Interceptor,
When they list "Macro", they mean at wide angle...and it is from the sensor..not the front of the lens. I have Canon S series, G series, the Pany LX5 and the Oly ZX1 in small camera's (0k I also have several Fuji).
If these were an slr lens, then the closest focus would stay the same through out the entire zoom range, so maximum "macro" is at maximum zoom. But that is not what happens with these lens...as you zoom the distance goes out. Problem is, you cannot tell by the first number, how well they work when zoomed.
Nor can you tell by looking at the zoom range how much the lens will move, or the pattern (some just move out.. some move back and then out).
Compare, for example, the LX5, S95 and the R100..
LX5 listed macro distance is 1 cm (if you lay a paperclip on the housing port, the camera will focus on it)
S95 listed macro distance is 5 cm (but it only goes to 28mm, while the LX5 is a 24mm camera)
R100 is listed at 5 cm, or identical to the S95.
Try using any of these camera's underwater at those distances...as lighting would be impossible.
So you zoom out, and this is what you get:
LX5 goes to 1 foot (but it does not have the same maximum zoom as the other two camera's)
S95 is around 1.2 feet, and is a bit better magnification than the LX5.
R100 is 21.7 inches, and by far the worst of the three.
As a side note, the stock 14 - 42 mm lens that comes with any Panasonic micro 4/3rds camera is almost identical to the LX5 for magnification.
Oh, and I would expect the G12 to be better than all of the above (my last G series is the G10, and have not checked the G12).
So if you want a camera to carry with you to shoot a variety of different things, if you tend to like wide angle, the LX5 is the winner and if you like to shoot small stuff, the S95 is a bit better.
If you don't mind spending more money, then one of the 4/3rds will cover a better range and not be much bigger. But with that, you get the advantage of changing as time goes by. (and speed and image quality between the R100 and the other camera's)
But lots of people like to shoot super macro, and from what I can tell, the R100 would seem to be state of the art, and a far better deal over many of the much more expensive options. Actually, if one can afford it, it would make a great setup to take on a trip, along with a camera for wide angle shots. It would give you an emergency backup, it is not that big, and I would guess the total weight (over carrying extra lens and ports) would not be that bad. To be honest, even the cost, while more, would not be that bad (the pany 45mm macro is around $900 all by itself).
One other note, image tests of the R100 have shown that the lens has serious corner sharpness issues at wide angle settings, and putting a wet lens on any camera never improves that (would expect it to get worse). And while cropping of a macro image works really well, cropping a wideangle/fish eye sort of kills the reason for shooting the image.
Had the R100 actually been the same as the S95, I would already have one on order.
Note about using add on lens: To many people, taking neat pictures of say, tiny sea horses, is what macro photography is all about (happen to love the example in the R100 images). But some people are actually doing an entirely different type of photography. As I don't know a name for it, I'll call it discovery photography. It may just be new to the person taking the picture, or really new, as in never before seen new. But it takes a camera that is capable of taking a wide range of images. Sometimes it is a common fish, that is difficult to photograph. Sometimes it is an entirely new family. Or it just might be a new species to the area you dive in. If you like doing this type of photography, then the wider the range, the better the camera is. I average just over 4 new species a year (for well over 30 years) and if I had to change lens to get an image, would not have 2/3rds of them. It is the difference between actually going to africa and going to an adventure park. In the later, you know what you will be seeing, in the former, you don't.
Oops did not read the title in the page!
In terms of focus distance the specs say 5 cm which is the same of the S95 but not as close as the G12
Looking at those pictures the supermacro works however the exif says 1500x1500 whilst this camera should shoot 6000x4000 so I guess there is a bit of cropping there
This camera as less zoom than the Canon S95 and less than the G12 that is not such a bad thing for wet lenses I wonder if they will post some wide angle pictures
I agree with puffer fish and I wonder why the shots are not taken with smaller aperture, looking at the sea horse you see a F5.6 1/125 with the result that the background is blurred it is possible that this is intentional but would be nice to see what the camera does at F11?