minimum width

dpreview looks at the minimum field-of view for various cameras. this measurement pertains to close up type shots: how "close-up" can a camera get? for example, can the camera get a 1" nudibranch to span its ccd array?

i've heard that this is often obtained by shooting at minimum range under maximum telephoto - especially considering depth of field and lighting.

as i'm primarily interested in extreme close ups (so i can see new things that my unaided eye cannot resolve), a camera's ability in this regard is a primary factor in deciding what to buy.

I'm curious to know which cameras excell at this task? anyone have data/examples on un-accessorized cameras? what accessories would extend a camera's capabilites for this? in case it is not obvious, i'm new to financial black hole called photography.

For starts, if a rig could fill a 4MP ccd with a 1 inch field width, i'd be happy ... and i'd be elated if the rig could do that for 1/2 inch field ... and i'd be willing to pay extra for a 1/8 inch field.

In other regards, the 4MPs by Canon and Olympus are on my list. the CP5000

by nikon would be there as well, but I have not come across an economical housings such as the PTxxx and WP-DCxxx.

Any help/advice in these matters would be appreciated.

:)

You can fill the frame on the CP 5000 with the cap of a bottle of beer. This is better than 1:1 macro with an SLR. I can't imagine why a beer bottle cap was just sitting on my end table.

Do you get much barrel distortion using the 5000? I've heard that the 995 is the best at macro and close-ups. Also the Sony 707 can focus down to 2cm. But few housings for this camera and none that are cheap. I believe you get barrel distortion because of the large dia. lens. Correct me if I am wrong. :cool:

i'm now thinking of lowering the priority of getting "great" native macro and instead, just plan on making a custom microscopy adapter from lenses from Edmond Scientific.

This would simplify things down to choice between a Canon or Olympus 4MP, and getting their housing. The Oly 4040 seems to be the best performer with their f1.8 aperature. Any comments?

Regarding housings, I've found the Canon housings at arobut $150, which refelects a discount price, but have not found similarly low prices on the Olympus housings. Anyone know to get the Oly houusings at a discount?

Thanks, Mike.

It's nice to be able to focus down to 2 cm, but it's not practical for macro underwater. #1 - you can't get that close without bashing your housing into a coral and you sure don't want to do that. #2 - you can't get enough strobe light into the picture if you camera is almost touching your subject.

A nice lens will shoot 1:1 or greater macro at a focal plane distance of about 6-9 inches. That is what you want to go for, IMO.

Cheers

James Wiseman

Hi James, Thanks for the insight. I knew it would take some special rigging. Your comment provides another reason not to put too high a priority on native macro.

For film cameras, i understand that 1:1 means that the image field width is equal to the width of the negative. Is that correct? For digital, i'm not sure how to interpret ratings like 1:1.

To shoot macro, does one use a macro adpter lense with the camera in telephoto mode?

Mike

Hmm...

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) by definition, macro is anything greater that 1-to-1 (also shown as 1:1). I believe film is 1.5 inches wide by 1 inch tall - but hey I'm not an expert in that field...hehe.

So what is macro in digital photography? I'd like to hear some people's definitions, then I'll post mine.

Cheers

James Wiseman

I've seen photo contests that will accept anything from 1:6 to 2:1 as macro. See http://www.epicphotocontest.org for example.

That's probably as good a definition as any.

Herb

A reply to 2mike about camera choice.

I just noticed that the new Olympus C4000 has a Super Macro Mode. They claim a range from 0.8" to 8" !!! By convention that distance is measured from the image to the subject, i.e. from the back of the camera, which would put the closest subject that can shot in focus inside the lens!

Can someone who owns one verify these claims, at least for subjects outside the camera.

Herb

Macro is usually defined as 3:1 to greater than 1:1. Personnaly I don't have any problems with the CP 5000 and the 19 mm lens in focusing any distance in front of the dome port. This gives me better than 1:1 macro as defined by a 35 mm SLR rig. Just watch out for the surge. I've owned 3 SLR rigs and this is better macro than I've ever got with any of them. I don't fine the close working Dx as a problem. If it was I would use the 5000's normal lens for more working DX. You would have to add a teleconverter to an

SLR to get the same effect and you really loose depth of focus when you do so.

For the super marco mode of Olympus C4000, I heard from my friends that once the Supermarco mode is on, the flash will be forced turn off. That's mean it will be only useful if you have a video light.

interesting comments. searching this forum for "4000" was usful and turned up other posts regarding the super macro.

davephdv: when you shoot macro, what is the smallest object that will span your CCD?

Well, I'm using the CP 5000 with the 19 mm lens. It will focus down to about the front of the lens. I'd estimate about a beer bottle cap and a third. Or maybe a little better than the 1:1 that you can get with a 1:1 macro lens on an SLR camera. Tested on land without the 19 mm lens you can do a little better than a beer bottle top with a longer working

DX. Or close to 2:1 macro compared with a 35 mm SLR system.