Very Interesting...

[ANOMALY]

Sunday I got a great deal on a Sony A330 at Target, clearance, display, with 18-55mm lens, $210. I also went to RITZ camera and got a 10x macro converter for what I mostly take pics of, watches.

Well folks, this story takes a VERY interesting turn...

I start working on some shots, macro shots and just don't feel I am getting as close to the watch as I want to. I get out my point and shoot and it can focus MUCH closer to the dial than the SLR. I go up to Ritz Camera and talk to one of their experts. They get a $1700 Nikon body and put on a $1000 macro lens. Guess what, the point and shoot can STILL focus closer to the watch and get a tighter shot than the NIKON set up can!!!!

The people were as shocked as I was. There IS a new Nikon point and shoot out, the L110 that you can literally put the camera lens on the crystal of the watch and it will focus, so I will probably be getting this camera soon.

The little experiment REALLY made me question the SUPERIORITY of an SLR camera over the state of the art point and shoots. Yeah the sensor is bigger in the SLR than the point and shoot, but unless your actually going to PRINT your photographs, this REALLY is not a big issue (for me anyway)...

What do you guys think?

Macro with my Nikon CoolPix S10, uncropped:

 

[Overread16 4]

If Ritz couldn't get a shot this magnified:

then chances are they need new "experts" in the store

As for focusing closer to the subject itself physically certainly a point and shoot is going to achieve this quiet easily, especially if you put a close up lens attachment on the end of it which (on a DSLR or a point and shoot) will reduce the focusing distance. Of course often being right up close isn't always ideal as many an insect photographer will tell you. Also its perfectly possible for a DSLR to have a macro focusing setup that is only millimeters from the subject - this won't always correlate to the largest possible magnifiaction of course as there is more to magnification than the focusing distance alone.

PS when looking at close up lens attachments try to stick to good brands such a Raynox - I think in the shot you've posted above the fringe areas of the shot are showing what looks like a little blur which could be the result of weaker edge glass in the filter itself.

 

[ANOMALY]

Thanks Overread...

Is your picture a crop of the full size pic or the actual macro shot itself from the lens and camera?

 

[Overread16 4]

A very quickly taken fullsized pic from a macro lens on a DSLR - just resized for the net. The difference being that it was taken a good 10-20cm ish away from the watch rather than pressed right up to it. That is also a "true" macro shot so the size of the reflection on the sensor made by the lens is the same size as it is in real life (1:1 magnifiaction).
So any DSLR with a true macro lens (basically most lenses with a single focal length and macro in the name, though there are a few that can't) should get the exact same frame of the shot - though as the focal lengths differ the distance from the subject will be different (But the frame will still be the same because the magnifiaction will still be 1:1)

 

[ANOMALY]

A very quickly taken fullsized pic from a macro lens on a DSLR - just resized for the net. The difference being that it was taken a good 10-20cm ish away from the watch rather than pressed right up to it. That is also a "true" macro shot so the size of the reflection on the sensor made by the lens is the same size as it is in real life (1:1 magnifiaction).
So any DSLR with a true macro lens (basically most lenses with a single focal length and macro in the name, though there are a few that can't) should get the exact same frame of the shot - though as the focal lengths differ the distance from the subject will be different (But the frame will still be the same because the magnifiaction will still be 1:1)

MORE great information, THANKS!

I guess I am sitting here thinking, if I can get pretty freaking close to the same results with a $230 Nikon L110 for macro, why spend upwards of $500-700 for an SLR with macro lens?

Do you know if Raynox makes such an attachment for the Nikon L110?

Thanks again!

 

[Overread16 4]

Well its all about uses and needs - some people don't need more than the output of a point and shoot and certainly functionality wise a good point and shoot or bridge camera can do far more than a DSLR for far less.

However DSLRs come with their own advantages including:
Greater resolution of detail
Larger overall image size which improved chances of larger prints and cropping options
Easier manual control over settings such as aperture, shutter speed
higher usable range of ISOs without noise being as strong
Greater range of lighting and other accessories

Overall a well kitted out DSLR setup will most times out perform a point and shoot, but its going to cost a great deal more to get to that point. For some its worth the cost and for others its not - it all depends on your uses and needs as well as your budget

As for Raynox they don't make close up lenses based on camera type, but rather generic ones. It depends on the size of the filter thread on your camera body. If its large enough (or can be made to fit with stepping rings of ebay) then it will fit the raynox glass. Examples would be the DCR 250 ( a +8 diopter ) - going further will cost more and also reduce the focusing distance.

 

[ANOMALY]

Well its all about uses and needs - some people don't need more than the output of a point and shoot and certainly functionality wise a good point and shoot or bridge camera can do far more than a DSLR for far less.

