Super macro or ultra zoom?

Hi JD, interesting experiment! The shots are great by the way! Both are perfectly sharp, with good details and rich colors.

And also very interesting theme for discussion - what is Super Macro and what is Ultra Zoom ;-)
AFAIK your camera is quite unique in that matter: S5IS allows to focus on subject virtually from 0 distance. And this is called Super Macro. I don't fully understand what is Ultra Zoom. To me both terms are mostly marketing stuff, while the real matter is on focal length and minimal focusing distance of the lens. Isn't it?

Yuri

Very good questions Yuri. Not all Hype! Yes super macro can focus down to Zero not many macros that I know of can do this. The Ultra zooms continue on where regular zooms leave off, many manufacuters are extending the power of the ultra zoom out farther and farther. U understand that Nikon is releasing a zoom that will do 24x optical!!! several others have reached 18x optical. My canon gets 12x optical and about 2.5 digital without serious degradation. How many 12x zooms can you carry in your jacket pocket? So I don't believe that it's just marketing hype, there are some real differences, in my opinion. How many zooms get more than 6x? we're not comparing apples with apples on focal length any more Either. On Larger cameras a 50 to 200 mm zoom will only get you 4x approx. on smaller cameras such as the S5 the 6 to 72 mm zoom yields 12x. Focal length is really only a measure of the distance between the optical center of the lens and the effective distance that the objects are in focus is it not? I welcome your input on this

J D

I would agree with you on every aspect, but it depends on how to look at the problem. There are two aspects:

1) The difference is on the camera type. It is easier to implement 18x zoom technically for P&S cameras with tiny imager and small lens, while it is much more difficult for SLR, though 18-300 (16x?) lens is quite a real thing.

2) Zoom factor is relative number (as you correctly noted 6 to 72 zoom lens brings 12x, but 70 to 210 only 3x), there are no absolute starting point. Most consumers would decide that having 12x zoom lens they'll get the subject 12x closer, like using a binoculars. But in the reality normal human angle of vision does not start at wide angle, right?

That's why I consider zoom factor as a "marketing" stuff, but the focal length is a real measure.

And also I would not mention digital zoom, because it is not even necessary to have a camera, just resize/crop your image in any photo editor.

This is my point of view on the subject. Your comments are very welcome! :-)

again this is not comparing apples to apples. with an 18 to 300 is in fact a 16 x ratio but normal starts around 55 so you are yielding less than 6x magnification , a 70 to 210 strs out at 1.27 mag. and zooms to 3.8 +/-. Normal on the 6/72 lens is in the 6mm range so the real yield is 12x so I feel the power not focal length is the critical factor if bring objects closer is important to you. there are certainly trade offs, To yield 18x with a "35mm" camera would require a 990 mm lens which is certainly available but not affordable to most of us. None of us would argue a 6/108 lens is equal to the 990mm so it becomes more "bang for the Buck". Keep this going Yuri, This is very interesting

Exactly! That's what I'm talking about! Normal starts actually at around 45 (there are different versions on that matter), let's assume 50 for simplicity. And this corresponds approximately to the human's viewing angle. So that should be like a "start point". And this is applicable to full frame (FF) imager (a film of FF sensor). To make it applicable to most APS-C sensors (most DSLRs) you have to apply 1.5 crop factor as the size of the sensor is 1.5 times smaller, assuming that the lenses are the same. Is 6 mm focal length length of the P&S camera lens with 1/2.5" sensor an equivalent of the "normal" 50 on FF?
And yes, it's mostly matter of bucks to have "proper" zoom factor on SLR, no doubts with that :-)
Yuri

I will hazard a guess here since I use both Super Macro and Ultra Zoom on florals. The lilies on the left are Super Macro (DOF) and the lilies on the right are Ultra Zoom. In both cases the lilies are crisp with more than adequate detail. I prefer the lilies on the right for the shading on the different angle you approached from. If I am wrong, sue me.

You beauty I was right and I know nothing. I just looked from one to the other about 6 times. so if your right yuri so am I and you two gys are right into it . I read it and it went over my head ha ! ha ! ha ! cheers Eva

Whoops I made a mistake it is not Yuri it is you Patricia Well I am on your side and I agree with you and the lilies on the right are not so blown out.

I would guess that image # 1905 was shot in "Super macro." I think a better test would include shooting a piece of news print or graph paper with these settings. The pincushion effect common with most zoom macros would have no place to hide.

My original thought when I started this blog, was to determine which was easier to used in identical situations, IF there wasn't an appreciable difference in the results. I have discovered that in certain situations there are some times shooting super macro gives superior results to the same shot UZ. I'll discuss this at the end of the month and show some examples.