Hey...this MACRO stuff is cool.

[bvar22]

Until tonight, I have never used the "Macro" setting on my camera (Olympus C-750UZ), and thought I would experiment for the new contest.
I selected MACRO from the internal programming menu, and the lens scrolled out to its max length. I lost the ability to "zoom", but the autofocus (set to "spot") still worked well.

I placed these tiny beads, some thread, and a paper clip on a piece of window glass set on blocks with a florescent light
"bottom lighting" the beads and thread. I was able to get the camera lens within 2" (estimated) of the beads before the autofocus went out.
This shot is semi handheld (braced on the glass itself) , Manual Settings F3.5, 1/2sec, iso50, FL 10.9MM


The composition, lighting, and focus needs work, but I'm pleasantly surprised with the results of this experiment.
This forum, the challenges, and the contests has motivated me to try things I would not have done on my own.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. That is VERY cool...

Do you suppose if I experimented with my 10-20 mm on close-up things I'd get something like this -- not this good, of course, but the same effect? I'm going to have to do some playing around with my lenses, because this is new for me, too.

[bvar22]

2. I'm not sure.

See how close you can get to a target that offers a flat hi-contrast surface before the focus gets fuzzy.

I was amazed I could get that close.

Some others here will KNOW for sure

[RagingInMiami]

4. What other lenses do you have?

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I have the 50 mm 1.8

17-85 f/4-5.6, 70-300 f/4-5.6, and the 10-20 f/4-5.6. Am I out of luck? From the specifications, it looks like I can get closest to the subject with the 10-20, 9.4 inches. The others are about a foot and a half, I think, although with the telefoto, of course, I can get very close from a distance.

[RagingInMiami]

6. I think your best best is to ...

use the 50mm at f/1.8 for macro. You might be surprised what you end up with. Keeping the aperture wide open means you will focus tightly on your subject, but everything else will be blurred. So you have to have a steady hand.

You can also try the 17-85 fully extended to 85, with the apererture at f/4. The point is, you want to magnify your subject. A wide angle does the complete opposite.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Thanks for the advice, Raging.

You always come through. Rather than rely on my steady hand, maybe I'll use a tripod to be sure. Now to find a good subject.

[F.Gordon]

8. You should be able to get fairly close

I'm only an inch or two away on this using a wide angle... but as the term "wide" implies... it takes in a wide amount.



You might want to blow the dust off your old camera which I'm certain has a macro setting. Or you can try using one of your zooms.... cranking it to the widest point... switching to manual focus and see what you can do.

Or... quick ...get on the phone and call B&H and order a true macro lens.
:shrug:

[mogster]

10. With macro photo you also get the common macro photo question

What is that on the photo? ;-)

[F.Gordon]

11. It's not really a macro

It's the top of a small outdoor table that I snapped at night using the light coming from a nearby window. I could get fairly close.. was just showing how with a wide angle it takes in much more than what you are focusing on. The distance from your focus point is also distorted when going in close. Actually "looks" like you are farther away than you really are.

I'm sorry. What was your question?
:crazy:

[F.Gordon]

3. No way

That is too F'ng kewl. When I first glanced at it looked like one of those nano-macro photos of a DNA or sumtin'. That is way creative.
:thumbsup:

[mogster]

9. This is great!

I like that; paper clip and jewellery :-)