S2 pro has less macro abilities than a Nikon 990?

The 60mm Micro will give you good macro (with the crop factor, you get 1:1 at 9", instead of 6") and it's also a pretty versatile lens.

While we're at it, what are we comparing? Are we comparing on-screen images/results, prints, projections? It's pointless to debate based on # of pixels when you are going to view an image onscreen at 1280 pixels wide.

For that matter, what does 1:1 mean in the "frame or reference" of onscreen viewing? If I can crop a 1024 x 768 image out of an S2 shot, is it "better" than a 1024 x 768 image captured with a $200 digicam?

For that matter, what IS 1:1 macro with a digicam? Our conventional nomenclature breaks down when we need to consider focusing distances of centimeters, digital crop factors, digital depth of field, etc...

You get the picture. In order to decide which is "better" one must have a set of objectives to meet.

FWIW, and just to stir the pot a little more, the ACTUAL output from the S2 is between 6 and 12 megapixels - probably more like 9 megapixels. If you don't believe me, check out Phil Askey's comparisons on dpreview.com and the various other reviews. If you still don't believe me, shoot the resolution line chart yourself w/ both cameras...:-)

Cheers

James

I have both the 60 and 105 that I use with an F100 (film). I find that I almost always use the 60. I find that I only use the 105 when I want to shoot small skittish subjects. The 60 has the same 1:1 mag. But you can shoot significantly larger subjects with the 60 due to the shorter focal length. It seems to be a much easier to use in surge than the 105. For the subjects that you want 1:1; I find no problem achieving it with the 60 mm lens. I also find it easier to focus the 105. :ph34r: