are great, but i alway's felt I had to move in to close to get the shot.

Maybe its best to go with the 105 mm Macro ?

Harald van Buel