Conversion Lenses, Digital zoom, RAW or JPEG?

[Andrrew]

Is the 250D macro converter worth the investment or would a Hoya close-up set do the job as well. I've seen some examples on the net with some chromatic aberration on the latter.

What is the magnification factor with the 250D? 50% bigger?

What about using the digital zoom to get a higher magnification? Is there any point in using the digital zoom at all? In which situations (macro or other)? Would 1 or 2 steps of digital zoom be acceptable?

The G3 cans focus down to 15cm. Will using the teleconvertor TC-DC58N still give a 15cm minimum focusing distance, but with an extra 1.75x magnification.

Has anyone had experience with the wide angel converter WC-DC58N? What is the performance like? Is it worth it? Are there any other alternatives?

Why doesn't Canon make their digital camera lenses start at 28mm equivalent ? 35mm is really not wide enough.

I expect that in macro photography details are of high importance so it would be better to work in RAW format?

Can anyone advise me on when to work in RAW or JPEG image formats/modes?

Is there that much lost in the Superfine JPEG format?

[wingnut1]

Can't answer all your questions, but I can some;

RAW is the pure data dump from the CCD, no resampling or sharpening etc (you do it all in your editing program afterwards) and most importantly none of the white spots or jaggies that you get with Jpegs. If you want the best quality results and are prepared to spend a few minutes at the PC editing each image, then you will have a better image especially if you want to make a large print. For your everyday 6x4" however, then Jpeg is good enough and on a small print you probably will not see the difference in a Jpeg superfine and a RAW image converted to Tiff or Jpeg. One main benefit of shooting RAW is that you can save the edited file in Tiff format and tweaking it later on and saving the changes will not result in a poorer image. Every time you make changes to a Jpeg and resave it, it gets compressed again and starts to degrade by exhibiting more compression artefacts. That's why it's a good idea to save the original Jpeg as a seperate file as a backup.

Most digital cameras only go to 35mm because of the small size of the CCD to lens ratio. A bigger CCD allows a wider lens without having to have a monster width at the front elements. A 28mm equivalent lens for the same sized CCD on a G3 would probably be around 25% wider, how much bigger (and more expensive)would the camera body have to be to accommodate it?

Digital zooms only enlarge the centre portion of the image, effectively using only a certain percentage of the pixels. You are better off just using the optical zoom at maximum and cropping the image on the PC later on, this way you have much more control over the final result.

[ScottGregory]

Personally I only use the raw setting for my photos with the G3. At least the photos that I may want to print out. I would suggest using only JPEG if you simply want to post images on the web or send by email.
I have purchased the wide angle Canon lens number WD-58 which fits on the LA-DC58B. It is a fair bit heavier than the normal wide lens and is quite a large piece of glass out front. I was advised that the pictures are much clearer and sharper with this wideangle by the Canon rep. And from what I have shot so far, I would agree. The pictures are tack sharp. I use this lens for interior work with a 420 EX flash and the results are superb.

[Andrrew]

Thank you for your very helpful advice!

[dandelion]

Hi Andrrew,

I am having the same dillemma as you did for chosing a proper lens in taking macro shot...

Are considering either:
1. Getting a close-up lens
2. Getting a teleconverter (hopefull it will still focus in 15cm range), most probably Olympus T-CON17 )

Have you got the answer already? I have just come across a book on macro photography showing exceptional blurred background effects taken with teleconverter in macro mode, not sure if it work on G3 with a teleconverter on it though...

[Chardyboy]

I asked on here about the Canon 250D but no-one seemed to own/or have used one. I bought a cheapy set of close up lenses the other week (17 quid) and am please with them.

There is a thread currently running with close-up insect shots and some of the results using only the macro mode on the G3 are amazing. Perhaps I should've played around more with the macro mode before buying the close ups - but they were cheap enough so it doesn't matter

[Andrrew]

Hi dandelion

I did get the teleconverter. It's seems to do the telephoto conversion well, but not the macro. Focusing distance goes out to about 60cm and gives a much smaller immage.

I have not yet bought any close-up lenses, but I have tried a reversing adaptor ring with my 50mm Canon SLR lens reverse mounted on the front of the G3 lens adaptor. That gets really close up, with some impressive results, but with not much working distance.

[Andrrew]

Some more feedback on my experiences on this topic.

I went ahead on the suggestions above and bought the WD58, but found a considerable amount of chromatic abberation, and have since sold it to a vidoegrapher - to be used in its designed use.

[Andrrew]

I expect the WD58N, being designed for this camera would yield better results. ??

[pukkita]

andrrew, is there much price difference between both?

I've tried only a olympus wide converter, the A-28, and it has very very good quality. Haven't tried canon's, but people which did say the olympus is probably better and costs less.

[Andrrew]

Hi Pukkita

I suspect the WC-DC58N (since it was specifically designed for higher resolution digital still photograqphy on the G3) will be better than the WD58, although I have not tried it.

I see that at B&H the WC-DC58N is $160, while the WD58 is $180

(and I see the Olympu A-28 is $85!!! but out of stock. )

Does it fit the 58mm Canon lens adaptor?

[dandelion]

Hi Andrrew & Chardyboy,

Thanks for the advise. I have just bought two Kenko's close-up lenses, +3 and +10, respectively.

I stacked the two lenses together to get a +13 close-up, looks alright though the deep of field is a little bit shallow. Have got some wonderful shots but still wondering how could I post in on this site to share ??

Btw, M. Plonsky (http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm) recommends to follow the close-up lenses with a 2X teleconverter to increase the working distance, Andrrew may be u can have a try on that.