What a pain to do, no wonder I didn't do this before. Used Step Zoom to get repeatable results and also Zoom Macro Scene mode. Used Manual focus set to closest distance in all cases. AF works the same and settles at the same minimum distance. The first line is the Zoom Macro setting of 9.6mm focal length, the rest are at the step zoom spots.
R3/4/5 Chart| Focal Length | 35mm equivalent | Lens barrel to subject | Frame width captured | Comments |
| 9.6mm | 58mm | 4mm | 21mm | Zoom Macro mode |
| 4.6mm | 28mm | 8mm | 28.5mm | Terrible quality, much barrel distortion |
| 5.8mm | 35mm | 2mm | 21mm | Still bad |
| 8.3mm | 50mm | 2mm | 20mm | Still bad |
| 14mm | 85mm | 2mm | 19mm | Still quite bad |
| 17.3mm | 105mm | 10mm | 22mm | Getting better |
| 22.3mm | 135mm | 33mm | 27.5mm | Good |
| 33mm | 200mm | 95mm | 37mm | Good (manual says 140mm closest distance) |
| Focal Length | 35mm equivalent | Lens barrel to subject | Frame width captured | Comments |
| 9.6mm | 58mm | 7mm | 19.5mm | Zoom Macro mode |
| 4.6mm | 28mm | 10mm | 29.5mm | ? (for quality see Picasa Web link below) |
| 5.8mm | 35mm | 2mm | 19mm | ? |
| 8.3mm | 50mm | 2mm | 16.5mm | ? |
| 14mm | 85mm | 45mm | 33mm | ? |
| 17.3mm | 105mm | 81mm | 42mm | ? |
| 22.3mm | 135mm | 130mm | 48.5mm | ? |
| 33mm | 200mm | 220mm | 54.5mm | Manual says 250mm closest |
It's a hellish pain to get light in on the rule at those silly 2mm distances, really impossible to work with, so the 105mm to 200mm setting works better, plus of course below about 105mm the barrel distortion is quite alarming.
Not sure where they get the "1cm" and "14cm" shooting distances from that marketing talk about. Maybe when the lens was at 200mm at closest focus it was 140mm approx from the subject to the camera body. Weird marketing talk at work here, it appears that they have never actually used the cameras at macro and measured that lens front (the plastic bit) to subject distance at all.
Test will be redone more carefully later with sample
images to show the distortion at each setting, also another set
shooting a 24mm x 32mm frame to mimic the 4:3 version of 1:1 macro in
the 35mm film world and see what the working distances are for that
"1:1 image".
Everyone can copy this shot to see how their macro behaves. It's just a cheapo toothbrush that should be available nearly anywhere and is shot with the camera on a tripod in this case, aimed down at the toothbrush at about 45 degrees.
Background is a standard Kodak grey card and a white card reflector held close to the edge of the frame to help soften the shadows. Light was very cloudy sky coming in through a window. Anti-shake was variously on or off, but so far noticed no difference, it should be off when mounted on a tripod. More tests on that at a later date.
Camera was R4 in macro (by the down button, not the zoom macro scene mode) at ISO 64 sometimes - 0.3 EV and sometimes 0 EV. Closest focus at 33mm (200mm equivalent) was achieved using Auto Focus in Spot. It seems that 95mm is the very closest I can get the lens front to the subject (centre spot focus) which agrees with the chart above. The manual says 140mm but in all cases the camera cam get closer than the book says.
First is unretouched but resized image at 33mm (200mm) ISO64 f/4.8 1/52 sec 0 EV compensation.
Second is unretouched but resized image at 14mm (85mm) ISO64 f/4.8 1/18 sec -0.3 EV compensation. Distance altered to try and get the framing the same as the first shot.
Third is unretouched but resized image at 5.2mm (31.5mm) ISO64 f/3.6 1/24 sec -0.3 EV compensation. Again distance changed to try and get similar framing, but this time the front of the toothbrush is very nearly touching the lens.
Personally I prefer the range 14 to 33mm (85 to 200mm equivalent) and the perspective distortion is less, plus the edge image quality is better than the macro at any wider setting. Using the 33mm setting does allow better space between the lens front and the subject, and with care the flash can be used. The flash is guaranteed to work at 140mm (5.5") distance in tele macro with Auto ISO, but closer does work at ISO 64 and may need some exposure compensation to fine tune the flash.
One day when the sun shines again I may repeat these shots to see how a smaller aperture (hopefully) will increase depth of field.
To close this section, here's the middle shot taken at 14mm (85mm) run through the One Button photo fix of paint Shop Pro 8, it makes a difference, and is maybe not what I'd normally do to the image. It's just here to show that the image out of the camera can be improved, plus also remember that I run the cameras in Colour Depth = Neutral and Sharpness = Normal, and that gives me more room to work and try and achieve either realistic colours or slightly improved colours as needed. The Colour Depth = Neutral also helps avoid highlight blowout, not that it's an issue here, as the light was very dull and diffuse.
The Paint Shop Pro improved example of the middle shot above. I would normally do it differently, but it's a good example of what's in the image.
