Hi all, what macro setup (which macro lense-camera combination) would you buy when you could start from begin? Should have also video capabilities.

LG Susanne

Near unlimited budget, Susanne. I’m sure folks can suggest from $1000 to $100,000……. to an extent depends how serious you are on video. A very rough ballpark would be helpful.

A1 II, 90mm, Nauticam, Closeup Lens, 2x Retra Pro Max with Snoot, Video Light. Roughly 15+k€

But I think FF is not necessary, smaller sensors work in some aspects better in macro.

32 minutes ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

... Video Light...

It's easy to say "videolight"!

But what about two Keldan 8X with ambient LEDs, aren't you going to throw those in too?

2 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

But I think FF is not necessary, smaller sensors work in some aspects better in macro.

Intersting... why ? wich aspect ?

I'll give a shot among two lenses, both 1:1 but one is FF and the other is M43

A 1:1 magnification ratio signifies that the lens can project an image of a subject onto the camera's sensor that is the exact same size as the subject itself in real life. For instance, if you're photographing a 10mm-long insect, at 1:1 magnification, the image of that insect onto the sensor will also be 10mm long. This definition remains constant regardless of the sensor size.

• A full-frame sensor has dimensions of approximately 36mm x 24mm.

• A Micro Four Thirds sensor is smaller, at about 17.3mm x 13mm.

On your full-frame camera, the 10mm projection of the insect will take up a relatively small portion of the large 36mm x 24mm sensor.

On your M43 camera, that same 10mm projection will fill a much larger percentage of the smaller 17.3mm x 13mm sensor.

When you view the images from both cameras on a screen or in a print of the same size, the insect from the M43 camera will appear significantly larger. This is because the smaller sensor has effectively "zoomed in" on the center of the image circle projected by the lens.

While the fundamental optical magnification of both lenses is identical at 1:1, the smaller M43 sensor results in a tighter field of view, making your subject appear twice as large in the final photograph compared to the full-frame setup at the same 1:1 magnification setting.

Of course, with a 50Mp FF camera you can crop the image and you can throw away my reasoning 😁

OK same reason as for land animal shooting with the multiplication factor of the focal lenght ... but "better" camera with a FF (depending of the type of photo you want to take. ).

I'll stay with my FF 🤪

Of the ones I have tried, I thought the autofocus of the Canon R5 Mk2 with the 100mm is the best combo (once you get used to the AF).

I’ve not shot the latest Sony cameras (A9-3 and A1-2) for comparison.

I’d use this with Nauticam’s SMC and MFO lenses - because these are the best quality supplementary close up lenses I have tried.

2 hours ago, CaolIla said:

OK same reason as for land animal shooting with the multiplication factor of the focal lenght ... but "better" camera with a FF (depending of the type of photo you want to take. ).

I'll stay with my FF 🤪

Yes it can be a significant advantage for macro photography, as it allows you to fill the frame with smaller subjects without needing to get physically closer but then we should debate about specific lens...

For uw video I'm still convinced that cropped sensors have an edge on FF sensor but again, the ideal choice depends heavily on your specific needs, shooting style, and budget.

43 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Yes it can be a significant advantage for macro photography, as it allows you to fill the frame with smaller subjects without needing to get physically closer but then we should debate about specific lens...

For uw video I'm still convinced that cropped sensors have an edge on FF sensor but again, the ideal choice depends heavily on your specific needs, shooting style, and budget.

….. and you get more depth of field in macro photography with a non-FF format. Wide-angle lenses generally provide sharper edges too with non-FF.

A lot depends on what you want to do with the images. If you are wanting to make 3 ft by 6 ft prints then more pixels be more better. For 16x20 inch prints, or smaller or for sharing online then u4/3 gets you more than enough to work with. Video capabilities are beyond my understanding but both Olympus and Panasonic shoot with good enough resolution unless your unlimited budget includes an imax theater in your garage.

We just finished the scuba show in Long Beach where OCUPS had a booth. I did all the prints for the booth at 12 x 16 inches on metallic paper. We had shots from Z9, R5, D500 micro 4/3 TG7 and even some iPhone shots. Hard to tell which cameras made which pics.

Bill

7 hours ago, CaolIla said:

Intersting... why ? wich aspect ?

