SLR vs. Mirrorless. What is the best camera for macro?

I've been taking underwater photos for about 6 years now. I started as a total newbie, but I think I have a fairly good idea of what I am doing now. My first camera was a SeaLife DC1000, and I would not recommend that to anybody. I took an underwater photo course 4 years ago and started shooting in manual mode, and then my photography really improved. I then got a Canon S100, and found it much better than the SeaLife, and was able to get lots of great photos with that little camera. I was able to win a few small prizes in some photo competitions. I am a die-hard Canon fan now and will not consider any other brand.

Of course, it wasn't long before I was craving a better set-up. Two years ago, I did a lot of research, trying to decide between Mirrorless and SLR. I decided then that SLR was eventually going the way of the dodo bird, and that one did not need an optical viewfinder underwater, and I was used to shooting in live view anyway, and I so I took the plunge into the Canon mirrorless system. So for the past 2 years, I have been shooting a Canon EOS M in a Nauticam housing. I am generally happy with the system, the image quality is great, identical to any Canon cropped-sensor SLR, and I appreciate the more compact form of this system compared to SLR. Not to mention significantly reduced cost compared to SLR. I own all the lenses and both ports for this system. My housing is now discontinued so there will be no more ports forthcoming.

I am growing increasingly frustrated by Canon's lack of commitment to mirrorless, which translates into a lack of commitment from housing manufacturers to make housings and ports for this system. Canon came out with the M3 a few months ago, which has faster auto-focus compared to my M, but Canon has chosen not to release it in North America (I would guess it is because they don't want to cannibalize their SLR sales perhaps?). So the end result is Nauticam has no plans to make a housing for the M3. As far as I know, no other housing manufacturer will either. Reason given by Nauticam is lack of lenses suitable for underwater, which is a valid point.

I use the Canon EF-S 60 mm macro SLR lens (with the adaptor so it can fit on the M-mount), and it works fairly well, albeit with slow auto-focus. Not a big deal for shooting nudibranchs, but I do miss some action shots due to slow auto-focus. I discovered on my own that the native Canon EF-M 11-22 mm lens fits in the kit lens port perfectly and actually works quite well as an underwater wide-angle lens. There are no problems with auto-focus and image quality seems great to me. However, my main interest is macro. I would love to try the Canon 100 mm lens, but there is no way I can get it to fit in my current housing, even with extension rings (I tried). Plus, since the 100 mm is not a native mirrorless lens, I think the AF will be even slower than with the 60 mm.

This is frustrating to me, as Canon could make a native macro lens for their mirrorless system, but I might grow old waiting for that to happen (particularly something longer than 60 mm). Plus, they do have the technology of great auto-focus off the sensor (recently incorporated on the 70D and 7D mark ii), but when will Canon ever put that technology onto their M system? And on top of all that, I still would have to wait for housing manufacturers to get on board to make housings and ports.

So now I am starting to second guess myself... Maybe SLR is still the way to go... I look at the 70D and the 7D mark ii, and enviously note that all the major housing manufacturers have made all sorts of ports to fit pretty much any lens one could use underwater for those cameras.

Of course, good technique is the most important thing. But I am feeling limited by my current system, and think I may have to take the very expensive plunge into SLR to move forward. Since I love macro, I think that APS-C rather than full-frame is the way to go for me. I am starting to lust for a Canon 7D mark ii. Judging from the reviews, it seems to be the best cropped sensor camera ever made by Canon.

Before I make the plunge, I want to hear some feedback from the experienced people here. Is SLR still the way to go? I don't want to buy Sony or Olympus. How long will it take for Canon to get serious about mirrorless?

I note many people are migrating the other way, from SLR to either mirrorless or compact, since the smaller set-ups are getting better all the time, and the weight restrictions when flying are getting more strict. But for me, I am always craving better image quality, and would love to see how a very sophisticated AF system works underwater. Plus I would love the opportunity to try different lenses. I have shot the 60 mm a tonne, and want to try the 100 mm! I do use the Nauticam SMC with the 60 mm, and it's ok, but working distance is very short. I keep hearing the SMC works much better on the 100 mm.

