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.

I disagree concerning the size and weight penalty for macro vs. WA:

=> When I use A7R5/Nauticam housing with Sony 90mm plus flip holder for SMC-1, this makes the biggest and heaviest setup I can have with this camera. Maybe comparable to WACP-C/28-60mm on the WA side (Canon 8-15mm with 140mm dome is certainly smaller and lighter)...

This macro setup gives similar AOVs and magnification as I had before with the ridiculously small EM1II plus bare Pana 45mm. I would say with macro the difference is the most pronounced between MFT and FF, at least as I am using these cameras (For WA I was using mostly Canon 8-15mm with 140mm domeport with EM1II, what gives pretty similar size between the EM1II and A7R5 setups)).

=> With FF, however, I get 61 Mpixel file with 14-bit for postprocessing...

"unlimited Budget?"

Easy......

I would hire someone a lot better than I am to dive with me, And also pay their expenses. Have them agree the images/videos and copyright are mine. We swim around and I point to what I want photographed/filmed and then claim the image/video later. Problem solved. 😉

If video is your primary use, I would suggest that a monitor is likely to be more useful than an enhanced viewfinder. It is a lot more surface area to push through the water, but it makes it so much easier to compose your shot especially with moving subjects, that it is worth the effort - in my opinion anyway.

11 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I disagree concerning the size and weight penalty for macro vs. WA:

=> When I use A7R5/Nauticam housing with Sony 90mm plus flip holder for SMC-1, this makes the biggest and heaviest setup I can have with this camera. Maybe comparable to WACP-C/28-60mm on the WA side (Canon 8-15mm with 140mm dome is certainly smaller and lighter)...

This macro setup gives similar AOVs and magnification as I had before with the ridiculously small EM1II plus bare Pana 45mm. I would say with macro the difference is the most pronounced between MFT and FF, at least as I am using these cameras (For WA I was using mostly Canon 8-15mm with 140mm domeport with EM1II, what gives pretty similar size between the EM1II and A7R5 setups)).

=> With FF, however, I get 61 Mpixel file with 14-bit for postprocessing...

This is true, though you can certainly have some very light WA setups in m43 like a 4" zen dome with 8mm fisheye and a 230mm dome never enters imto consideration.

18 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

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)...

The wide dynamic range will rarely come into play in macro shooting with artificial light. UW contrast tends to be quite low much of the time, one exception being sunballs. MP is a similar story, mainly come into play when printing Large, natively a 20MP m43 sensor will give you 43 x 33 cm natively at 300 dpi which is close to A3 size. A well exposed image can be re-sampled to around double that resolution for printing with good results. The main benefit of big dynamic range is preventing posterisation in gradients like a slow gradient of surface water, you need to process in 16 bit to get this benefit. I think 12 bit vs 14 bit is likely little difference for this purpose.

I think for most people the benefits are small to not there for 99% of their images. It's more case of if you can afford and want to and are prepared for the limitations sure go for full frame. If you are making your living from it - I expect there are benefits for those cases where the extra quality is required. But there's plenty of people taking great shots with m43 professionally as well. This guy takes some amazing shots with an OM-1: https://500px.com/p/sulasulacom?view=photos - no UW stuff but some of the high ISO bird images are quite amazing!

When macro is your main focus and video is also important I tend to agree that FF is not the way to go despite the "infinity budget". The best underwater macro videos in the recent years are produced, in my opinion (which is shared by many juries of international competitions), by Alfred Schaschl. You can see his work here:

https://www.youtube.com/@alfredsch.5440

Fredi uses Panasonic GH5 II camera, so a 4/3 crop sensor. I found APS-C is a good compromise for both macro and wide angle, and I'm locked into the Sony system, so if I would have a big budget I would probably upgrade my A6400 to FX30 and not FX3. Unfortunately the 50-60 mm macro range is not well covered with modern macro lenses in Sony environment, but for video, I think the available lenses are OK. Fast AF for macro video is not really needed. You will film on a tripod anyway (macro), and when my subject is in focus I usually switch to MF, just to avoid the the AF is distracted by something else in the background.

On 6/6/2025 at 3:01 PM, Architeuthis said:

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...

Hi, thanks for your comment, I have actual the A7r5 with the sony 90mm setup in an Isotta housing. But since one of the firmware updates the Small Focus point is not really working for me, almost never hit the exact point. I use cont autofocus with tracking, but tried also Manual. Last trip to Anilao I had somehow 70 % not in focus, comparing with other trips a really bad result. For Supermacro the focus point seems to "big" for me.

I tried it also on land with the same result.

