"Dick" <Tungfree@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:QBwLa.57021$98.1923570@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I did not have the facts on the macro of the c4040 before me but it seemed
> way bigger focal distance, so I went to the below site to compare again
>
> http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/productcompare/productcompare.asp
>
> Note that the macro focus distance of the C4040 is 7.9" to 31.5" not as
> short as you write below, while both the C-4000 and the C5050 have 1" - 8"
> in Super Macro and 8" to 31" Macro.

I said: "the 4040 is 0.2 - 0.8 m"   2 tenths of a meter is 20 centimeters.
20 centimeters sure sounds like 7.9 inches to me.

                                                      O :-)



>  I wish that you were correct in saying  "...Don't be put off by the working
> range of a camera's macro mode which in the 4040 is 0.2 - 0.8 m but rather
> focus your attention of the level of magnification it iscapable of..."

first, I guess my expirience is a little wide as I've had exposure to many
different cameras with lenses of varring focal lengths so in lou of what
JK had to say:
                  "Since the cameras being discussed have lenses of almost
the same focal lengths and sensors of similar sizes, the degree of
"magnification" will vary depending on the distance."
                                                        My comment doen't
carry as much weight as it would have if this discussion were open to a widder
range of camera models and lenses.  Good call JK!



> Can you explain the leavel of maginfication that I should focus on I do not
> imediatly know what to look for.

Also as JK clarified "magnification" in this sense should be measured in
pixels per inch or pixels per CM.  which is correct ofcourse.  With this
in mind it's simple math to abstract the "Magnification" based on the
dot-pitch (resolution) of YOUR output device.

Monitors are about 72 dpi (max) etc. etc.



>  I do not have a long tome to decise on the C4040  if by chance Olympus made
> an error in teir spec sheet on the C40404 please please inform mr quickly!!!
> ICan get the C4040 used for about $399 shipped to me if it is not sold soon.
> if the focal distance is what I stated above what is your opinion then?

Ya,  /maybe/ not what you're looking for (?).



> Tomorrow Sunday I am considering looking into getting a refurbished C5050
> from some dealers.

I briefly looked at the 4040... but played extensivly with the 5050...
So without being able to compare the two models directly I can only
say how impressed I was with the 5050!  So impressed infact I'm adding
it to my collection having just bought a 5700 (Nikon) only a few months
ago.  But that's me...  My wife and kids are thoroughly convinced that
in just a few years the entire family fortune will have been invested in
cameras.  Heh!  You should see my cam-corder equiptment...

                                                            O :-P


> Anyond have experience getting refurbished Digital cameras? Pro...? Con...?

I almost always buy used (from a used SHOP!) and then have them send it off
to the manufacturers for "referbbing" shortly after purchasing on the 3month
(or whatever) warrentee that the shop offers.  I /always/ get back a camera
that has been hand tuned, bios upgradded, etc. and so is really better than
new.

Nikon is the best for this and Sony is the worst!  But any digital camera
manufacturer who also had some fame in the 35mm SLR sector will probably
be good for this kind of practice.



> > > The Olympus C-4000 4MP has a wonderful Macro feature going to about one inch
> > > to take a shot of a bee. The C4040 4.1 MP, suposedly a super set of the
> > > C-4000 does not have that super Macro and begins near 8". The new C5050
> > > 5MPhowever is outfited with that macro of near 1".
> > > So either I seek the C4000 4MP or the C5050 at 5MP.
> > > What other cameras have such a Macro near 1" ?
> >
> > Many (all?) models in the CoolPix line have 4cm or less in macro mode.
> >