macro lenses

[Jeanne B]

I'm planning on buying a new camera that I can buy an underwater housing for and as someone who has always just taken simple point and shoot pictures forgive my ignorance but can someone please tell me what's the better macro range...5cm or 12cm? My goal this year is to learn more about photography!! We currently have a Kodak DX6490 (which I can't find a housing for) and I've been looking at the Canons and I'm thinking of getting the A520. Someone on another travel board said that the 5cm macro distance is fantastic. For comparison I looked up the specs on my Kodak and the macro focus range is 12cm. My assumption is that a 5 cm macro range is better?

 

[LordAthens]

5cm is technically better. The difference is, the camera can focus on an object 5cm from the last element in the lense, where the other one can only focus at 12cm.

I mention technically better for the simply reason that while 5cm is great, most people don't have the proper lighting to take an exellent macro pic @ 5cm, most end up getting shadows.

 

[PaulD]

I'll take a stab at it. I looked at the manual for your camera online and I think what you are reading is the minimum focusing distance that your camera can shoot at. What this means is that you cannot shoot a photo (in focus) closer than 12cm from you subject. It says that when you are in macro ("close up") mode that you can take sharp photos of objects between 12cm and 70cm (~5-27 inches) when you are at wide angle (zoomed out) and from 3.9ft to 6.9ft when you are all the way telephoto (zoomed in).

So, if everything else is the same, the closer focusing distance (5cm) is better because it allows you to get closer to the subject. But, it may not be an issue for you. Take some test photos of things around your house to see if your camera does what you need it to do. Try shooting at the wide angle end of your zoom and then try again by zooming all the way to telephoto. You may get what you need.

I've never taken underwater photos so I'll make the following assumptions:

Assumption #1 - The water will cut some of your ambient light (I don't know how much).
Assumption #2 - You will want to photograph quickly moving things (i.e. fish, sharks, giant squid, sea monsters, etc).

So, the other things you should be looking at are the speed of your lens and the ISO range. You may need to use a high ISO (400-800) and a large aperture. Your camera goes all the way up to ISO 800 (good) and has a minimum f/stop of 2.8-3.7 (also pretty good). It looks like you're set for low light photos.

To compare the macro capabilities of the Kodak to the Canon A520 follow these links and look at the Macro section of the review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdx7590/page5.asp (Kodak DX7590 - looks like it has the same lens)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona520/page5.asp (Canon A520)

So, the bottom line is that as long as your camera is getting photos that are close enough for your purposes then you seem to have a camera that is pretty well suited for underwater photography.

Of course, I like Canons but don't let that influence you decision.

 

[manning]

Take a look at this camera, the Pentax optio W10. It will ship in March for under 300 dollars. Waterproof down to 1.5 Meters (about 4.5 feet) for 30 minutes.

http://www.h20camera.com/consumer/specs.jsp

 

[Jeanne B]

Thanks Brandon and Paul - your replies answered my question. I learned about dpreview the other day on another travel board so I've been doing camera comparisons on there which is real helpful. I'm definitely leaning towards a Canon and the Canons seems to be what most everyone recommends on the various boards I've been reading. We've used underwater disposables a couple of times and weren't real impressed with the pictures so we've decided to invest in something better since we're vacationing in St Thomas and St John in June and we'll be doing a LOT of snorkeling. manning, someone else mentioned the Pentax optio but my husband tends to dive down fairly deep when he snorkels so to snap pictures at that depth would probably rule this camera out.

 

[manning]

Thanks Brandon and Paul - your replies answered my question. I learned about dpreview the other day on another travel board so I've been doing camera comparisons on there which is real helpful. I'm definitely leaning towards a Canon and the Canons seems to be what most everyone recommends on the various boards I've been reading. We've used underwater disposables a couple of times and weren't real impressed with the pictures so we've decided to invest in something better since we're vacationing in St Thomas and St John in June and we'll be doing a LOT of snorkeling. manning, someone else mentioned the Pentax optio but my husband tends to dive down fairly deep when he snorkels so to snap pictures at that depth would probably rule this camera out.

You're right on that. Hold off on buying anything for a week or so. The PMA show in Orlando is coming up and the camera manufacturers are in the process of announcing new cameras.

Canon just announced new ones today. Look at the dpreview site.

