Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 2, 2010, 3:13 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... Maggo has show that the canon kit lens ef 55-250mm will do decent macro.
The 55-250 is a 1:3.2 macro lens, which isn't bad, but it only happens at 250mm which may be tough to work with. I would hesitate to call the Canon 55-250 an acceptable lens for macro shooting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... Also you get a decent wide angle with any of the kit lens that comes with the sony, pentax, canon, or nikon. ...
... but because of the Canon's smaller image sensor, the kit lens has a wider angle of view on the Nikon, Pentax and Sony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... Both the pentax and sony has the body IS advantage, though it is not as great as allot of sales guys make it seem. ...
Every reliable source states that Sony's IS is as good or better than the IS available in most Canon or Nikon lenses, and Pentax' IS is only slightly less good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... Canon has the most lens options....
... except for stabilized macro lenses, where it has the fewest.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 3:18 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I shoot allot without IS on actually. It is nice to have, but not that important. It is completely worthless for 1:1 macro or long exposure on a tripod.

Sony seems to have a very good IS system. But it come back to weather it is a must have in all situation. And I notice I have the IS off allot.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 3:33 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... It is completely worthless for 1:1 macro ...
Perhaps, but for 1:2 macro, having it is better than not having it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... or long exposure on a tripod.
Without question.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 3:42 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

At f2.5 with my old ef 50 2.5, IS really made no difference. But it is better to have, I do not disagree. It really is not an go no/go item imho between lens IS vs body IS.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 3:44 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

But back to the ef-s 55-250, you get IS and it really does work for macro. Here is the link to Maggo's macro shots with it.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/cl...ring-here.html
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; May 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 4:06 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Magoo's photos are impressive. Again it is more technique and lens than it is camera body.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 5:03 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Here is a macro shot done with an older Olympus E-500 DSLR camera using the Olympus 40-450mm lens.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 5:06 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Here is a macro shot done with an older Olympus E-500 DSLR camera using the Olympus 40-450mm lens.



Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 5:08 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If low light shooting is not that big of a concern the olympus e620 would be a good choice. It shoots well up to 1600iso, and can push a bit higher. But you gain allot on compact size if that is important.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2010, 5:15 PM   #30
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

macro??
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 AM.