Title aside, your post said "s6000." Which was it, the s6000, or the s100f? I ask because I have an s6000 and just ordered (among other auxiliary lenses) a Canon 500d macro (on which I decided, after all, despite my initial thought about the Raynox). So I'm hoping it's the s6000. Also, you mention the 250; is that the Canon 250 macro? If so, why not the 500 (which seems to have a broader focal length range)? I ask because I haven't even received my lens yet and can return it if I chose badly. Thanks.
Thanks so much; and needless to say, great shots. Though surely your skill had much to do with it, they reinforce my view that the s6000 is a special camera. I've spent a year unable to pull the trigger on buying a DSLR because I shoot and scan 4x5 for large prints and for small prints, can't see a big enough advantage in a DSLR over the s6000. I'm confident that this has much to do with the 6mp on a relatively large (for a digicam) sensor, this combined with standard Fuji colors. (Maybe DPR's reporting on density will begin finally to bust the idea that more megapixels are always better.) So while I like what I see of the s100, except for image stabilization, I'm not sure I see a huge advantage, and the s100 costs more than twice as much as I paid for my s6000. Thus my purchase of accessory lenses for the s6000. Thanks again.
'
--
--The last picture reminds me of the scary movie
about a scienist who did not wash his hair before doing his mass
transfer experiment
Danny
Hi Christa,I'm leaning more and more towards keeping my "old" s6500, as well, despite > having just bought a DSLR.
Really nice macros. My favorite is #1, though Sexy Sadie's
great-great-great-grandniece (or whatever) gets a vote, too
Tony thanks for the comment, I liked that fly shot too. I forget sometimes how well these small sensor cams do macros. You make your S100 macro shots look almost effortless. Yet I know bug macros are never easy.