The key word is necessary. The meaning of this will vary among people depending on a lot of factors. For example if you only post your photos on Instagram then you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a well taken shot with a TG-7 and the best full frame setup. If you don't sell your photos you only have to please yourself. If you enter competitions the judges don't know which camera you used. Unless you are talking A2 size and larger m43 will do a perfectly good job of printing for you.

the second consideration is the OP question, which would you buy- everyone is jumping to best image quality, but there are other considerations which people might consider including:

• $$$ - full frame setup is always more, camera, housing, lenses ports are all more expensive

• size and weight, the lenses for m43 are way smaller for starters.

• size and weight impacts travelling and also pushing the rig through the water and getting into tight spaces

• Crop factor - the Olympus 60mm macro will get you the same framing as FF 100mm macro at 2x without mucking around with closeup diopters and apparently you don't need to shell out for the MFO. You can get the equivalent framing to a 100mm macro at 4x with the 90mm macro - no diopter and more working distance. Plus at given framing you get more depth of field, generally a plus for macro.

• wide choice of macro lenses - for m43 you have 90mm, 60mm, 45mm and two 30mm options

• You can add wide angle capability with minimum extra space taken up in your bag - a 4" Zen dome and and an 8mm fisheye take up next to no space.

The size and weight penalty for macro is certainly less than it is for wide angle, but you might stretch the definition to include WA macro which can be done with m43 with a lot smaller gear. I certainly find framing up easier with a macro lens without diopter you can find the subject from a distance and slowly move in closer and re-focus as you go.

So for me I don't think I'd change from what I have now. An OM-1 with 60mm macro, though I might consider adding the 90mm macro at some point. It's not a video machine but it will shoot no frills video. The choice may change depending on how much interest there is for video and what you want to do with it.

Thank you for the explanation.

In the past I shooted with a canon G5x... I founded some limits. Ok it is now an old model

That is why I moved for a R5

Main point no delay clic --> photo that change my life but you are absolutly right.. heavy, big etc... not very time the best choice.

Perhaps in the futur I ll show a smaller solution to replace my "old one" R5.

Good discussion thus far but nothing said of the shooting conditions such as light levels and water temperatures. Both of these factors can make UWP quite challenging. I know because they dominate the conditions I typically shoot in (Alaska). Water is in single digit °C with very few exceptions such as the surface waters of a lake during the late summer. I have used mostly gripped camera bodies as a result (big batteries). Currently I am using a suite of Nauticam water contact optics from EMWL to the most recently acquired MFO-1. Also have the SMC-1 with the piggyback magnifier. These are camera brand agnostic. I do NOT do vid only stills.

Edited June 6Jun 6 by Tom Kline

I dont know much about video, but for photo, having a good enhanced viewfinder will make your shooting a lot easier and more fun.

One consideration is the sensor: FF with low S/N and 14-bit/pixel and high Mpixel count vs. MFT with 12-bit/pixel and lower Mpixel count (and APS-C in the middle, but with 14-bit/pixel). I wonder how relevant this is for (mostly) flash enlighted and uncropped macro photos (maybe gigantic printouts are an exception)...

Another consideration is the lens choice. The lens offering for UW suitable lenses of the different brands is mostly meager. I have now Sony A7R5 and only two 90mm macro lenses are available (one from Sony and one from Tamron; there is an old 50mmSony macro lens also, but many use adapted lenses for shorter focal length, e.g. for blackwater).

MFT, in contrast, offers a rich choice of lenses for macro, also UW: 30mm (both Pana and Zuiko), 45mm Pana, 60mm Zuiko and the Zuiko 90mm super-macro lens...

Independend from the camera system, I would consider Nauticam EMWL for WA macro and CFWA when money is not an object...

Wolfgang

Edited June 6Jun 6 by Architeuthis

3 hours ago, Tom Kline said:

Good discussion thus far but nothing said of the shooting conditions such as light levels and water temperatures. Both of these factors can make UWP quite challenging. I know because they dominate the conditions I typically shoot in (Alaska). Water is in single digit °C with very few exceptions such as the surface waters of a lake during the late summer. I have used mostly gripped camera bodies as a result (big batteries). Currently I am using a suite of Nauticam water contact optics from EMWL to the most recently acquired MFO-1. Also have the SMC-1 with the piggyback magnifier. These are camera brand agnostic. I do NOT do vid only stills.

Ah ok, good point, mainly shooting in warm water, Macro, Supermacro (video) on the wishlist.