Edited Sunday at 09:23 AM4 days by Susa

3 hours ago, Susa said:

Hi, thanks for your comment, I have actual the A7r5 with the sony 90mm setup in an Isotta housing. But since one of the firmware updates the Small Focus point is not really working for me, almost never hit the exact point. I use cont autofocus with tracking, but tried also Manual. Last trip to Anilao I had somehow 70 % not in focus, comparing with other trips a really bad result. For Supermacro the focus point seems to "big" for me.

I tried it also on land with the same result.

Interesting to hear. The difference in experience is likely the difference how AF is used...

I use C-AF&tracking with small (or intermediate) field together with manual F (for gross adjustments, before I use AF, to save time) and subject recognition (animal/eye). In case subject recognition makes troubles, I can switch it ON/OFF with the "record" lever of my Nauticam housing (Thumb focus lever points upwards while video record lever (that does not have any native function for me) points downwards). Much higher keeper rate than 30% how I use the camera(when AF settings are correct)...

Maybe the Tamron 90mm macro would perform better, but when this is a firmware problem this will not help (maybe another Sony body, that does not have this firmware issue, will perform better)...🤔

I am not sure that another camera system will solve the problem. When Alex says that AF is better on Canon R5, does it mean that small dot S-AF (or C-AF) performs better on R5?

=> what is indeed unpleasent is that (at least Sony) FF has a very limited choice of AF lenses for UW macro, no comparison with MFT (I personally, will still not go back to MFT)...

On 6/8/2025 at 2:41 PM, Architeuthis said:

Interesting to hear. The difference in experience is likely the difference how AF is used...

I use C-AF&tracking with small (or intermediate) field together with manual F (for gross adjustments, before I use AF, to save time) and subject recognition (animal/eye). In case subject recognition makes troubles, I can switch it ON/OFF with the "record" lever of my Nauticam housing (Thumb focus lever points upwards while video record lever (that does not have any native function for me) points downwards). Much higher keeper rate than 30% how I use the camera(when AF settings are correct)...

Maybe the Tamron 90mm macro would perform better, but when this is a firmware problem this will not help (maybe another Sony body, that does not have this firmware issue, will perform better)...🤔

I am not sure that another camera system will solve the problem. When Alex says that AF is better on Canon R5, does it mean that small dot S-AF (or C-AF) performs better on R5?

=> what is indeed unpleasent is that (at least Sony) FF has a very limited choice of AF lenses for UW macro, no comparison with MFT (I personally, will still not go back to MFT)...

My friend has a Canon R5 and he can choose a significant smaller autofocuspoint. I put an example (land) from my A7R5 here: this is cropped by around 200 %. Its not really sharp, the conditions were perfect, its 1/250 F16. Object is 1 cm. Problem is, I can focus the front of the insect, but not the eye. Underwater its the same. The second picture is with Nauticam SMC3, cropped 300 % for demo, focus on the front of the nudi is hardly possible but not on the "horn, (rinophore?)" as you can see. So as a result I'm not sure if I should change the setup. Supermacro is my really passion.

4 hours ago, Susa said:

My friend has a Canon R5 and he can choose a significant smaller autofocuspoint. I put an example (land) from my A7R5 here: this is cropped by around 200 %. Its not really sharp, the conditions were perfect, its 1/250 F16. Object is 1 cm. Problem is, I can focus the front of the insect, but not the eye. Underwater its the same. The second picture is with Nauticam SMC3, cropped 300 % for demo, focus on the front of the nudi is hardly possible but not on the "horn, (rinophore?)" as you can see. So as a result I'm not sure if I should change the setup. Supermacro is my really passion.

Seems like the best thing you could do if it is available is to go to a physical camera store and try a few candidates out, Bring along a small model of some type which would allow you to test for precise AF placement.

I know my OM-1 has a very small AF point available, the limiting factor is probably if the subject has enough contrast and beyond that holding the camera sable enough at high magnification. The stabilisation is a big help here. The OM-1 seems to be a favourite among macro bug photographers.

The size of the focus point isn’t something I’ve ever thought about. I’ve been through lots of Nikon DSLR iterations - D100, 200, 300, 800 and 500 - and have always found the focus point to be small enough to sit on the subject’s eye.

Is this Too Big FP an issue more widely?

I wonder if a smaller focus point, free floating in the ocean with a moving subject, would make my life easier or harder 😄

19 hours ago, RobinD said:

I wonder if a smaller focus point, free floating in the ocean with a moving subject, would make my life easier or harder 😄

It's not only underwater, its also when I work with a stativ on land (A7R5). I set the Focus point on a not moving object with cont autofocus, and get a larger frame around but not exactly where my focus point is, even when it is something like a intersection of a cross, which is easy to focus. I'm sure this was not the case when I started with the camera in 2023. The example is a 0,5 cm fruitfly, with the focus (hand hold) direct on the eye. I dont know if its depending on the focus point, but the continious autofocus is not aligned with my focus point.

