Thanks for the feedback. The G7 is definitely a contender. But
Wrotniak says the C-5050 is actually capable of getting down to 2.5 cm
wide in its "super macro" mode. But the G7 was built a couple of years
later and is 10 MP instead of 5 so definitely wins the pixel war. It
also has a larger screen. Both the A1 and the C-5050, however, have
tilting screens.
I already think the A1 is out for this application. Its 28-200
equivalent lens makes for a better general purpose camera than the
C-5050 but without some additional optical aid the A1 can't do better
than about 4.8 cm as best horizontal coverage. It takes a +4 and a +2
closeup lens to get it down to 2.8 cm. There are other ways to skin the
cat but why if the G7 and C-5050 do the job without any extra help.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> On 6/29/2010 6:59 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Hey! An actual on-topic question.
>>
>> Someone on another list is interested in purchasing a used (read low cost)
>> DSLR for use in making macro photographs of his mineral collection. The
>> samples vary in size from about 1/2 to 1 cm so I suspect life size
>> magnification is probably adequate.
>>
>
> This may sound odd (and moves OT), but like Dave, I'd be looking at a
> non-DSLR for maximum bang for the buck.
>
> After minor browsing, I settled on the G7 as a likely candidate
>
> Coverage at maximum macro = 1.8 x 2.4 cm. This is quite good, as the
> corners get soft, so the specified 0.5-1 cm subject is in the sweet area.
>
> Resolution of about 1500 pixels per cm.
>
> RAW output. This can be important, as digicam JPEGs aren't always ideal
> and can have troublesome full pixel artifacts. True at least of the A650/G9.
>
> Barrel distortion easily corrected and isn't much anyway within the
> designated 1x1 cm central area.
>
> Flash shoe for that ring flash. :-)
>
> Full time live view, with no mirror issues.
>
> Looks like a nice one may be had for under $150, less than just a macro
> lens for 4/3.
>
> Size of 1 cm sq. subject within image area.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/G7macro&image=G7_Macro_Wide1xa.jpg>
> Full pixel sample in the center.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/G7macro&image=G7_Macro_Wide1x_fp.jpg>
> Same sample with a bit of LCE and sharpening.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/G7macro&image=G7_Macro_Wide1x_fpii.jpg>
> The sharpened one would be cleaner if from RAW.
>
>
> The C-5050 Dave suggests doesn't look bad, and if I had one, I'd try it.
> But if buying, I'd go for a G7. The C-5050 has a minimum coverage of 2.4
> x 3.2 cm and resolution of about 700 pixels/cm., so would capture less
> detail.
>
> Looks like the G7 is the best of the G series for the desired specs. The
> G9 has the same lens and an insignificant increase in resolution, but
> would likely cost more.
>
> The A650 IS has the same lens and sensor as the G7/9. It also adds an
> articulated screen, which might or might not be a help, depending on the
> copy set-up. For the purpose at hand, though, one would definitely need
> to learn to add and use the CHDK add-on firmware and to use something
> like DCRAW or RAWTherapy for RAW conversion. Too many artifacts in the
> JPEGs at high magnifications. No big deal for the somewhat software
> adept, but somewhat inconvenient - and not practical for some folks.
>
> I didn't look further into C-thingies. There may be some other
> brand/model that fits, but the pickings will be slim that meet all the
> criteria.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
