ALYN wrote:
No doubt about it you have an amazing shot of a dime; but a what cost???? I just ran into the bathroom along the way I grabbed a black background and my Olympus SP-800 UZ w? 14 megapixels. image stabilization and 30X zoom. I used the wide angle got down to within 2 inches. Yes, your shot is somewhat more detailed---but again at what cost, not only in money (299.10) but time and effort (maybe 15 minutes and a sore back). Now, were it not raining (which I knew was coming.) I could go any where and take more pix. I would send you a pix, but I have not yet figured out how to do it the UHH way. But--you have fun your way; I'll have fun my way.
No doubt about it you have an amazing shot of a di... (
show quote)
ALYN wrote:
Check out my reply to Hangman, re macrotubes. he sent in a pic of a dime, using tubes. I tried dupicating his results with my camera. His is micscopically better, but I wouldn't give him two cents for the difference. Well that's my dime's worth.
You are over-critical of Hamgman45 for no reason whatsoever. He is just learning macro-photography, and the dime photo is an exercise to show true 1:1 macro reproduction,
, and the lighting problems encounter with MFD. How convenient for you that you "cannot" post your "duplicated" results. In photography, results are what count.
. Website addresses to my macro-photography is easily found, lower left this post. Please show us anything similar captured with a P&S.