. Going to Lembah and would like to shoot frogfish and larger subjects. I have an OM1 and a 60mm macro. Would like any suggestions. I am new to micro 4/3 and would like to make the best purchase. Thank you for your advice.

1 hour ago, Jeanie said:

. Going to Lembah and would like to shoot frogfish and larger subjects. I have an OM1 and a 60mm macro. Would like any suggestions. I am new to micro 4/3 and would like to make the best purchase. Thank you for your advice.

IMO the very best thing you can do for Lembeh is buy a Nauticam MFO3, I went there last September and used it quite a bit for larger subjects in combination with a 60mm macro which is what you want for smaller critters. It increases you field of view to about a 35mm lens. With this you can get both large and small subjects on the one dive. Here's my report on using at Lembeh:

and here is my trip report to Lembeh:

I used the MFO3 on the Nauticam bayonet mount and kept the lens in a cargo shorts pocket. At home in Sydney I have it mounted on a docking adapter on a float arm which works well. It's a fairly big lump but manageable.

At least out here in Australia the MFO3 is cheaper than a 30mm macro plus macro port - assuming Nauticam housing, but you have to buy bayonet adapter, bayonet ring and docking adapter. Definitely worth it for the flexibility and image quality is very nice.

After reading your posts Chris I think the MFO3 is the way to go. Can you further explain how your docking adapter on a float arm works? I just don't know how I would store it when I would be just shooting the 60mm. I do have a Nauticam housing. Thank you for your input.

1 hour ago, Jeanie said:

After reading your posts Chris I think the MFO3 is the way to go. Can you further explain how your docking adapter on a float arm works? I just don't know how I would store it when I would be just shooting the 60mm. I do have a Nauticam housing. Thank you for your input.

some pics, first the docking adapter on my float arm

second the MFO3 mounted. You have a similar adapter mounted to the port to accept the bayonet mount, line up the white marks, insert then turn till it clicks. You can see it is a big lump of glass. Roughly same size as 60mm macro port.

Honestly if you are just boat diving a quality flip adapter will be easier to use, just doesn't seem practical for me when shore diving from rocky entries, which is why I went with the bayonet.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

some pics, first the docking adapter on my float arm

second the MFO3 mounted. You have a similar adapter mounted to the port to accept the bayonet mount, line up the white marks, insert then turn till it clicks. You can see it is a big lump of glass. Roughly same size as 60mm macro port.

Honestly if you are just boat diving a quality flip adapter will be easier to use, just doesn't seem practical for me when shore diving from rocky entries, which is why I went with the bayonet.

Consider to add a hood to protect the lens😄

50 minutes ago, flowdesign said:

Consider to add a hood to protect the lens😄

I do it's the neoprene bag the lens came with, it doubles up to keep the lens from drying out till I get home and soak it in fresh water. I'm planning to see if I can find a neoprene sleeve and cap that's more stream lined for longer term use

32 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

I do it's the neoprene bag the lens came with, it doubles up to keep the lens from drying out till I get home and soak it in fresh water. I'm planning to see if I can find a neoprene sleeve and cap that's more stream lined for longer term use

Two options so far:

• You can get this M82 Filter Holder for MFO-3 from Nauticam, put a common 82mm lens cap on it or screw another UV filter.

• Try this 3D print hood as a cheaper alternative.

I just got back from a couple weeks in the Philippines. Using a 105 on a Nikon, I also took the MFO-1 and MFO-3. I have only done casual macro before and doing nothing but macro all day, every day, was an experience. Anyway, I used the MFO-3 on a flip and loved it. It is a bit heavy on land and fairly long when on the lens, but easy enough to carry around flipped off the lens.

I loved the MFO-3 as I often found critters or scenes too large for the 105 and in an instant could cut the focal length in half. For something like blackwater, I would probably just take a shorter lens, assuming I wanted to travel with he extra lens and port, and a M43 30mm port are pretty small, but otherwise, I am having a hard time envisioning diving with the 105 and not having the MFO-3

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

am having a hard time envisioning diving with the 105 and not having the MFO-3

John, why not just dive with a 60mm? I use a 105 on a D500 and like it but, for sure,it’s not the easiest to use. Are you using it on a FF body?

I'm currently debating my first M43 macro option. It seems like the 60mm will be too long for the local conditions (Vancouver Island BC) unless paired with the MFO-3, a significant cost. I do already have the port for the 60mm though.

I'm considering the 30mm Panasonic to start. I'd need a port however.

Edited Friday at 07:09 PM2 days by Grantmac

6 hours ago, TimG said:

John, why not just dive with a 60mm? I use a 105 on a D500 and like it but, for sure,it’s not the easiest to use. Are you using it on a FF body?

Yes, this was with the Z8, so the 60mm stayed home this time. I rarely used a 105 on the D500, but on FF, the 105 with the MFO-3 is a nice combo, as it would be with the 60 on DX.

3 hours ago, Grantmac said:

I'm currently debating my first M43 macro option. It seems like the 60mm will be too long for the local conditions (Vancouver Island BC) unless paired with the MFO-3, a significant cost. I do already have the port for the 60mm though.

I'm considering the 30mm Panasonic to start. I'd need a port however.