However DSLRs come with their own advantages including:
Greater resolution of detail
Larger overall image size which improved chances of larger prints and cropping options
Easier manual control over settings such as aperture, shutter speed
higher usable range of ISOs without noise being as strong
Greater range of lighting and other accessories

Overall a well kitted out DSLR setup will most times out perform a point and shoot, but its going to cost a great deal more to get to that point. For some its worth the cost and for others its not - it all depends on your uses and needs as well as your budget

As for Raynox they don't make close up lenses based on camera type, but rather generic ones. It depends on the size of the filter thread on your camera body. If its large enough (or can be made to fit with stepping rings of ebay) then it will fit the raynox glass. Examples would be the DCR 250 ( a +8 diopter ) - going further will cost more and also reduce the focusing distance.

Once again, great input!

If this is how you guys treat NEWBS, then this is a GREAT forum. I look forward to learning more here.

A few more of my shots with my Nikon CoolPix S10:

Notice the small "B" to prevent counterfeiting...

I also just got a tripod that will fit INSIDE my light box (self made) so I should be able to get even better macro results now...

I am learning great pics are really the result of manipulating light...

 

[Overread16 4]

I am learning great pics are really the result of manipulating light...

Very true - even if you get the best gear in the world having the right light is key to photography - though better gear can work further into poorer light and get more out of it - its still no substitute for having the best lighting.

 

[Arkanjel Imaging]

I am learning great pics are really the result of manipulating light...

Very true - even if you get the best gear in the world having the right light is key to photography - though better gear can work further into poorer light and get more out of it - its still no substitute for having the best lighting.

QFT.

Honestly, for the recreational macro dabbler a good p/s is a great option. You can get very printable results up to about 8x10. :thumbup:

That being said, here are some taken with DSLR and good glass (Nikon D300s + 105mm macro.) Strobes (flashes) were also used to control light.

 

[ANOMALY]

I am learning great pics are really the result of manipulating light...

Very true - even if you get the best gear in the world having the right light is key to photography - though better gear can work further into poorer light and get more out of it - its still no substitute for having the best lighting.

QFT.

Honestly, for the recreational macro dabbler a good p/s is a great option. You can get very printable results up to about 8x10. :thumbup:

That being said, here are some taken with DSLR and good glass (Nikon D300s + 105mm macro.) Strobes (flashes) were also used to control light.

AWESOME shots ARK, what is your set up?

Since I am shooting WATCHES and they are STILL, I think the P/S camera is good for me. If I were to start shooting bug and water drops, I might need to upgrade!

 

[Overread16 4]

One other thing that is probably good for your use is that point and shoot cameras have smaller sensors in them, which results in them giving a greater depth of field than an equivalent DSLR. So whilst those watch shots your getting easily now with a DSLR you might find you'd have trouble getting the same level of depth without using editing methods like focus stacking

 

[Derrel]

"What do you guys think?"

The specific RITZ "expert" who helped you might be might be an apprentice expert...or a lieutenant expert...perhaps you need a bird colonel-level expert...

 

[ANOMALY]

"What do you guys think?"

The specific RITZ "expert" who helped you might be might be an apprentice expert...or a lieutenant expert...perhaps you need a bird colonel-level expert...

I know it SOUNDS funny but I was standing right there watching the entire thing. I think what I am gather from this is with the P/S camera, I can get closer and get a good shot if I don't ever plan on printing it TOO large...

With the DSLR, I may not get as PHYSICALLY close to the subject, but because the sensor is larger and hence would have more pixels in the picture, when I CROP it down to where I want the picture seen, I will get a better CROP and will be able to have a better LARGER print with less NOISE in it?

 

[ANOMALY]

One other thing that is probably good for your use is that point and shoot cameras have smaller sensors in them, which results in them giving a greater depth of field than an equivalent DSLR. So whilst those watch shots your getting easily now with a DSLR you might find you'd have trouble getting the same level of depth without using editing methods like focus stacking

Keep this information coming Overread, I appreciate it!

 

[Arkanjel Imaging]

AWESOME shots ARK, what is your set up?

Since I am shooting WATCHES and they are STILL, I think the P/S camera is good for me. If I were to start shooting bug and water drops, I might need to upgrade!

I keep an ongoing thread with settings and what not for most of the pics: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/211584-ais-wonderful-world-macro.html

With the DSLR, I may not get as PHYSICALLY close to the subject, but because the sensor is larger and hence would have more pixels in the picture, when I CROP it down to where I want the picture seen, I will get a better CROP and will be able to have a better LARGER print with less NOISE in it?

Thats not quite how it works. Subject size on the sensor has several factors in play:

1: subject distance
2: lens magnification
3: sensor size

With a DSLR and the appropriate lens you wont need to get as close to your subject to get the same magnification level. This matters when you are shooting living things that are easily frightened. And also when using avail/natural light. If you are too close to your subject you block most of the avail light with your shadow.

Edit: and ideally you really dont want to crop any image if possible. Thats just a loss of pixels. Getting the shot "in frame" at the time of capture will greatly improve the depth of your images.