for example if I want to shot insects and fill the
entire frame with the inscet body , wouldnt the nikon be a better
choice for me ? since the nikon can fill the frame with just 4x5 mm
Be careful what you're comparing, Mike -- I wonder if that 4x5 mm
that's in your mind came from Lin Evans' response to your "Help
me!" thread. He mentioned a 1/4" subject width (6.3 mm), and he was
just giving you a ready example: it would be achievable only via a
supplementary lens (I would guess an accessory from Nikon's popular
range). If you read Phil's review, you'll find that the minimum
subject width for the CP995 with its nomal, built-in lens at
minimum focussing distance (i.e. "native" macro capability) is 19
mm not 5. It's clearly evident from a shot of a steel rule.
OK, that's about twice the native maximum "magnification" of the
Minolta D5, which is slightly higher in turn than the D7. But to
achieve the maximum capability of the CP995 you will be working at
about 20 mm or less from your subject. As others have pointed out,
that is extremely close in practical terms, and has its own
disavantages such as subject interference, potential difficulty
with lighting, and accentuated perspective.
We can all only throw in our own individual ways of looking at
this. In my case, I'll be going for the D7 when it arrives. I think
that the built-in capabilities of the 7x zoom with its native macro
performance (albeit less than that of the CP995) is the more
versatile package
for my purposes . A supplementary closeup lens
or two should close the remaining gap, against the native 995
capability, to give me all the macro performance I'll ever need;
i.e. I'll be heading in the same direction as Wayne (below). A big
plus
I feel is that it achieves its maximum macro performance at
a lens-to-subject distance vastly greater than a CP995 set for the
scame subject scale factor. I'm guessing, obviously, but for the
same 49 mm frame fill on the 995 (to match the D5), it's still
going to be uncomfortably close to the subject. Having said that,
who's going to complain about Lin's bee shots? (Although he did
make the point that the bees were more placid at that time of year!)
I also have an extremely high aversion to chromatic aberration, and
the D5 and D7 appear to have a sizeable advantage here. But that's
not to say that I don't respect the CP995 as a bloody good camera
from all that I've read! You run the possibility of bugs and the
occasional total lemon in even the best brands. You've been given
assurances about this by seasoned CP9xx users, and I believe you
can buy a 995 with confidence if its feature set fills your needs.
While other cameras most certainly can take advantage of
supplementary lenses, Lin's biggest point for the 995 was perhaps
that, in addition to its impressive
native macro capability, this
camera is known to interface very well with microscope and
telescope eyepieces -- largely because of its unusually small lens
barrel diameter but presumably also because of its internal design.
There's an interesting and, I think, rather entertaining thread
going at the moment to do with this:
"Canada Goose at 440 feet"
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&page=1&message=1285445
In the end it's your decision as to what combination of built-in
features, versus what you can do with accessories, represents the
most practical package for the bulk of your shooting. I honestly
believe the reliability issue is a long way down the list. The
important thing here is to buy -- whatever your choice -- from a
reputable dealer who will be on-side should you be unlucky enough
to have problems.
MF
Wayne
Wow! I can't believe I missed that, I guess my eyes are not what
they used to be...
so , again , no camera can go head to head with the nikon , why is
that , what is so special about nikon that ONLY they can get so
close ?
is there a way to make other cameras to get closer ?
thanks