I've used the 30mm a little around Sydney, a couple of things to note with it. First it's sharp and AF is snappy, however the practical limit for magnification is about 0.5x, the working distance is very small, it's about 25mm from the port at 0.5x, which can make approach and lighting a challenge.

I'm not sure what the subjects around Vancouver Island are like - are you thinking most of them are on the larger size?

53 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

I've used the 30mm a little around Sydney, a couple of things to note with it. First it's sharp and AF is snappy, however the practical limit for magnification is about 0.5x, the working distance is very small, it's about 25mm from the port at 0.5x, which can make approach and lighting a challenge.

I'm not sure what the subjects around Vancouver Island are like - are you thinking most of them are on the larger size?

Nudibranche longer than 2cm up to octopus. I'm currently using the 12-50 kit lens and use almost the full range often with a UCL-165 but not the built in "macro" mode.

Unsure what I'll gain over than combo though.

Edited Saturday at 12:08 AM2 days by Grantmac

I suspect you'll find the smaller range challenging with the 30mm macro lens, the field at 0.5x is 34mm wide which is about right for a 20mm nudi and you need to be 25mm from the port to do this. The 60mm will let you capture 10mm nudis with reasonable working distance and adding the MFO-3 will get you subjects about 500mm long at a maximum - it only focuses out to 1.5m, The post I linked above showed a shot of a trumpet fish about 500mm long and EXIF reported the lens was at infinity.

The best option probably varies with whether you are mostly shooting small things or leaning towards mainly larger subjects. If you mostly shoot bigger something like a 12-40 in a 170mm dome would do well or a CFWA setup of some type. If by octopus you mean giant pacific octopus, the MFO combination won't get you there as you'll be too far away. But for subjects between 10mm and 400mm the optical quality with 60mm/MFO3 will be great and better than what you have with the 12-50. The 30mm macro will be slightly better for big stuff, but will suffer compared to the wider views from the 12-50.

Yes giant Pacific octopus. Although rare to see outside of their dens I would not like being stuck unable to capture them when it happens.

I can get very close to the nudibranches so working distance is less of a factor there.

Most locals are shooting 50-90mm FF equivalent from what I've seen.

The 45mm+mfo and mild diopter combination seems like it might work well? Conversely the 30 and one of the macro wide lenses would give me a fisheye option.

I currently have the 65 port, 29 port and I just found a used 45 port so I have options. Most of what I shoot is for social media so cropping isn't the end of the world either.

It seems to me that a 30 macro will do several things but mostly none of them well. It's really not wide enough for a really big subject and you need to back off too far, while it is fiddly to use on average size nudis and the like as you are in too close, I don't know what your dive sites are like but I find the housing contacts the rock the nudi is sitting on if I have to get too close -unless it is on the edge and I also don't want to shoot down as it's not that interesting. This is also an issue on a wall. The short port doesn't help at all. So basically I stopped using it. A little extra working distance and the longer port for the 60mm macro means you are shooting at a shallower angle in this situation.

I would also suggest diopters are not really needed with m43 1:1 lenses, on the 45mm macro the working distance is about 60mm from port glass at 1:1 - the diopter only eats into this.

None of the options discussed so far would be great for a Giant Pacific octopus. Seems like better approach would be do macro dives sometimes and CFWA others?

For a recent video project, I found myself in a similar situation. Subjects ranging from skeleton shrimp to cuttlefish and octopuses. I tried using the 14-42mm with the CMC-2 on a flip mount to have a universal solution, but in practice, it almost never worked. In the end, I got the best shots when I went down with the 45mm and the CMC-2 on a flip for macro, or the 12-35mm with a 6" dome port for larger organisms. I was lucky enough to be in a pair, so we set up the two kits and took turns.

A 'Jack of all trades' configuration didn't work in practice.

Perhaps only the MFO-3 could be a solution in my Mediterranean scenario, but certainly not for the Giant Pacific Octopus.

Keep in mind GPOs are deep in a crack around 95% of the time, or are out and huge. You can't predict which one.

I wonder how the 45mm would interact with something like the MWL-1? Wider than the MFO-3.

5 hours ago, Grantmac said:

Keep in mind GPOs are deep in a crack around 95% of the time, or are out and huge. You can't predict which one.

I wonder how the 45mm would interact with something like the MWL-1? Wider than the MFO-3.

The port charts list the two 30mm macros and the 12-50 so it seems it would work with the 45mm. I'd estimate the field would be be a bit wider than the 12-50 - about 24mm FF equivalent in terms of horizontal field. The MWL seems like a great idea but never really took off and there is probably a reason for that. For one thing it is said it needs to stop down to f16 to be at its best which is well into diffraction softness with m43.

It seems not too dis-similar to my situation in Sydney, I mostly dive Macro and regularly see things that would benefit from the MFO3, but possibly might see a big subject - a grey nurse shark shows up occasionally as do other things like wobbegongs, large rays etc. I still dive with the macro setup and now the MFO3 as it covers 95% of what I shoot very well. There is FOMO of course but I'd rather have a system that does well on the most common subjects. I'll occasionally dive with something wider at this site.

Stopping down that far would be a real non-starter with how little light I have available. I wonder if the Weefine version has the same issues.

I assume the MFO-3 works fairly well wide open.