So what do you think? What is currently the best possible tool for underwater macro, taking into consideration not only the camera body, but availability of lenses, housings and ports? SLR? Mirrorless? Canon 7D mark ii? Or some other camera?

Thoughts and comments appreciated!

Hey Rob

You raise a very interesting and thought-provoking issue.

A bit like you, I started with a Kodak something-or-other in an Ikelite housing in the early days of digital and then moved to a Nikon Coolpix 5000. Then on to DSLRs: D100, D200 D300 - all the time the image quality getting just better and better. Until finally, 18 months ago, to FX with a D800.

The image quality is staggering (especially compared to that Kodak!). But, as I have written in earlier posts, so is the weight and volume to be moved, My last couple of trips I really wondered if it was worth it - and have seriously thoughT about moving to mirrorless (the Olympus maybe).

But then, only a week ago I came back from a trip to the Red Sea, downloaded my images to my iMac and, WOW... THAT is why I lug all this stuff around. The quality is incredible ( no, I'm not patting myself on the back for the composition or technique) - I mean the sheer resolution of the images, the colours and the dynamic range. Am I really going to come back from a trip like that having lugged maybe 5-7 kgs of weight less and go WOW - or am I going to come back and say, yeah, not bad.. but if only I had had the FX.... ? Y'know, I don't think I want to find the answer to that question.

So, my current thinking, after a week back, is that next time, I'll pay some extra excess baggage or whatever to move my gear as comfortably as I can. But I want to come back and have those moments of utter delight when I see the images and am thrilled.

So, Underwater Macro? Yeah, bring it on. FX SLR.

Having seen the performance you can get out on comparable subject the best quality right now is a Nikon D810 with a 105mm macro lens and if stuff is really small you can use a wet diopter.

The sharpness of this combination even at f/32 is such that it compensates to the fact you need a few stops down.

You can get decent results on a cropped D7100/D7200 with the same lens you get more magnification but the sharpness is just less and it drops more quickly

Finally you can get good shots on a MFT with an olympus 60mm however all MFT lenses perform best around f/4 and diffraction kicks in quite quickly so after f/11 the lens is not as sharp and you still need around f/13-f/16 for really small stuff.

Obviously a MFT rig is much smaller but if budget and weight are not an issue nothing beats the best larger sensor cameras.

By the way I shoot compact and MFT my shots come out OK but I can see myself the quality is not the same on the same shot. And I do have a cropped sensor D7100 that I do not take in water as I can't be bother with the large housing (so far)

For me the whole discussion around pixel size, dynamic range, ISO performance, noise, etcetera isn't that important. I'm really not that good a underwater photographer and with one dive trip per year I am unlikely to reach the stage where image quality is limited by the equipment. But there are very practical issues that do matter like lens selection, housing selection, quality of view finder, strobe sync speed, autofocus performance, ergonomics, size/weight, and for many of us cost.

Where sensor size does matter to me is that it is proportional to focal length needed to get the same angle of view. So for m43 you use about half the focal length as on FF. For most applications I consider that a m43 advantage because shorter focal length means less bulky lenses and they tend to have a closer minimum focus distance, which is important underwater. However, the argument changes for macro lenses where you can already get very close and unless you dive in low visibility, getting a bit more working distance for lighting and not spooking critters becomes a benefit. It also matters for (wet) diopter users where the extra magnification depends on the focal length of the diopter AND the focal length of the lens. With the same diopter you get more magnification for longer lenses, so larger sensors have the advantage. [note some of the newer "super macro converters" may not be true diopters but I think they still work better on longer lenses]. Finally, if you aim for 1:1 magnification the maximum subject size that you can still fit in your frame is proportional to the sensor size. So with FF you can record twice the size subjects compared to m43. In other words, rather than saying m43 has 2x higher apparent magnification than FF with same focal length and distance, you can say you are seeing 2x less.

At the moment I am shooting m43 with Olympus EM5 and am very happy. I would only consider going FF if I get to do a lot more diving (or win the lottery). However, of all the arguments for and against you can make the "it has to be Canon" seems to be the weakest unless you have a large lens collection or have specific Canon needs for topside shooting. Not saying Canon is not good, I used a Canon DSLR for 6 years or so, but other brands have been progressing much faster.