 

[Jeanne B]

Thanks for the heads up manning!! I'll definitely hold off a bit - no rush since we're not going until late June.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Here are a couple of shots taken using the following equipment:

Canon 300D (original dRebel)
Sigma 18-125
Kenko Auto Focus Macro Extension Tubes for Canon EF Mount

 

[jann1033]

glad you posted this as i forgot about them...mind telling me the difference between a macro lens(except for lots more $$$), extension tube and the little macro that looks like a filter... get the tube and filter like one need a lens to go on but wondering about the difference as far as results. , and evidently you can use them with anysame mm lens ?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Macro lens WILL yield a better result than either Macro Filter or Macro Tubes (they are about the same quality). How much better? Let me put it simply, I don't get paid for my macro shots, if I get paid, usually for items such as I posted above and printed no larger than 4x6. So I won't spend the extra money to buy a macro lens... at least not until I know I'll get paid to do enlarged macro shots (something like 8x12 or larger).

If I have to choose to get either Macro Filter or Macro Tube, I'll get the filter and choose it with the lens I like to use most. Get a larger one than the actual diameter of your lens and get the ring adapter (in my case I got 62 to 67 ring adapter and a set of Hoya Macro Filter). I also have the macro tube, but I seldom use it because it's more of a hassle.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks Kelly

 

[0bli0]

i'm a big fan of tubes - especially if you have good glass to use with it. you can use the same set of tubes with a short focal length for extreme close up (bugs eyes, etc.) or longer focal length for less magnification or to keep some distance bewteen you and the subject (spider's fangs, etc). of course it means you can't use the lens to infinity, so you have to remove it when not shooting macro.
image quality-wise, tubes have zero impact where 'filter' types do.

 

[jann1033]

i have a friend who swears this is the best way to take a picture across a large area...yes or no? what would the macro add that just a 200mm zoom wouldn't

 

[jann1033]

 

[handicap18]

Macro is a feature that allows the lens to focus closer to a subject than the lens normall would. ie: at 200mm a lens may focus as close as 4 feet away from the subject. with macro it might allow it to focus as close as 2 feet or closer. It depends on the lens and maker. Its the macro feature on a lens that people use to get those super duper close-ups of insects and flowers and other subjects.

 

[jann1033]

i knew you could use it to get close ups but never thought of using it for people( like she did) far away. what would the background be like, blurred i am guessing like a close up macro??? what would the cons be ( if any)

 

[boBQuincy]

The term "macro" is thrown around a lot without much meaning. If a lens focuses closer than the competitor's lens then the manufacturer feels they can call it a "macro" lens. Eventually all of them are macro and we start over again with "super macro".
No real harm done I suppose, just check on the closest focusing distance (at the longest focal length).

For portraits a 200 is kinda' long, the distance tends to flatten the facial features and reduce the modeling of the face. Some may like the effect, most portatits are taken with a 70-100 since the normal distance seems to give a pleasing effect.

One note, a lens does not change perspective, only distance does. With the 200 you would be further away from the subject because of the long lens, thus the flattening.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

There is a common misconception in Macro Photography. A lot of people confuses Macro Photography with Close-up Photography.

Basically macro photography is that if the image is about 1" in actual size, the image captured on the sensor should be no smaller than 0.25". So when the image is being shown at 4x6, that 1" object should be no smaller than 1"

From Wikipedia (thank you Andromedaslove for the quote)

Macro photography is a type of close-up photography. The classical definition is photography in which the image on film or electronic sensor is as large or larger than the subject.

For example, suppose a photographer wants to take a macro photograph of a coin on film. After having the film developed, the photographer can place the coin on the film, and the coin will be exactly the same size as the picture of the coin on the negative or slide.

In recent years, the term macro has come to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a standard 102×152 mm (4×6 inch) print is made, the image is life-size or larger

just an example:

the original Eeyore's head-length is about 1"

here's a macro photography

here's a close up photography

 

[fitzperry]

Thanks Kelly. I completely understand Andromedaslove's desire not to have the contest threads morph into debates. But at the same time, as someone who is trying to learn more about photography, I appreciate the technical info.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

yup, that's why I removed my post from her photo contest thread because it's just very uncouth and unprofessional of me for doing so.