Like I said in my last reply to your posting, even in "professional" DSLR systems used for paid macro work, there is only one piece of off the shelf equipment out that that allows you to get more than 1:1 magnification straight out of the camera without additional accessories like bellows, multipliers, extension tubes and dioper add-on lenses. Or even tricks like reverse mount and antics of the like. So what makes it so imperative that PnS cameras need to able to do beyond 1:1 magnification in macro ?? Your Elmar Macro can only do 1:2 straight mounted onto the camera... so what's the big deal then ? In any case, your Leitz lens excluding the camera costs more than any prosumer PnS and it still does not do 1:1 macro...
If one were to try to spew info from the internet you can be sure that he or she will end up tying oneself in knots. Look, I was into photography from a young age, took cameras apart, spent considerable time in the dark with smelly chemicals, spent no less than US$40,000 (at 1984 prices) on equipment of many formats with bridges to connect the large to the small, spanning telescopes, microscope, visoflexes, lenses that can be dismantled for multiple uses on rf, slr, telescope, macro, and many self-designed adapters, etc. BTW, with slides every shot costs real money which unlike today's almost free recording digital medium. When things are not "free" you use your brain more. When things are "free" you shoot endlessly, hoping to get a chance for a great shot. In my days, I have never used auto focus and seldom used the camera's exposure meter. Today, just try to do without both and try a film camera with slides. This may bring back some of the deliberations necessary for creativity.
Let me try to explain in conceptual terms. True macro photos of quality can only be achieved with macro lenses, which are specifically designed for such work and are not optimized for infinity focussing. Non-macro lenses are general lenses that are optimized for infinity and are not ideal for macro work. Macro lenses are generally designed for use as is, which usually means at around 1X magnification, plus, and this is a very important plus for macro lenses worth their salt, it must be offered with accessories like bellows, adapters, extension tubes to increase magnification significantly greater than 1X. Now, if you were to design a macro lens that has a native magnification of 3X it is practically useless for photos that require 1X to 2.5X magnification. This is called an "idiot's" design. Macro lenses are designed for a low base of around 1X magnification but with the option to scale greater heights. Please don't mix up macro capabilities of P&S with dslr. They are not the same.
thank you taneepak for once again going off topic and filling a thread with useless junk. we can always rely on you for this type of rubbish. mods, is there a delete function to get rid of useless posts?
I still don't know why many threads here were ended up like this？Yes, everyone has freedom to speak. Therefore, just let Mr.T speak..........ALONE！
The topic here is about G11. There is really no definition of a semi-dslr despite the term's wide misuse. A camera either have a mirror, or it does not. In the popular use, the term simply refers to cameras that fits between a DSLR and the typical compact. Really? Where? AFAICT, you are adamant in pointing out deficiency of P&S by throwing in arbitrary technical terms (which are only partially correct). Is it important, or is this another of taneepak's shot off the tangent?
Uuhhmm.. ..have you heard Mr.T's voice (literally)??.. - 1st part. It's good & dandy you've had extensive knowledge in all the previous manual cameras, lenses, all the scopes technology. But do you have any real hands on experience w/modern digital photography?? Or have you cracked open a compact digicam or DSLR, un-assembled and then re-assembled the parts back again??.. - 2nd part. If the current recording digital medium is "free, easy to use and one can shoot endlessly", then let's see some of your action and results. ..so, what are you waiting for??.. NATO... ..you're right! But Mr. T probably needs some company...and i think we're just being nice to him by accommodating his posts..
Let me ask the question again... Why is it imperative that a PnS has a "true Macro" capability when even a DSLR system out of the box is unable to do that without dedicated lenses? Any proof of that other than "in theory" And what makes you think that a Prosumer PnS cannot achieve almost equivalent qualities of Macro as a dedicated DSLR macro lens system with similar dedicated accessories as would be needed by your Leitz system to achieve 'true' macro then? From your statement above, that means your Leitz Elmar Macro is not a 'true macro lens' either, since it does not natively achieve 1:1 magnification.