Bart

My wife and I both use micro 4/3 cameras for underwater photography, and I think our results are limited by our abilities, not by our equipment.

M43 suffers from higher noise at high iso and the continuous autofocus is not as good as SLRs. I think you could also say that the dynamic range may not be as good. However, it seems to me that none of these issues apply to macro photography. You control the lighting, so there is no need to shoot at high iso. In my macro photography I am generally happy if the distracting background drops off to black. So I adjust the strobes to light the subject well and don't worry about the background. As a result I'm not too worried about dynamic range for macro. It is an issue for wide angle stuff.

I think the only strength of SLRs for macro is that you can print bigger. If you're looking for really large prints then SLRs are the way to go, but you are paying a pretty substantial penalty in weight and size for that ability.

I'm happy to stick with m43 for underwater macro. Where I'm tempted by SLRs is in wildlife photography on land where the autofocus and dynamic range would be a real benefit. But that's a different story.

Rob:

Hope you are well and diving a lot. For me if you are shooting tiny stuff (like the small spiny lumpsuckers) then the olympus om-d e-m1 (or the new em5-II) is the best option with the only 60 macro lens. Out of the box it is 1:1 (on the smaller sensor) meaning it is 2:1 compared to full frame and 1.5:1 compared to crop sensor DSLR. Then add the CMC (or my old SMC) and you are at 4:L1 compared to full frame. I have been shooting that for a while now and for tiny stuff it is quite nice.

Bill

I've been taking underwater photos for about 6 years now. I started as a total newbie, but I think I have a fairly good idea of what I am doing now. My first camera was a SeaLife DC1000, and I would not recommend that to anybody. I took an underwater photo course 4 years ago and started shooting in manual mode, and then my photography really improved. I then got a Canon S100, and found it much better than the SeaLife, and was able to get lots of great photos with that little camera. I was able to win a few small prizes in some photo competitions. I am a die-hard Canon fan now and will not consider any other brand.

 

...

 

I am growing increasingly frustrated by Canon's lack of commitment to mirrorless, which translates into a lack of commitment from housing manufacturers to make housings and ports for this system.

Well, if I can be completely blunt, you've correctly identified the problem but are preemptively ruling out a solution based on your stubbornness to "support" Canon even when their commitment to a market segment is pathetic. I too am a Canon SLR user and used the G series for many years underwater. When they announced EOS-M, I assumed my next underwater camera would be one of those. After a couple of years of waiting, it became apparent to me that Canon is not taking it seriously, to their detriment. I have not even bought an M series body as a backup to my 5D and 7D.

Instead, I've moved my underwater setup to the Olympus u4/3 system. I've gone with the Olympus housing, a zen port, and the 60mm macro and 9-18mm zoom. For me it seems to be a good, reasonably priced, system for where I'm at right now. The housing is not much larger than my last G series housing. If Canon ever gets their act together with EOS-M and turns it into a full range system rather than something made for the Japanese equivalent of soccer moms who only care about a couple of kit lenses, I'll reconsider. For now, I see an OM-D EM5-II in my future.

So I see that you have two (and a half) choices: Go u4/3 mirrorless or go Canon SLR (full frame or APS-C).

Thanks all for your input. The OM-D EM5-II certainly is a compelling option, especially with the super-macro capabilities that Bill has pointed out. Certainly the reduced cost and compact form are big advantages. But I feel that going to a 4/3 sensor is taking a step back. I really like the image quality that APS-C affords. I've thought about going all out to full frame, but from what I have been reading, APS-C seems to be the sweet spot for underwater macro.

Bill and Vondo (and others who have used both APS-C and 4/3 underwater), how does the IQ compare between these two formats?

I am quite happy with the image quality of the EOS-M. What is limiting me is the very slow focus and lack of a longer macro lens. I could go to Sony mirrorless, but I think I would rather just jump into Canon SLR. Despite the cost and bulk, I am really keen to see how the very sophisticated AF of a Canon 7D Mark II works when paired with a 100 mm macro lens. Thoughts?