1 hour ago, Susa said:

It's not only underwater, its also when I work with a stativ on land (A7R5). I set the Focus point on a not moving object with cont autofocus, and get a larger frame around but not exactly where my focus point is, even when it is something like a intersection of a cross, which is easy to focus. I'm sure this was not the case when I started with the camera in 2023. The example is a 0,5 cm fruitfly, with the focus (hand hold) direct on the eye. I dont know if its depending on the focus point, but the continious autofocus is not aligned with my focus point.

Now I understand exactly what is your problem...👍

When you describe it now, I remember that with my MFT cameras (subject recognition was not working in practice on them) I was always using a very tiny focus point for macro. AF-S with EM5II (which did not have PDAF and tracking was unusable UW) and AF-C&tracking with EM1II.

With A7R5 I use now spot (small/middle/large depending on motif; small or medium mostly for macro) with AF-C&tracking&animal recognition (eye). Sometimes, when AI recognizes an eye, it works very well, but sometimes the AI is even in error, goes to nowhere, and I have to switch it off (easily done with "record" lever). Then I also wished I had a spot, smaller than the S-spot, available for AF-C&tracking, that I can put directly on the eye (or another part of the critter). Probably a very small spot that works reliable in AF-C&tracking is everything one needs for macro...

For me personally, this is a flaw, but not enough to make me change systems (maybe other Sony FF cameras, e.g. A1, have such a very small spot for AF available?).

I cannot remember whether a smaller spot had existed in a previous firmware version, but Olympus certainly had it...

On the positive side, AF-C&tracking&animal recognition (eye) using large area, is a godsend when WA and e.g. snorkeling with dolphins or whalesharks. Especially when it is difficult to carefully look through the viewfinder (sunshine; fast moving animals) and the time for putting the animal (preferentially the eye) in the focus area does not exist. Then I just can aim the camera towards the motifs and press the dumb focus lever (last time I got useful photos from whalesharks, despite the subject recognition was set erroneously to "train"... 😄)...

Edited yesterday at 12:53 PM1 day by Architeuthis

1 hour ago, Susa said:

It's not only underwater, its also when I work with a stativ on land (A7R5). I set the Focus point on a not moving object with cont autofocus, and get a larger frame around but not exactly where my focus point is, even when it is something like a intersection of a cross, which is easy to focus. I'm sure this was not the case when I started with the camera in 2023. The example is a 0,5 cm fruitfly, with the focus (hand hold) direct on the eye. I dont know if its depending on the focus point, but the continious autofocus is not aligned with my focus point.

It seems the issue is the difference between AF-C and AF-C plus tracking. I just played with my OM-1 and it was quite capable of using a very small AF point in AF-C, however for AF-C + tracking it draws a box around what it thinks you want it to track and this is where algorithms for choosing a subject come into play. It will lock onto what the system thinks you want and generally it will be the body part or object with the best contrast, but it depends on how it is programmed and it seems it chooses to use a bigger box when tracking is used. Subject recognition is the same deal it depends on how well it recognizes your subject.

Another aspect of this is how well the Image stabilisation works- it can be particularly helpful in keeping the AF point stable on the subject if you sway a bit. If you move in and out in super macro you will be adding in the the AF speed and whether it can keep up as well. I find I'm not so stable as when I was younger and the IS on the OM-1 is a godsend. It really helps keep you subject framed properly - the smaller sensor is easier and quicker to accelerate and seems it quite stable enough to do hand held focus stacks.

It seems to me that how well you like a particular AF system is a little personal and depends how well it can compensate for your instability. Water should slow things down a bit (unless you are dealing with surge or current) and again I think trying out some systems on land would be a good starting point.

19 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

It seems the issue is the difference between AF-C and AF-C plus tracking. I just played with my OM-1 and it was quite capable of using a very small AF point in AF-C, however for AF-C + tracking it draws a box around what it thinks you want it to track and this is where algorithms for choosing a subject come into play. It will lock onto what the system thinks you want and generally it will be the body part or object with the best contrast, but it depends on how it is programmed and it seems it chooses to use a bigger box when tracking is used. Subject recognition is the same deal it depends on how well it recognizes your subject.