There is no imperative that P&S must have macro lenses. It would be silly in the face of their current non-interchangeable lens system. P&S cameras do not have interchangeable lenses. Because it has only a fixed lens and these type of fixed lens, either a zoom or a prime, are called standard lenses which are corrected for a distant subject. Their performance at short distances are poorer. Yes, all standard lenses other than macro lenses are designed and optimized for infinity. As the subject distance gets shorter their performance gets poorer. Therefore such standard lenses found in both P&S as well as all dslr cameras are not very good for macro. For quality macro work you need lenses that are optimized and corrected for very short conjugate. Using a non-macro lens on a dslr to take macro photos delivers poor quality relative to a macro lens. A macro lens for a dslr is designed for use from infinity to a magnification of 1, with the highest correction for the very short distances. This macro lens is usually optimized for best performance at about 0.1 magnification, although it can be used to take pictures from infinity down to a magnification of 1. P&S cannot use macro lens because the lens cannot be changed. The key is the option and capability to use a macro lens. P&S simply cannot accept a macro lens. DSLR can accept a macro lens, and if you don't have one then you cannot take quality macro pictures with your dslr. My Leitz Elmar Macro is a systems lens, not a complete macro lens. By itself it cannot work as it has no focussing mount (it cannot be focussed). You have to select a system combination. My Elmar macro system comes in separate parts, a reflex housing that converts the M4 RF into a slr, the Elmar 65mm macro lens head, a universal focussing mount common to the Elmar macro, the 90mm summicron, 200mm Telyt, and a few other lenses, two dedicated tubes, and bellows. So my reach is very extensive, from infinity to a magnification of 1.85. The Elmar 65 macro on its own is useless as it cannot be even mounted onto the camera body. Your claim that my Elmar 65 cannot go further than 1:1 is not true because I am sure you are not aware that the Elamar 65 is not a standalone lens head only. Depending on the owner's combination choice it can vary from 0 (infinity) to 0.8 magnification or from 0 (infinity) to a 1.85 magnification, the latter is what I have. However, I agree that the Elmar 65 is rather poor by Leica standard at longer conjugates as it should be. It is horses for courses.
many thanks for the macro photography lesson. but... we are not going to take close-up of Lin Dan's eye during badminton match. we are talking about simple camera or p&s camera for badminton's photo. dont ask anyone just jump into leica or any other dslr which they do not know how to operate.
G series (and s series) you can add adapter and someone add another adapter to mount lens reverse, you can get pretty good macro from that setup. Anyway I think better stop at this.. or start another thread? this topic really getting OOT
Good idea to reverse the lens provided the lens is not of symmetrical design, but then the set-up cannot focus to infinity. But a reversed non-macro lens, whilst showing a marked improvement, is still not as good as a macro lens. A macro lens can take both macro and also distant subjects, but if it goes for farther reach with a bellows, it also cannot focus to infinity. BTW, a macro lens of non-symmetrical design can also be reversed for a marked improvement, but then its infinity focussing capability is disabled. Stay away from macro lens unless you use it 95% of the time. The reason I got the Elmar macro was to take photos to be used for new product catalogs, fliers, copying, for my customers.
I love PnS cameras. Even though I own a Canon 450D, and a couple of lenses now, I still use my Canon G10 quite often. Both cameras have their strength and usage. Instead of participating in the discussion, I just want to share of the shots from my other older camera, a PnS Canon A620, now "retired" . Sometimes it is better to let pictures do the talking: All shots below were taken with PnS Canon A620 There are a lot more at my Flickr page.
Nicely taken picts there! And yes "...it is better to let pictures do the talking.." Much better than someone just talk and talk and no pictures....
Yes. I took all those underwater pictures. Most of them using PnS Canon A620, later switching to Canon G10. None using DSLR, the housing too expensive
