Re: Macro and High res woes

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dick, Jun 29, 2003.

  1. Dick

    Dick Guest

    I had to refresh my memory of "focal length" and looked it up:

    FOCAL LENGTH

    This is the distance (in mm.), in an optical system, from the lens (or
    primary mirror) to the point where the telescope is in focus (focal point).
    The longer the focal length of the telescope, generally the more power it
    has, the larger the image and the smaller the field of view. For example, a
    telescope with a focal length of 2000mm has twice the power and half the
    field of view of a 1000mm telescope. Most manufacturers specify the focal
    length of their various instruments; but, if it is unknown and you know the
    focal ratio you can use the following formula to calculate it: focal length
    is the aperture (in mm) times the focal ratio. For example, the focal length
    of an 8" (203.2mm) aperture with a focal ratio of f/10 would be 203.2 x 10 =
    2032mm.

    JK How do we apply the above to te C5050 and the C4000 for example? could
    you site one you would look at to make a decision with?

    Dick

    "JK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Tesselator wrote:
    >
    > > "Dick" <> wrote in message

    news:ADiLa.127379$...
    > > > The Olympus C-4000 4MP has a wonderful Macro feature going to about

    one inch
    > > > to take a shot of a bee. The C4040 4.1 MP, suposedly a super set of

    the
    > > > C-4000 does not have that super Macro and begins near 8". The new

    C5050
    > > > 5MPhowever is outfited with that macro of near 1".
    > > > So either I seek the C4000 4MP or the C5050 at 5MP.
    > > > What other cameras have such a Macro near 1" ?

    > >
    > > Many (all?) models in the CoolPix line have 4cm or less in macro mode.
    > >
    > > > This News group seems very focused near the 3MP. I have read all your

    posts
    > > > comparing te A40/A60/A70 With te Nikon 2100/3100 looked at the

    pictures, but
    > > > have no such input for the C4000 Olympus nor any for the C5050 to see

    if I
    > > > would ever need such resolutions of 4MP/5MP and the expense of them.

    > >
    > > It's probably just a result of the depth of the average consumers
    > > pocket-book. Both the 4040 and the 5050 are excellent cameras I will
    > > buy a 5050 soon I think to add to my collection. Don't be put off by
    > > the working range of a camera's macro mode which in the 4040 is 0.2 -

    0.8 m
    > > but rather focus your attention of the level of magnification it is
    > > capable of. I would much rather have a working range of a foot or more
    > > if I could still get the same magnification as a macro engeneered to
    > > operate at minute distances.

    >
    > Since the cameras being discussed have lenses of almost
    > the same focal lengths and sensors of similar sizes,
    > the degree of "magnification" will vary depending on the
    > distance. With film cameras, magnification is the ratio of the
    > size on film to the size of the object. Since with digital there is
    > no film, one should define magnification in terms of pixels per
    > centimeter or pixels per inch of the subject. This will depend
    > on the distance to the subject, the relative focal length the lens
    > is set at (relative to the sensor size. For convenience,
    > digital cameras show an equivalent focal length compared
    > to 35mm cameras), and the resolution that the camera is set at.
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > As far as the expense and usefulness of a 5MP unit I guess you alone
    > > can answer that. What will you be using the camera for? etc.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > I welcome suggestions beands and models to look at and consider. And

    the
    > > > advice of where to limit the quality persuits (weakness) I or many of

    you
    > > > may have :).
    > > > What to do what to do....hmmmmm
    > > >
    > > > Dick in Hawaii

    > >
    > > Someone should make a FAQ if there isn't one already, of the "ideal"
    > > features to look for in a digital camera. Like:
    > >
    > > The ability to go manual in as many aspects as possible.
    > > The ability to store and transfer uncompressed images.

    >
    > Not that many people shoot uncompressed on consumer level cameras.
    > The quality difference is hardly noticeable compared with shooting
    > at low compression(SHG?), yet shooting uncompressed yeilds
    > files that are much larger, and the much lower number of images
    > per flash card can be very annoying.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > The ability to add attachements (PC, Hotshoe, Tripod mount, lens

    filters, etc.)
    >
    > >
    > > Readable LCD menus
    > > Tilt/Rotate/Swivel LCD Pannels.
    > > All glass (coated) lens elements.
    > > Other than plastic body frame,
    > > USB or Serial Camera Control via computer or etc. (other than

    downloading)
    > > Etc.
    > > Etc.
    > > Etc.
    > >
    > > And thier _simple_ respective explaination. Like:
    > >
    > > USB/Ser. Cam. Control -- Will allow you to to create ultra hi res stop

    motion
    > > and time-laps motion sequences.

    >
    > Very few people do this.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Non-Plastic Cam Body -- Will save you a trip to the repair shop if

    you drop
    > > the thing.
    > >
    > > Etc.
    > > Etc.
    > > Etc.
    > >
    > > Anyone know of a faq like that?

