The next time I was camera shopping (a year or so later) the macro capabilities were an important part of the decision. I had the
Aside from the color accent feature I have yet to replace the macro capabilities of these fixed lens cameras with my digital SLR. And really why should I? Why should I go out to find and purchase a macro lens that may or may not completely fit my needs when my fixed lens cameras do exactly what I want? The Canon S2 IS even has this handy flip out and around LCD. I always tell anyone that if anything should happen to that S2 I will have to replace it with the latest version available at the moment. Right now the latest version is the S5 IS. The S5 has more megapixels than my S2 and it has a hot shoe for Speedlite flashes, mine does not. I am sure there are many other super cool enhancements over my almost three-year old camera but as long as they keep that super macro mode with the 0 cm minimum focus distance I will buy one.
Why do I need to consider purchasing a macro lens for my SLR? I mean, I could, I would use it. At some point I most likely will get one. BUT in the mean time I don't think I really "need" it. I can take macro-ish-like photos with the SLR and the zoom I have now. I am pleased with many of those shots. But to get up close, use the natural light, and get that super macro shot with super thin depth of field the S2 or the old
What have I bought lately? More ink (I am always running out of magenta or light magenta this time it was light magenta and yellow), some matte paper to try out, Ilford Smooth Pearl paper to try, a Manfrotto 190XPROB tripod and Manfrotto 808RC4 3-way pan/tilt head. I haven't tried the papers yet. Hurray! the ink came before I ran out of light magenta completely. The tripod and head are awesome but it is heavier than I was hoping. Last time I bought a tripod based on it being light I was unhappy with it (rickety) so I will love this being heavy (sturdy) and being a good tripod for me.