Will do, after the dive.

BVA

16 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Yes, please show all the images...

+2

Which is which?

Bill

50 minutes ago, bvanant said:

어느 것이 어느 것인가요?

청구서

50 minutes ago, bvanant said:

Which is which?

Bill

My guess is that picture 1 is using mfo-1, considering the magnification.

but I think picture 2 is better for sharp quality.

I think the difference between the two pictures is very small.

The magnification is perhaps a position "issue" ..

I also find the second better.... but the differences are really small

I don't know wicht one is with the MFO1....

The magnification is perhaps a position "issue" ..

I also find the second better.... but the differences are really small

I don't know wicht one is with the MFO1....

The magnification is perhaps a position "issue" ..

I also find the second better.... but the differences are really small

I don't know wicht one is with the MFO1....

The visual difference between the photos is noticeable to a pixel peeper, but naturally, I can't judge the difference in the lens's user experience (range and AF).

Two questions come to mind:

Does the image quality (mfo-1 effect) depend on the lens used?

Is it worth spending €500?

Thanks for posting the images...👍👍👍

The difference is really small, according to my subjective judgement. When I look directly on the screen, the lower one looks a little bit more contrasty (could be easily changed with LR in postprocessing with one of the contrast sliders). When I download the images and magnify them on my screen, the upper one shows a little bit more detail...

Which lens was used (camera was OM-1?)?

=> Now I would like to have someone post similar comparisons with the Sony 90mm macro and FF...

Wolfgang

Edited May 9May 9 by Architeuthis

The MFO does add a bit of magnification in my hands.

Here is a weird sea cucumber (I thought it was a Phylidia) at first. The top photo is without the MFO the bottom with ( you can see a bit of magnification). I tried really hard to keep the camera/subject distance the same but we are in Triton Bay at full moon.

This is with the Oly 60 macro, OM1 and two AOI RC strobes in RC mode.

Differences are indeed subtle, the focus speed improvement is quite noticeable.

When we get back home, I will bring a tripod and target to the pool for some more scientific tests.

Bill

nomfo4 is way sharper - it seems that mfo4 is not in focus...

Anyway I am thankful for these interesting comparison shots...👍

Thanks Bill. In the first series, I think the first photo is with MFO - a little more magnification and sharp. The second series of the sea cucumber has some fall off of sharpness and a bit more magnification. How was the MFO in giving you working distance at the far end? Just over a meter, by spec?

(Side note - all the cameras I've used have had some difficulty locking focus on smooth nubbly pink phyllidias. It's probably me and my eyesight.)

On 5/6/2025 at 7:39 AM, bvanant said:

We are off to Flasher Beach in Triton Bay. I am pretty sure that the MFO will get me the same number of good shots as without it, meaning zero in either case.

I will try to shoot some little stuff with and without to see what we see.

Bill

Macro lens on Flasher Beach???

(Ok, I'll let myself out now)

I prefer #2 of the yellow sea cucumber and #1 of the second subject.Specifically I like the rounder bokeh on the yellow dude.

Is MFO-1 optimized for full-frame lenses like the SMC-series? Maybe it's "correcting" in a bad way on micro 4/3 systems. (Although they are supported on the compatibility chart.)

Edited May 9May 9 by jlaity

Longer distance focusing ends about seems less than a meter.

At flasher beach the MFO and without the MFO were identical, zero shots in focus (par for the course). We went back with the close focus WA and still nothing.

Bill

Till now I have plus $ 500 for the next trip 😊

Here is the last set (before the pool controlled experiment). These are with the OLY 90 macro lens (in 1:1 mode). In general the focus speed seems about the same, but it already was super speedy. These Tenelia sibogae are from Triton Bay. I THINK I can see a very slight difference but it really is hard to tell.

Bill

On 10/22/2024 at 10:50 PM, Edward Lai said:

Image quality is far better than shooting through a flat port.

- Literally no noticeable focus hunting as the MFO converts the focus range of the camera lens.

- (for Nikon Z105mm macro) focus range converted to 125mm-1100mm.

- Slightly increases magnification at MFD (Nikon Z105mm macro ~1.2X; Canon RF100mm macro ~1.6X).

I've been thinking about adding MFO1 and/or MFO3 to my collection. Also likely to want to move to the new sony 100mm macro.

In researching these additions, I found Edward's comments here. I would be really interested in hearing about new Sony 100mm macro owners' experiences with the MFO1 and 3 and whether Edward's comments about the wet lens and the functional changes to the older Nikon and Canon lenses hold true for the new Sony.

8 hours ago, foetusmachine said:

I've been thinking about adding MFO1 and/or MFO3 to my collection. Also likely to want to move to the new sony 100mm macro.

In researching these additions, I found Edward's comments here. I would be really interested in hearing about new Sony 100mm macro owners' experiences with the MFO1 and 3 and whether Edward's comments about the wet lens and the functional changes to the older Nikon and Canon lenses hold true for the new Sony.

There is another thread on this and for some reason search is not very good at finding it. Here is the key post on this thread:

https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2495-my-experience-with-the-mfo-1/#findComment-16547

Basically the MFO-1 is a very high quality low power diopter first and foremost and the hunting improvement is a secondary benefit which varies depending on the lens being used with it.

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Basically the MFO-1 is a very high quality low power diopter first and foremost and the hunting improvement is a secondary benefit which varies depending on the lens being used with it.

I can only confirm that... It is much easier to take such picture