I have both systems. My wife and I have an OMD EM1 and EM10 both with 60mm macro lenses in Nauticam housings. Both are excellent in macro and small and compact for travel.

I also have a Canon DSLR 700D in a Nauticam housing with the 60mm macro lens. All up weight of camera, lens, housing, port, vacuum valve and 3 x ball mounts is 4.099 KG, the weight of EM1 with camera, lens housing port vacuum valve with 3 x ball mounts is 2.868KG. It's only 1.2kg lighter and all the strobes arms etc still weigh the same so overall not a great deal more to lug around. The housings tend to be cheaper though but not a great deal.

The main draw back of mirror less is battery life which only lasts 2.5 dives when we go to Bali but the Canon can do 3+ dives. The Canon 60mm on any DSLR is super fast focusing quicker than the Olympus cameras which hunt more. With you already having APSC lenses and the weight/cost not too far from each other dependent on which model you go for then I would go DSLR maybe the 7D ml 2 which has best focus and video focus of any interchangeable lens camera. Check out review on Cameralabs.com.

 

Bill and Vondo (and others who have used both APS-C and 4/3 underwater), how does the IQ compare between these two formats?

 

I basically only use my Oly underwater and it's still pretty new to me. I'm impressed with the IQ from it, perhaps comparable to the APS-C stuff I've used, but I've only used that on land, so I can't do an apples to apples comparison. As someone else mentioned, at the low ISOs you use for macro, the differences between sensors are diminished.

From what I have seen there is no difference in perceived quality on a screen with the canon 7D when you compare with a new micro four third. There is however a big gap in colours and sharpness when you look at the best Nikon and Sony cameras. The low ISO is not the major point there is colour depth and sharpness and the best cropped sensor do look better on both camps the issue is are you prepared to bear the cost and extra volume and weight. A nauticam mirror less housing is 35% cheaper than a cropped sensor that seems to be the same reduction in weight. I used to pack all my camera two strobes and arms in a lowepro camera bag when I had a compact now it doesn't fit all ports with a four third. The real drop in space and weight is when you go to a fixed lens. If you really want to look at a good macro rig and want to cut on weight you may need to look at a canon g7x Alex tattersall has posted some good sample images

Hey Rob,

I've held off commenting until now, mostly because I have zero experience with mirror-less and 4/3rds systems! As you know, I shoot with a Canon 7D (started with a 30D) in an Aquatica housing - so nothing light or cheap about it, although I realize those are not your primary concerns. With the 100 macro and two DS-160 strobes (single arm section on each side) the rig is about 22lbs topside.

Anyway, I've never owned anything other than an SLR/DSLR so it was a natural extension for me to take one u/w. I was used to the behavior of the AF and most of the limitations of the few lenses I own. Having said that, shooting macro with the 100mm (the non-L version) and the 7D is often as rewarding as it is frustrating. In our local waters, not only are we plagued with challenging vis conditions much of the year, but we also have to contend with significant schlieren given the amount of FW entering the sites at times and the seasonal mixing of very warm water with cold - again, of which I'm sure you're well aware! When conditions permit, and if you're comfortable moving the AF point around (I always start with the center point selected and then change it as required for the comp), the 7D and 100 make a great team. I'm sure the 7DII would be even better!

As you have likely read, the non-L version of the 100mm macro is a pretty slow-focusing lens, but still works well u/w if you can comp with enough contrast - and have a good focus light (in order to assist with the amount of contrast). I've been lucky on occasion to shoot a really small nudibranch in a field of hydroids and had every shot tack-sharp. Had the opposite happen as well... The nice thing is when you nail a shot, you have 18MP (or 20MP if shooting with a 7DII) from which to crop, if necessary. The working distance with the 100 makes it possible to get a frame-filling image without having to get so close that you impact the critter or shot in some way.

The only other thing I can suggest, is that we plan a dive or two together and you try mine. Bring a CF card with you to the site and blaze away getting a feel for the rig before you do anything rash! Oh, it will feel like you're taking a one man submersible with you at first, but you do get used to it. I regularly dive with my rig on tech dives, with doubles, a stage, a deco bottle or two and sometimes a scooter. It gets to be very manageable with a bit of practice!

