Help me with "macro capability"

[sascha]

My dh surprised me with a 300mm lens for my Olympus E-410. Reading through the insert it said that it had macro capability. Try as I might, nothing came close to getting macro. Do I absolutely need to have it on a tripod (he got me one of those, too) and just mess with it until I get there, and will it just be mediocre macro, or really convincing? From all the posts I've gone through it seems like you need an actual macro lens to get a true shot.
Thanks!

[RoyL]

As you have not posted any images have no idea on what you have tried to do. Macro is a very loosely defined word, some say 1:1 ratio but others say closeup which can mean just about anything.

Yes, if shooting macro shots it is always best to stabalize the camera, even if it is with a bean bag. Close up photography is not as unforgiving as other types and movement ruins shots. I also reckon that it is best to use manual focus through the viewfinder (not those horrible lcd screens) as it is more accurate, you can still refer to the little square in the center to check for in focus shots.

And no you do not have to have a true macro lens to get good images. If you wanted you could get a reversing ring to reverse your lens, this will give reasonable shots, and then get really crazy and add a set of macro tubes and get in even closer. This subject has been raised on DPS before an only last week there was a thread on Macro filters.

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by RoyL

As you have not posted any images have no idea on what you have tried to do. Macro is a very loosely defined word, some say 1:1 ratio but others say closeup which can mean just about anything.

Macro means at least 1:1. Strictly speaking anything less isn't macro so I don't think that is loosely defined at all.

However, with smaller sensors in compacts being so popular and with their, often very impressive, close focusing capabilities it would be a shame to discriminate against them. Very few images from compacts are true macros but they could easily give a closer view than a true macro taken on a DSLR with a larger sensor which is where I think the loosely defined bit comes in for some people. It doesn't help when lens makers call a lens that can barely manage 1:3 a macro lens as all that means is it can focus closer than you would normally expect a lens of that type to focus.

Essentially macro has lost it's meaning. If I see a shot described as a macro I do not assume it is uncropped and the magnification known so that I could get an accurate indication of the size of the subject. I do not assume manual focus was used and DoF/sharpness carefully considered either. Macro is now treated like it's just a snazzy word to stick on a camera or lens.....but at the end of the day if it's a cool pic I don't think it really matters what you call it or how you took it

[KodiakStar]

Guessing you have the, what is it... 70-300 Zuiko Digital lens?

If so, it does 1:2, but not 1:1.

With the E-410, the tripod will really help since you don't have image stabilization.

To get 1:1, you would want to get the EX-25 Extension tube ( http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/prod.../lenses/ex-25/)

[sascha]

Thanks for all the replies, Kodiakstar I do have the Zuiko you described, so now I understand the 1:1, 1:2.
Now I'll be sure if I ever post my work taken with this lens I'll to be sure to call it a super closeup and not a macro

[daft_biker]

Doubt a 25mm extension tube will make a 70-300 do 1:1, especially not at the 300mm end. Longer lenses need more extension to increase magnification significantly....I think you need the focal length of the lens in extension tubes to get 1:1 with the lens set to infinity focus. Minimum focus will reduce the amount of extension required to get to 1:1 but 25mm isn't really a lot of extension to put on a 70mm lens....2 25mm extension tubes might be more like it but it still won't do much at the 300mm end.

Alternatively a 2x teleconvertor would double magnification from 1:2 to 1:1 regardless of the focal length the lens is set to.

[KodiakStar]

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...jump_to=894902

Farther down has the difference between having the EX-25 on, and off.
And in standard 35mm format, its really more of a 140-600mm lens.

i was asking about this earlier as well.... all ive got is a 55-250 zoom lens and a 18-55 kit lens. i was told to try a Raynox adapter!?! i know nothing of these, so ill need to do more research. i was also looking at macro filters. what would be the easiest way for me to get some macro shots with out buying a macro lens?

[KodiakStar]

Originally Posted by ntinlizi

i was asking about this earlier as well.... all ive got is a 55-250 zoom lens and a 18-55 kit lens. i was told to try a Raynox adapter!?! i know nothing of these, so ill need to do more research. i was also looking at macro filters. what would be the easiest way for me to get some macro shots with out buying a macro lens?

Here are a couple from the DPS Blog
Extreme Macro
Super Macro

The filters can also work in a fix I've heard, or there is the super jiminyclickit method!

awsome, thank you, thats just what i was looking for