Macro on a Micro Four Thirds

A couple years back I was at Edward Gardens taking a few shots when I saw a girl with a (then) new Olympus EP-1 with an adapted Nikkor 50mm f1.8 trying to take shots of a caterpillar.  Unfortunately the lens minimal focal distance didn't let her get anywhere close enough, so I decided to let her try out my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 that I happened to be using.  

The results on her camera were outstanding.  The bright light levels let her keep the ISO (and noise) down and still retain a fast shutter speed, while the 2 stops of extra depth of field created by the small sensor allowed her to get excellent sharpness across the whole of the caterpillar, even at f4. 

I tried to take a photo of the same caterpillar a few minutes later, and could not get a shot anywhere near as good.  The thin depth of field made this very tricky, and stopping down meant I had shutter speed issues to content with.

I suspect running this lens, or another full frame Nikon mount macro of some sort with the Nikon V1 or J1 with a F mount adapter would yield truly excellent macro results, as long as there was enough light around.

Nikon D90 and Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro

EVIL Size comparison

Late last week I was in Future Shop  and decided to check out the new Nikon 1 series camera.  They had a J1 on display, but it wasn’t working.  So I did a quick eyeball size comparison between the Nikon, a Sony NEX 5n and a Olympus EPM-1.  Interestingly, the body size of the Olympus was the smallest, with the NEX similar, but a little deeper which actually makes for a nice grip.  The Nikon is taller and a little narrower.   I haven’t had a close look at the Pentax Q yet, but I’ve heard it is a lot smaller than any of the above cameras.

With no size advantage, a much smaller sensor and a high price, I cannot see any reason to buy the Nikon 1 series.  To me, this (and the Pentax Q) are $400 cameras.  The $700 - $800 MSRP is far too high, when this gets you the much superior Sony NEX-5n.