Hi Shel, Yesterday I was in the Camera World store here in Oregon, and they gave me a free cd from Photoflex about lighting. I'm looking for studio/strobe lights. The CD-ROM was very helpful. They have numerous samples and one them showed how they photographed a minature car. It is very detailed with regards to digital set up, ie white balance, etc. But it also goes thru their selection of f-stops, lights, shutter speed, etc. that shows how the photo changes with each change.
The minature car sample was interesting as they were able to make it look like a real car. Might be of some value to you, and it is free. I would think you would find it at any reasonbly-sized photo store. Have a good one... --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is ZERO advantage to using macro lenses > at subject distances covered by normal lenses. > Actully there is usually a disadvantage, so using > a macro lens for non macro work makes no > sense and my comments were certainly not for that > case! > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: A Question About Macro Lenses > > > "J. C. O'Connell" objected to my opinion and > responded: > > "I don't agree (1): > > The major differences between macro lenses and > non-macro > lenses is that macro lenses have special optical > designs > which optimize near field usage in the range of 1:1 > to 1:10 (approx). > They have different OPTICAL designs. It is not just > a matter of close > focus capability, that can be achieved by putting > non-macro lenses on > tubes or bellows but they will not perform nearly as > well a true macro > lenses because just increasing close focus ability > without the optical > redesign yields mediocre results....." > > I am well aware that the optical designs are very > different but in real > world actual usage, the major difference is that the > macro lenses focus > closer. At f/8 or f/11 both lenses are at optimal > resolution and I don't > think you'll see an appreciable difference in image > quality when both > lenses can focus on the subject. If the 105mm lens > required an extension > tube to focus on the subject then the macro lens > would probably > outperform it. Refer to the original question. The > images were shot at a > distance where both lenses were able to focus on the > subject. At that > distance, the macro lens did not yield a > substantially better image than > the 105. I am not at all surprised that it did not. > > Tom Reese > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
