Camera Macro

imactheknife · May 13th, 2007, 08:46 AM

I had an Olympus camera that had macro and then I bought a Canon S1 IS 3.2 mega pixel camera brand new. I never looked into this feature until now and I don't think it has it. I looked into my manual and there is no mention of it. I thought for sure being an expensive camera 2 years ago it would have it. Anyways can some cameras have an automatic macro setting? Look at these picture close ups and tell me if it's not macro?

Dr.G. · May 13th, 2007, 09:36 AM

Great macro shots. I have the Canon S2 IS, and really like the camera. I hear that Canon just came out with an S5.

Rob · May 13th, 2007, 09:52 AM

Steve's Digicams Review of the S1

It looks like you can focus down to about 4 inches at the wide angle end, but only 3 feet at the telephoto end.

scootsandludes · May 13th, 2007, 11:37 AM

It's not macro. That's just close ups. True macro, we would be looking at the veins or whatever they're called on the petals, or the pollen in the centre. Also everything else in the background would be out of focus.

Here's one I did last summer, it's not a true macro either, but it's a little closer.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/61/22...69061f83_o.jpg

Notice the hairs on the butterfly's back? If it was a true macro, we would be looking at that more intensely. Also notice how the background is nicely out of focus. That's called bokeh. Most macros you would see more of that, but notice how even just an inch away, like the end tail bit of the wing, it starts to loose focus?
I was using a DSLR, and the lens I used was a 35-70 2.8 with a claimed macro settings. I say claimed, because it's not a true macro lens. This lens would be considered high end amateur, low end professional, so it's not cheap, but affordable for what it is. So considering the quality, I'm just saying just cause it say's it has a macro setting, it's usually just a marketing term to sell camera's and lens. True macro lens are very expensive, and the best ones are usually use bellows just so you can get it to focus so close.

vince
(wondering why I can't link pics to ehmac today?)

MacMaster · May 13th, 2007, 12:16 PM

Macro is a very abused term today (similar to "turbo").

"Macro" (in photography) generally refers to a 1:1 life size ratio. "Micro" refers to larger than 1:1 (as in microscope).

In terms of a 35mm SLR camera, if you take a photograph of a coin with a true macro lens, that coin would be 100% the same size on the negative or slide as it is in real life. The printed image would be larger. Generally the lens would be 50mm in size.

The term macro today refers to close focus - but does not necessarily mean 1:1 life size ratio. A true "Macro" lens for an SLR ensures edge to edge focus and exposure for exacting detail and copy work. Most close focus lenses on today's compact digital cameras will suffer from focus and exposure fall off around the edges and in particular the corners. Sometimes this can be an effective tool (like when shooting flowers), but for the the most part it is simply a deficiency in the lens design.

Most point & shoot digital cameras are able to produce great "close up" photographs due to their lens size and design. Some video cameras can actually focus on the front element allowing you to see every bit of dust and scratches.

The lens design in most compact digital cameras is generally much smaller because the CCD sensor is much smaller than the equivalent 35mm film. This is why many of today's compact digital camera lenses are in the range of 7-21mm for a 3x zoom as opposed to a 35-105mm in a 35mm camera.

Today's smaller lenses are much more forgiving when it comes to focus. The lenses produce much greater depth of field (depth of focus) which makes it more difficult to achieve great looking portraits with shallow depth of field.

So to answer your question, your pictures are close ups not a true "macro".