Not crazy at all, especially if you want great detail in a subject in the mid ground, you just have to frame your shots from further back as I did here with a Tamron 90mm f2.8..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Larger:-http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/image/76105236.

I would use wide angle 90% of the time though as a wide depth of field is what is normally required..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

Addition: Since lots of my friends and family love my pictures (hey, it's friends and family ofcourse) I used to sell them photo's (size 35x45cm) to frame and hang on their walls. Now I look at http://www.williamsphotographic.com/digital/dig2.html.

And it seems I won't be able to do that anymore with the 8.2MP that I will get out of that Canon eos 30d that I want to buy!? Do I really should go oldskool (analog) again since I don't have thousands of dollars to spend?As you notice, newbie to the bone......

There's loads of people here very happy with 20x30 prints from a 6mpix camera..

You could buy a used Canon film body off ebay ($50-$75) and add that to your kit. It will share lenses happily with your 30D.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..

There is no law that says you can only use a macro lens to take macro shots. They are just as good for as any other lens in the same focal length, for the same sort of shots..

The advantage of a macro lens is (usually) that it allows you to focus a little closer to the subject, and the image *should* be corrected to project as flat as possible across the image plane. This reduces distortion towards the corners. Not a bad thing, even for landscapes..

Crime Scene PhotographyA small gallery of personal work: http://picasaweb.google.com/PID885..

Found enough information about the size vs MP thing..

However, reading for hours now, and more information is resulting in more doubts. mmmmm eos 30D or eos 400D......

Fine grain 35mm film and transparency is grain limited for enlargement. In essence this means you can't enlarge enough to reach resolution extinction because grain gets in the way before reaching this limit..

Digital in general doesn't have this limitation so it's indeed possible to enlarge to the point where resolution exhaustion becomes apparent. But here's an important consideration:.

You must consider not only the number of pixels (loosely correlated to optical resolution) but more importantly subject matter when determining the enlargement potential of a digital capture. Let me explain. If you have a subject such as a head and shoulders portrait, and you take this image with a good three megapixel dSLR such as the Canon D30, you can get excellent prints far beyond even A0 size. Why? Because those three million pixels were "sufficient" to resolve all "desired" detail in a small geographical frame. But what if your image consisted of a hyperfocal wide angle landscape with nearly infinite detail? Now you have a totally different issue because those three million pixels can't possibly resolve the tiny detail of millions of pine needles, leaves, blades of grass, grains of sand, etc. To do that demands many more capture pixels per unit of geography..

So the answer is either use a higher optical resolution capture device (maybe more pixels or maybe different technology such as Foveon X3) or, and even more important, concentrate the pixels you have on a smaller geographical area then take multiple overlapping images and stitch them seamlessly in one of the very good stitching software packages available. Of course this isn't "always" possible, but in very many cases it's quite an acceptable way to vastly increase your resolution and enlargeability factor..

In short, it's "easier" in many cases to get better enlargeability with even a moderate six megapixel digital camera than with the finest grain 35mm transparency or negative capture. Of course to be technically correct, you can do the identical thing with film by scanning overlapping photos then stitching, but bottom line? It's much, much more time consuming and difficult..

If you have a choice, go with the XTi for the additional couple megapixels and stop warring about whether you will be able to match the results you obtained with the old 35mm film camera. You will easily "exceed" the quality and enlargeability with only a tiny amount of effort and with much less "fuss"..

Lin.

D0000b wrote:.

From my childhood on I used the analog camera (minolta srt100) frommy father. Now that I'm old enough to buy my own (and since theminolta is already broken since 3 years) I am going to get me theCanon eos 30D. I already have a canon EF 38-76mm lens from mysisters Eos1000f that I hope I can still use on my new eos 30D, sowhen I was looking which lens I should buy, I realise that I havebeen using an osawa MC 1:3.8 70-150mm macro lens with that oldminolta for taking landscape pictures (trees) during years, and Inever realised a macro lens isn't meant for that in the firstplace. Is it crazy to buy a macro lens again for taking picturesfrom treas (and surrounding landscape?)..

Caoedhen wrote:.

There is no law that says you can only use a macro lens to takemacro shots. They are just as good for as any other lens in thesame focal length, for the same sort of shots..

The advantage of a macro lens is (usually) that it allows you tofocus a little closer to the subject, and the image *should* becorrected to project as flat as possible across the image plane.This reduces distortion towards the corners. Not a bad thing, evenfor landscapes..

Crime Scene PhotographyA small gallery of personal work: http://picasaweb.google.com/PID885.

A good lens is a good lens. You pay extra for the macro capability, but that doesn't mean it can't be used for anything else. Sometimes I shoot with a 180mm Macro, but while out in the field spot an opportunity. Works just fine..

If it's a lousy lens, it's also going to be lousy for all purposes....

Dave..

Don't worry too much about theory. Most of us have huge prints from small cameras. Like 32" x 24" from 5 mp....

If you have a printer or access to one and editing software (lots of free stuff available for this, btw) then just pick a sample from the review on this site and chop it up to a bit about 1500 by 1200 pixels and print that as 8" by 10" (that's about 150 ppi). Stand back as though it was a larger picture hanging on a wall and then decide. You ought to get a pleasant surprise..

Regards, David..

The Osawa 70-150mm zoom lens you used on your old camera merely had the focus range extended by the manufacturer to allow close focusing into macro size. I won't comment on the likely lens quality except to say that you could get into the macro range successfully but the lens was designed mainly for middle to far distances. This is true for most consumer zooms which include "macro." Quality acceptable but not specifically designed for close distances. A true macro (or micro as some call it) lens is optimized by design for 1:1 or 1:2 closeup quality. You can rack out for distance shots with OK success, but you'll likely not equal or better the quality of a standard lens...

The idea of using a macro lens for landscape made me think you were going to photograph each leaf and blade of grass lifesize and then do a huge montage....

</;-).

Regards, David..