Hope that helps.

Lee

Rob:

I took my 7D and Oly EM-1 on a trip to Indo. At the end, most guests thought the EM-1 photos are better. As for macro, a lot depends on what you want to shoot and how small you want to shoot. The Canon 100 and the Canon 60 are great lenses but shoot 35 mm full frame. The native OLY 60 shoots 17 mm full frame. Any diopter improves things proportionally, i.e. a 2x diopter for the Canon gets you to where the OLy is natively and the 2x on the oLY gets you to 8 mm full frame. That being said, and if you shoot raw, to me at least you can't tell the IQ apart very much. You could go Canon 5DIIIS with 50 MP and crop like mad, but I would rather carry around the smaller/cheaper system.

Bill

P.S. Going to God's Pocket in Sept, hope it is as good as the Alaska Trip.

Bill

Thanks for the advice Bill, Lee and all! I just found out today that Nauticam makes a port adaptor to convert 85mm diameter port (used on their mirrorless housings) to 120 mm SLR port size. I don;t know why Nauticam did not mention that to me when I asked (twice!) for any advice on how to adapt my housing to fit the 100mm lens. So maybe I can try that, and hope that next year Canon makes an EOS M4 with awesome auto-foucs and Nauticam makes a housing for that!

I realize the 100mm is a bit long for our somewhat bad viz local conditions but I am hoping to give it a whirl in the Philippines as I go there regularly. I just feel like I've photographed almost every critter imaginable with the 60mm and need a new perspective to keep me motivated! :-)

Bill have a great time in God's Pocket! Let me know if you have spare time in Vancouver in September and we can get together over a drink or 3! God's Pocket is great, same great diving as the Nautilus Swell. I was there a month ago and going back in October.

This is a great discussion-thanks to all the participants!

There is one factor that ha snot really been explored that is critical I think, and that is autofocus performance. Resolution, crop factors, IQ, high ISO etc are all important (well ISO not so much for macro), but none of them are any good if the camera can't focus!

One of the areas that both Canon and Nikon have developed significantly is their camera's AF speed and accuracy, particularly in their pro and semi-pro models. Phase detection is still significantly better than contrast, despite the mirrorless manufacturers claim to the contrary.

In terms of choice, can either system produce stunning macro images? The answer is definitely yes! Will an SLR produce them more reliably and consistently? The answer is also yes! Against that are the factors of bulk, weight and expense, which are all important considerations. It is up to the individual to balance yes factors and decide which is more important i guess.

Those who say that mirrorless will catch up SLR performance will possibly be correct at some point, but it is important to recognize that SLRs are getting better at a significant rate too.

Adam

Hi Rob,

If you are still considering the EM5II and want to take my EM5 in Nauticam for a swim come over to Bowen and try some new sites? Lee, if you want to join maybe he can compare both to his current rig, I will admit to some interest in the 7D's capabilities for the deep, dark sponge reefs. A 20 minute ferry ride and you are almost guaranteed nobody else at the dive sites to kick up the bottom...

Rob, I have the Nauticam 85-120 port adapter plus extension for my 12-40 lens if you want to check it out, I may be switching to the newer version that is also compatible with the new Olympus 7-14mm

The EM5 is my first interchangeable lens camera and I am impressed with what it can do in our local waters...

The 60mm macro lens is great, but I find it hunts a lot when conditions are challenging (fresh water mixing as mentioned by Lee) and that distance shots such as fish portraits tend to slightly wash out due to suspended sediment (may also be due to my strobe positioning)

Regards,

Adam

Adam: We are in Bali right now and am shooting the E-M1 and the Oly60 macro lens. To me at least autofocus speed is not a hindrance in any way, seems as fast as my 7D was and while not quite as fast as the 5DIII it seems to me fast enough.

Bill

Autofocus is an issue we had with the EM1 on a trip to Anilao this spring. The EM1 with the 60 mm lens and less so with the 12-50 mm lens tends to hunt. At times it is quick to focus lock, but other times it hunts and hunts. Where as our D7200 and D800E focus quickly, lock's on and rarely hunts.

Elmer