Steve'sDigicams

romphotog · Apr 22, 2006, 10:52 PM

I find it is far easier to take close-up(not exactly macro) shots with
a P&S: tilt LCD, small, light weight, live preview, you could use the
flash as long as exp.comp. is set to -2 or shutter speed is 1/1000 or
faster, cheap.
SLR bodies + macro lenses are too heavy, you have to hold them to your
face, no tilt LCD, no live preview(except Oly E330); simply too much hassle for macro.

Using a P&S in Macro mode, I get F 2.69 and my pics look almost 3D,
with the subject sticking out of the background.
Using zoom in auto, I could get the same shots but not the aperture values.

As such, I have to say, for my macro needs P&S is better.
For insects, micro-photography, controlled studio shots DSLR would be better.

bassithound · Apr 22, 2006, 10:56 PM

Post some comparison shots. I'd like to see your work.
Dave in NJ

E.T · Apr 23, 2006, 5:25 AM

I agree, non-SLR can be excellent for macros/close ups. Sure SLRs can produce better results (with approriate lenses) but they would require more time/controlled environment.
Also better non-SLRs throttle down flash well for macros.

Especially short DOF of SLRs would cause lot of problems in handheld macros because of close ups/macros shorten DOF even further.
Taking this kind shot with SLR would propably be quite impossible without somekind tripod because of that extremely short DOF.

Here's some more on topic examples:
http://www.pbase.com/viljamix/flowers
http://www.pbase.com/viljamix/insects
http://www.pbase.com/jduphoto/bugs_beetles
http://www.pbase.com/adrianox/macros

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Apr 22, 2006, 10:52 PM	#1
romphotog Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 163	I find it is far easier to take close-up(not exactly macro) shots with a P&S: tilt LCD, small, light weight, live preview, you could use the flash as long as exp.comp. is set to -2 or shutter speed is 1/1000 or faster, cheap. SLR bodies + macro lenses are too heavy, you have to hold them to your face, no tilt LCD, no live preview(except Oly E330); simply too much hassle for macro. Using a P&S in Macro mode, I get F 2.69 and my pics look almost 3D, with the subject sticking out of the background. Using zoom in auto, I could get the same shots but not the aperture values. As such, I have to say, for my macro needs P&S is better. For insects, micro-photography, controlled studio shots DSLR would be better.

Apr 22, 2006, 10:56 PM	#2
bassithound Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 24	Post some comparison shots. I'd like to see your work. Dave in NJ

Apr 23, 2006, 5:25 AM	#3
E.T Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 921	I agree, non-SLR can be excellent for macros/close ups. Sure SLRs can produce better results (with approriate lenses) but they would require more time/controlled environment. Also better non-SLRs throttle down flash well for macros. Especially short DOF of SLRs would cause lot of problems in handheld macros because of close ups/macros shorten DOF even further. Taking this kind shot with SLR would propably be quite impossible without somekind tripod because of that extremely short DOF. Here's some more on topic examples: http://www.pbase.com/viljamix/flowers http://www.pbase.com/viljamix/insects http://www.pbase.com/jduphoto/bugs_beetles http://www.pbase.com/adrianox/macros