20 hours ago, TimG said:

Near unlimited budget, Susanne. I’m sure folks can suggest from $1000 to $100,000……. to an extent depends how serious you are on video. A very rough ballpark would be helpful.

so, let us assume 25000 Euro. Including also something like viewfinder, monitor etc... Wishlist is Macro, Supermacro still and video. Questions I ask myself, like the best macro lense, same setup for still and video, for example viewfinder or monitor, Sony: really the 90 mm which is so hard to focus ...

That's helpful, Susanne.

I'm a very keen macro shooter. For me DX/APS-C format has worked best and I switched back from FF to APS-C from a Nikon D800 to D500. Better depth of field for macro and, importantly I found, much easier to house wide-angle and get away from huge domes with the travel issues involved. But I don't shoot video. For shooting stills, I'm not convinced by the need for FF underwater - although I use FF all the time topside.

The guys make good points about HOW you intend to use the images. I sell a lot but print very little. It'd be good if you are clear on that. Of course video doesn't involve much printing!

One point I would make, I found a 45-degree finder indispensable for macro. It allows you to get lower, on the bottom if necessary, but still be able to see the viewfinder clearly. Definitely worthwhile.

And then if you are serious about macro, get a snoot and strobes that work well with a snoot, ie the focussing light is in the middle of the strobe with a circular flash tube. I use the Retra Pro Max and Retra LSD and have found this a terrific macro combination. It's my macro workhorse. Retra also has macro reducing rings which I find really useful. Here are a couple of examples:

While I fully agree that smaller sensors give more depth of field, there seems to be a mistaken belief that the goal of macro photography underwater is all about maximising depth of field. Sometimes it is. But usually it isn't.

I shoot on full frame. And this same thinking would mean you would imagine that I always have my lens closed down to maximise depth of field. Instead you will see a very wide range of apertures used.

This, as an example, is the apertures I have selected for the 4300 macro shots that remain in my Lightroom (after culling) from my shoots over the last 12 months.

I share this to make the point to show the fallacy of the sweeping statement that saying that one camera system giving more depth of field makes it better for macro.

57 minutes ago, Alex_Mustard said:

While I fully agree that smaller sensors give more depth of field, there seems to be a mistaken belief that the goal of macro photography underwater is all about maximising depth of field. Sometimes it is. But usually it isn't.

I shoot on full frame. And this same thinking would mean you would imagine that I always have my lens closed down to maximise depth of field. Instead you will see a very wide range of apertures used.

This, as an example, is the apertures I have selected for the 4300 macro shots that remain in my Lightroom (after culling) from my shoots over the last 12 months.

I share this to make the point to show the fallacy of the sweeping statement that saying that one camera system giving more depth of field makes it better for macro.

Point taken!

So, can we rephrase that a larger Depth of Field helps us, mere mortals, achieve decent focus? 😇

5 hours ago, Susa said:

Sony: really the 90 mm which is so hard to focus ...

I use Sony 90mm with A7R5 and AF is working pretty well. I would say comparable to the EM1II that I used before with Zuiko 90mm and Pana 45mm, but tracking is better with the Sony FF...

The saying that Sony 90mm is hard to focus comes probably from the previous camera models that did not have the modern AF...

I don’t disagree with Alex at all - I wouldn’t dare. But my point is that greater DOF is easier to achieve with smaller sensors. The artistic use of apertures is always a given.

16 hours ago, TimG said:

….. and you get more depth of field in macro photography with a non-FF format. Wide-angle lenses generally provide sharper edges too with non-FF.

I think that larger sensors allow a more shallow DOF compared to smaller sensor, but smaller sensors do not really provide more DOF:

More DOF with small sensor is only achieved when the identical aperture is used with the larger sensor. When stopped down to comparable conditions regarding light gathering (or corresponding cropping is done), DOF is the same. Extreme stopping down results in less resolution due to diffraction, but diffraction kicks in at wider apertures when small sensors are used and larger sensor allow higher f-numbers before diffraction becomes noticeable - this effect remains essentially the same under comparable conditions...

12 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

The size and weight penalty for macro is certainly less than it is for wide angle, but you might stretch the definition to include WA macro which can be done with m43 with a lot smaller gear. I certainly find framing up easier with a macro lens without diopter you can find the subject from a distance and slowly move in closer and re-focus as you go.

So for me I don't think I'd change from what I have now. An OM-1 with 60mm macro, though I might consider adding the 90mm macro at some point. It's not a video machine but it will shoot no frills video. The choice may change depending on how much interest there is for video and what you want to do with it