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. He's trying to fill the image with a
tiny object and have the inside of a flower be in focus. He's not
after a full frame camera. Also the quality of the images from an E300
im my opinion is better than an E1. An 8Mpixel can't do a 8x10? I've
been quite happy with some of mine. ISO 100 can catch a racing slug or
an adder tongue orchid.
-jeff
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|