Macro ~ what I lose in detail I make up in colour and depth?

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

Doesn't look like you lost too much detail, at least with the fly. Nicely captured.

[JBW]

Doesn't look like you lost too much detail, at least with the fly. Nicely captured.

No, not a lot and the additional colour and overall quality more than make up for it. But I am curious what I could do with a dedicated macro lens of good quality. Don't tell my wife what i just wrote.

[chauncey]

One should be careful what ya wish for...https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/

[Dave Humphries]

~ I am curious what I could do with a dedicated macro lens of good quality.

About the best fly shot I have shot is this one: http://www.pbase.com/dhumphries/image/126181042, it was shot with a Nikon 105mm Macro lens.

The problem you are no doubt already finding with the Sony A58 is that for a given aperture number, with a large sensor you get a lot less DoF than you did with your FinePix S4200.

If you're interested in seeing more examples, have a look at the two July and October PAD links in my signature block below. They are slideshow links, but if you click on an image link, you should see EXIF data and be able to click through the shots manually with your keyboard left/right arrow keys.
If it says 105mm, it was the Macro lens, but if it says 200mm or 300mm, it was probably a telephoto zoom lens. In either case, they are also likely to have been cropped in PP to enlarge things further.

I think you're doing quite well considering you don't have one - yet

[JBW]

About the best fly shot I have shot is this one: http://www.pbase.com/dhumphries/image/126181042, it was shot with a Nikon 105mm Macro lens.

The problem you are no doubt already finding with the Sony A58 is that for a given aperture number, with a large sensor you get a lot less DoF than you did with your FinePix S4200.

If you're interested in seeing more examples, have a look at the two July and October PAD links in my signature block below. They are slideshow links, but if you click on an image link, you should see EXIF data and be able to click through the shots manually with your keyboard left/right arrow keys.
If it says 105mm, it was the Macro lens, but if it says 200mm or 300mm, it was probably a telephoto zoom lens. In either case, they are also likely to have been cropped in PP to enlarge things further.

I think you're doing quite well considering you don't have one - yet

Not yet... dangerous words. Especially as the recommended one comes in at about 800 US$.It is true about the lot less for a given aperture number. The up side is that I have so many more aperture numbers to play with.

[Ziggy]

Nice looking fly Brian.

[JBW]

Nice looking fly Brian.

he or she was just sitting there as I wandered past and i was curious how the camera would perform.

[Ndukes]

No, not a lot and the additional colour and overall quality more than make up for it. But I am curious what I could do with a dedicated macro lens of good quality. Don't tell my wife what i just wrote.

Consider a set of macro close-up filters (as I referred to in a reply to an earlier post by you recently) or better still perhaps, a set of macro extension tubes. Either will be cheaper than a dedicated macro lens and should work well with your lens. Back in the pre-digital age I used macro tubes to good effect.
Optically the tubes are a better solution as they have no optics but merely increase the distance between lens and sensor. They should maintain the auto focus and aperture connections from camera to lens. They are more expensive that close-up filters but significantly cheaper than a macro lens. Also there is the added risk of importing dust and moisture when you remove your lens to fit or remove them. If you go for the (tubes) option, best to fit/remove them in a dust and moisture free environment if possible.
I am following your progress with the A58 with great interest and, judging by your posted images, you clearly have adapted to the larger format very well. Hope you can sort out some of the software issues but, I must say, the images as posted are not showing any limitations. I suppose this becomes more of an issue when printing.
Hope this helps.

[bnnrcn]

I like the image Brian, nice colors and IMO enough details

[JBW]

I like the image Brian, nice colors and IMO enough details

it is easy to look good with a photogenic model