Another aspect of this is how well the Image stabilisation works- it can be particularly helpful in keeping the AF point stable on the subject if you sway a bit. If you move in and out in super macro you will be adding in the the AF speed and whether it can keep up as well. I find I'm not so stable as when I was younger and the IS on the OM-1 is a godsend. It really helps keep you subject framed properly - the smaller sensor is easier and quicker to accelerate and seems it quite stable enough to do hand held focus stacks.

It seems to me that how well you like a particular AF system is a little personal and depends how well it can compensate for your instability. Water should slow things down a bit (unless you are dealing with surge or current) and again I think trying out some systems on land would be a good starting point.

thanks for that descriptions, the only thing is that I 'm not using object tracking, its off! I used only cont autofocus, tried it with a stativ and a not moving subject which is easy to focus (good contrast and light). And yet the frame does not match the focus point. Roughly it looks like the picture I have attached. (Sorry for the primitive drawing, but I gave my A7R5 back to my dealer yesterday, looking for a new system now). It's not always the same result, but I got deviations with every new focussing even though camera and subject are fixed. Underwater it made live really hard.

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by Susa
change picture

20 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Now I understand exactly what is your problem...👍

When you describe it now, I remember that with my MFT cameras (subject recognition was not working in practice on them) I was always using a very tiny focus point for macro. AF-S with EM5II (which did not have PDAF and tracking was unusable UW) and AF-C&tracking with EM1II.

With A7R5 I use now spot (small/middle/large depending on motif; small or medium mostly for macro) with AF-C&tracking&animal recognition (eye). Sometimes, when AI recognizes an eye, it works very well, but sometimes the AI is even in error, goes to nowhere, and I have to switch it off (easily done with "record" lever). Then I also wished I had a spot, smaller than the S-spot, available for AF-C&tracking, that I can put directly on the eye (or another part of the critter). Probably a very small spot that works reliable in AF-C&tracking is everything one needs for macro...

For me personally, this is a flaw, but not enough to make me change systems (maybe other Sony FF cameras, e.g. A1, have such a very small spot for AF available?).

I cannot remember whether a smaller spot had existed in a previous firmware version, but Olympus certainly had it...

On the positive side, AF-C&tracking&animal recognition (eye) using large area, is a godsend when WA and e.g. snorkeling with dolphins or whalesharks. Especially when it is difficult to carefully look through the viewfinder (sunshine; fast moving animals) and the time for putting the animal (preferentially the eye) in the focus area does not exist. Then I just can aim the camera towards the motifs and press the dumb focus lever (last time I got useful photos from whalesharks, despite the subject recognition was set erroneously to "train"... 😄)...

its exactly described here, what I wanted to use, I believe more and more that my camera has a problem...

14 minutes ago, Susa said:

thanks for that descriptions, the only thing is that I 'm not using object tracking, its off! I used only cont autofocus, tried it with a stativ and a not moving subject which is easy to focus (good contrast and light). And yet the frame does not match the focus point. Roughly it looks like the picture I have attached. (Sorry for the primitive drawing, but I gave my A7R5 back to my dealer yesterday, looking for a new system now). It's not always the same result, but I got deviations with every new focussing even though camera and subject are fixed. Underwater it made live really hard.

Seems like a camera issue - I certainly don't see this with the OM-1 and seems like others don't see it with that model. Seems like it has tracking turned on even though you didn't set it.

Can you do the equivalent

of a system reset?

Just to clarify.... is this issue of the autofocus not being accurate enough for you on the spot setting due to being unable to be made small enough on the Sony A7Rv when other brands like Canon mentioned can go smaller? On my Sony A7Rv it already looks very small to me (i.e. non-expand spot). Could it be an issue with the other Autofocus menu settings?

Sony says.. "For [Spot], the subject should be large enough to cover the whole Focus Area (as a guideline). Having the subject at this size avoids the focus drifting to the background."

On OM1 the smallest focus point can be adjusted to a smaller area... looks like down to a single autofocus dot on the screen? My understanding (moving from Olympus OMD EM 1ii to Sony) is that OM System has the best in camera focus stacking which is why it is popular for land macro, but I don't know if the stacking is usable underwater, and without it the big advantage of OM System is lost compared to a high resolution camera. Maybe the autofocus has an advantage because of the small spot customisation? wonder if Canon or Nikon have that? The pixel size on the Sony A7Rv is similar to the OM1, so if I crop to MFT size I get the same magnification with a 90mm Sony lens as I would with 90mm OM system and no loss of image quality by comparison, yet I have the extra versality of the large sensor too.

I have not had an issue with my Sony A7Rv and also have custom button and lever set to adjust the focus area (C2) and tracking on and off (record button) (Isotta housing).

Picture below is from the OM1

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by John E
clarifying