Henning Wulff wrote (edited):
>But 1:2.9 on a 6x6 doesn't let you take pictures of anything smaller
>than 162x162mm; hardly macro. Most 'macro' zooms for 35mm let you
>take frame filling pictures of smaller things, and SLR's get closer
>with a lot less fuss and more accuracy.
Well, the 28-135 and 28-70mm F2.8L get as lose as 19 inches.
So I assume you mean a true macro in which case I would have to
agree. As to your 162mm x 162mm, its near macro hence why they
refer to tehm as close up. Personally I do not take shots of insects
eyeballs so that is close enough for some nice flower compositions
among other things.
>I used to have a Rollei with
>a 3.5 Planar in the sixties for a while; a lovely camera and great
>for a number of things, but not for closeups. Also, your parallax
>error increases as the subject gets closer to the camera.
Yes, I fully realize that but the frame does compensate for the vertical
change in parallax to abnout 4 feet. And as I mentioned there are
prisms designed in the close up attachments to compensate for that
as well. So even at 10 inches from my subject with a TLR the center
of what I see on the viewing screen/lens comes out fine as the center
of what appears on the film.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