    >
     
    Dick, Jun 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dick

    bruce sayers Guest

    "Dick" <> wrote in message
    news:CMwLa.57026$...
    >
    > I had to refresh my memory of "focal length" and looked it up:
    >
    > FOCAL LENGTH
    >
    > This is the distance (in mm.), in an optical system, from the lens (or
    > primary mirror) to the point where the telescope is in focus (focal

    point).
    > The longer the focal length of the telescope, generally the more power it
    > has, the larger the image and the smaller the field of view. For example,

    a
    > telescope with a focal length of 2000mm has twice the power and half the
    > field of view of a 1000mm telescope. Most manufacturers specify the focal
    > length of their various instruments; but, if it is unknown and you know

    the
    > focal ratio you can use the following formula to calculate it: focal

    length
    > is the aperture (in mm) times the focal ratio. For example, the focal

    length
    > of an 8" (203.2mm) aperture with a focal ratio of f/10 would be 203.2 x 10

    =
    > 2032mm.
    >
    > JK How do we apply the above to te C5050 and the C4000 for example? could
    > you site one you would look at to make a decision with?
    >
    > Dick
    >
    > "JK" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > >
    > > Tesselator wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Dick" <> wrote in message

    > news:ADiLa.127379$...
    > > > > The Olympus C-4000 4MP has a wonderful Macro feature going to about

    > one inch
    > > > > to take a shot of a bee. The C4040 4.1 MP, suposedly a super set of

    > the
    > > > > C-4000 does not have that super Macro and begins near 8". The new

    > C5050
    > > > > 5MPhowever is outfited with that macro of near 1".
    > > > > So either I seek the C4000 4MP or the C5050 at 5MP.
    > > > > What other cameras have such a Macro near 1" ?
    > > >
    > > > Many (all?) models in the CoolPix line have 4cm or less in macro mode.
    > > >
    > > > > This News group seems very focused near the 3MP. I have read all

    your
    > posts
    > > > > comparing te A40/A60/A70 With te Nikon 2100/3100 looked at the

    > pictures, but
    > > > > have no such input for the C4000 Olympus nor any for the C5050 to

    see
    > if I
    > > > > would ever need such resolutions of 4MP/5MP and the expense of them.
    > > >
    > > > It's probably just a result of the depth of the average consumers
    > > > pocket-book. Both the 4040 and the 5050 are excellent cameras I will
    > > > buy a 5050 soon I think to add to my collection. Don't be put off by
    > > > the working range of a camera's macro mode which in the 4040 is 0.2 -

    > 0.8 m
    > > > but rather focus your attention of the level of magnification it is
    > > > capable of. I would much rather have a working range of a foot or

    more
    > > > if I could still get the same magnification as a macro engeneered to
    > > > operate at minute distances.

    > >
    > > Since the cameras being discussed have lenses of almost
    > > the same focal lengths and sensors of similar sizes,
    > > the degree of "magnification" will vary depending on the
    > > distance. With film cameras, magnification is the ratio of the
    > > size on film to the size of the object. Since with digital there is
    > > no film, one should define magnification in terms of pixels per
    > > centimeter or pixels per inch of the subject. This will depend
    > > on the distance to the subject, the relative focal length the lens
    > > is set at (relative to the sensor size. For convenience,
    > > digital cameras show an equivalent focal length compared
    > > to 35mm cameras), and the resolution that the camera is set at.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > As far as the expense and usefulness of a 5MP unit I guess you alone
    > > > can answer that. What will you be using the camera for? etc.
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > I welcome suggestions beands and models to look at and consider. And

    > the
    > > > > advice of where to limit the quality persuits (weakness) I or many

    of
    > you
    > > > > may have :).
    > > > > What to do what to do....hmmmmm
    > > > >
    > > > > Dick in Hawaii
    > > >
    > > > Someone should make a FAQ if there isn't one already, of the "ideal"
    > > > features to look for in a digital camera. Like:
    > > >
    > > > The ability to go manual in as many aspects as possible.
    > > > The ability to store and transfer uncompressed images.

    > >
    > > Not that many people shoot uncompressed on consumer level cameras.
    > > The quality difference is hardly noticeable compared with shooting
    > > at low compression(SHG?), yet shooting uncompressed yeilds
    > > files that are much larger, and the much lower number of images
    > > per flash card can be very annoying.
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > The ability to add attachements (PC, Hotshoe, Tripod mount, lens

    > filters, etc.)
    > >
    > > >
    > > > Readable LCD menus
    > > > Tilt/Rotate/Swivel LCD Pannels.
    > > > All glass (coated) lens elements.
    > > > Other than plastic body frame,
    > > > USB or Serial Camera Control via computer or etc. (other than

    > downloading)
    > > > Etc.
    > > > Etc.
    > > > Etc.
    > > >
    > > > And thier _simple_ respective explaination. Like:
    > > >
    > > > USB/Ser. Cam. Control -- Will allow you to to create ultra hi res

    stop
    > motion
    > > > and time-laps motion sequences.

    > >
    > > Very few people do this.
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Non-Plastic Cam Body -- Will save you a trip to the repair shop if

    > you drop
    > > > the thing.
    > > >
    > > > Etc.
    > > > Etc.
    > > > Etc.
    > > >
    > > > Anyone know of a faq like that?

    > >

    >
    >
     
    bruce sayers, Jun 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ed Ruf

    Re: Macro and High res woes

    Ed Ruf, Jun 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,105
    Ed Ruf
    Jun 28, 2003
  2. Tesselator

    Re: Macro and High res woes

    Tesselator, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,178
    Tesselator
    Jun 29, 2003
  3. Dick

    Re: Macro and High res woes

    Dick, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,121
  4. Dick

    Re: Macro and High res woes

    Dick, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,234
    Tesselator
    Jun 30, 2003
  5. Dave Martindale

    Re: Macro and High res woes

    Dave Martindale, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    980
    Charlie
    Jun 29, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page