The thing about macro with a compact vs. an SLR, is that compacts usually rate their macro capability, by the stupid number of centimeters that it can focus close..
I like the SLR lenses' way better, by far -.
Macro 1:1 means "lifesize" macro. That is fx.: You have something that measure 1 centimeter in real life. This can be delivered so that it represents 1 cm ON YOU SENSOR! Quite nice - and quite big!.
Macro 1:2 then means the 1cm thing in real life, will be half size on the sensor..
And so on....
Now, extension tubes will raise this magnification factor, and you can get macro 2:1 or whatever you like..
The same holds true for closeup filters..
Closeup filters eats some image quality, because you put extra glass in front of your lens - but in some degree, so does extention tubes....
Wayne Brucar wrote:.
I have really enjoyed shooting flowers and insects with my Canon S3using it's super macro. I have recently picked up a E330 and have beenshooting nice closeups with the 40-150mm 3.5-4.5 at full extention.Now, I want to do some serious macro. I am a little confused by themacro capability of a lens, eg. the Oly 35mm 3.5 vs the Oly 50mm 2.0vs Sigma 18-50mm 2.8; 1:1 vs 1:2 vs 1:3; minimum focus distance. Andhow do teleconverter lens and extention tubes enter the equasion.Sorry for the broad "Newbie" question, but I want to get a good starton my currently limited budget which will lead to experience andexpansion. Thoughts and wisdom?.
Http://www.fotostart.dk << tutorials, guides etc.http://www.jakobdam.dk << my portfolio..
The 1:1 designation on a macro lens is a good starting point for real macro work..
Many lenses are labelled "macro" when this is often quite a vague and loosely-applied label. For example a general-purpose zoom lens may be marked as having a macro range, perhaps giving only 1:4 ratio (image at the sensor is one quarter the size of the subject)..
An inexpensive way to start with macro is to use a set of extension tunes with a good prime lens. But this can be very frustrating, as each tube (or combination of tubes) will cover only a limited range of subject distances. It is better to get a true macro lens, which should focus all the way from infinity to the full macro at 1:1. This type of lens also has an optical design specifically optimised to perform well at close subject distances.Regards,Peter..
It is better to get a true macro lens, whichshould focus all the way from infinity to the full macro at 1:1. Thistype of lens also has an optical design specifically optimised toperform well at close subject distances..
Indeed. Another advantage of a true macro lens is that you don't have to be virtually touching your subject, especially if you get, say, a 100mm macro lens. This is helpful especially when photographing insects and spiders. Especially spiders....
If you can take the plung, but a DSLR with a 1:1 Macro lens. Here are some samples of two popular Canon Macro lenses for DSLR's:.
Http://www.motleypixel.com/...on%20Primes/Canon%20EF-S%2060mm%20f2.8%20Macro/Roy Niswanger http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/..
If you want a macro lens, the Sigma 105mm is very good, but it costs about $400. A cheaper accessory is the Nikon 6T with the 40-150mm zoom. With this, you change the magnification by zooming. On the 40-150mm, you get about .25X to.9X, which will cover most of your picture needs..
There are a couple of good books by Paul Harcourt Davies, published by Amphoto, which explain all the macro theory and jargon.http://www.pbase.com/oldhiker..