I know there has already been a lot of discussion about the utility and value of the Nauticam MFO-1, but I’d still really appreciate some advice specific to my setup.

I’m shooting an OM-1 in an AOI UH-OM1II housing with the Olympus 60mm macro. I currently own an MFO-1 and just picked up a used CMC-2.

The main reason I’ve kept the MFO-1 so far is that it does let me get slightly closer to the subject and increases magnification to about 1:1.1, compared to 1:1 with just the 60mm alone. That said, in my experience, and other comments I have read, e.g. from Alex Mustard, the improvement in image quality and reduction in focus hunting seem pretty marginal.

Given this setup, would you keep the MFO-1 or ditch it? Does it still fill a useful niche alongside the CMC-2, or is it mostly redundant at this point?

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has real-world experience with a similar configuration.

For me (Canon RF 100) the main utility is to have a reduced range of focus. It's important for me to shoot small subjects with some element in the background. If the focus go in the back it is difficult or impossible to get it back near.

The MFO change my life... I win a lot of time for some pictures --> better results, faster more time for other shoots

13 minutes ago, CaolIla said:

For me (Canon RF 100) the main utility is to have a reduced range of focus. It's important for me to shoot small subjects with some element in the background. If the focus go in the back it is difficult or impossible to get it back near.

The MFO change my life... I win a lot of time for some pictures --> better results, faster more time for other shoots

I can understand that, but wouldn't the CMC-2 do that, also?

1 minute ago, Adrian Gresores said:

I can understand that, but wouldn't the CMC-2 do that, also?

I'm using a R5 with the RF100 I have also the SMC-1 impossible to use for the picture I take with the MFO-1

The range is from near to 1 m or a little bit more. I don't really know.. That mean I can put it and make mear 95 % of the dive with it... some times I change (Flip x3) for the SMC-1 or since last trip the MFO-3.

Next month 10 days in Lembeh with this configuration... the first intensive test with the 3 lenses mounted together.
Last year in Lembeh I was absolutly happy with the MFO-1

The RF100 give me "out of the box" a mx magnification of 1-1.4 it is enough. for near 100% of my shoot.

In my hands, (I sold mine) there was NO visible or measurable improvement with any of the macro lenses (30, 45, 60, 90).

Bill

7 minutes ago, bvanant said:

In my hands, (I sold mine) there was NO visible or measurable improvement with any of the macro lenses (30, 45, 60, 90).

Bill

Thanks. I've seen you say that before. It is very confusing. Some swear by the lens, some hate it. I am still not sure how I feel about it.

I don't know anyone running the OM-1 with macro lenses that seems to get better results with it. Full frame folks do in fact get "better" results.

Bill

41 minutes ago, bvanant said:

Full frame folks do in fact get "better" results.

Better I don't know but easier for sure

The MFO-1 should be thought of as a high quality low power diopter. In the case of the 60mm macro it only improves magnification to 1.1x while the CMC-2 achieves 1.7x but it will only focus between 33 and 122mm. Based on the focus distances there might be a little overlap with the CMC-2. It seems there are some benefits on image quality on full frame sensors and also prevents hunting with some macro lenses which readily switch to the background. However it seems that for m43 lenses there is no reported improvement.

It seems to me that whether to keep it or not comes down purely to whether you can find subjects in the magnification range covered by the diopters. There is less case for diopters with m43 lenses, first the working distance is small and diopters work by reducing working distance, second the field covered at 1:1 with these lenses is 17mm across, half that covered on a full frame sensor. The CMC-2 covers a field 10mm across at a working distance of 33mm which means it is difficult to aim and to light the subject.

Because diopters like the CMC-2 limit the focus range to a a limited working distance, they are in general more difficult to use compared to a bare macro lens, the MFO-1 limits the range but the maximum working distance is over 1m so you can use it just like a regular macro lens, you can find the subject from a distance and close in while looking through the viewfinder, not so easy to do if the subject isn't in focus until you close right in on it.

Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I thought this was a simple question, but it seems the answer may be far from that.

If I understood you correctly, the CMC-2, like all diopters, may not be a great choice for my m43 setup. The focus distance would be too close and thus difficult. I suppose I should have done more research first.

Now, I wonder if I should keep the MFO-1, and ditch the CMC-2. 🥴

That being said, if diopters do not work well with m43, what option would you suggest for super macro, only the 90mm lens?

57 minutes ago, Adrian Gresores said:

Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I thought this was a simple question, but it seems the answer may be far from that.

If I understood you correctly, the CMC-2, like all diopters, may not be a great choice for my m43 setup. The focus distance would be too close and thus difficult. I suppose I should have done more research first.

Now, I wonder if I should keep the MFO-1, and ditch the CMC-2. 🥴

That being said, if diopters do not work well with m43, what option would you suggest for super macro, only the 90mm lens?

No not exactly - the suggestion is to work out if you regularly find critters that require that amount of magnification. My experience with the 60mm macro is it's very rare for me to find something small enough that I feel like I need a diopter. From a week in Lembeh with over a hundred critters found only one or two were small enough that a diopter might have been useful. Your experience might be different, I think it depends on where you dive, how good you are at finding small stuff etc.

The CMC-2 will be challenging to use at max magnification for sure, I'm not suggesting don't use it, rather I don't see it as an either/or situation with the MFO-1 as they have different magnification ranges and I would choose based upon how much magnification I need. If you find you are getting down to 1:1 all the time currently and wishing for more and are OK with lighting subjects right on 1:1, then a CMC-2 is possibly the next logical step.

The 90mm macro I think would be a lot easier to use at high magnification, it has about 65mm working distance at 2x compared to 22mm with the CMC-1 also at 2x, but it's an expensive lens, needs a new port etc. I'd want to be sure I would make use of it and could live with the extra working distance. At 1x it's only maybe 10-15mm more working distance than the 60mm, at 0.5x (35mm wide frame) you are at 170mm then 330mm at 0.25x. So for 60mm long subjects you are getting quite distant. I have the 90mm macro and use it a lot on land, but have not been tempted to take it UW.

This may be daft.. but when I had my Olympus I wondered about the viability of the well regarded Raynox DCR-250 for super macro. These only cost something like US$100. Obviously this is more limiting than having a removable underwater diopter, but for a bit of fun with super-small subjects I wondered if it would work underwater (I never got as far as trying it out). It is 18mm thick and needs a slight step-down ring but maybe works if one has a 20mm port extension already that can be added to the macro port.