Camera upgrade for Supermacro

Another vote for the D500 for this.
The fact that it has been discontinued actually makes it more attractive. I think it will be class leading (for underwater shooters) for a good few years yet and there will be plenty available at pretty reasonable prices.
The only drawback is the lack of resolution, but Adobe's Super Resolution pretty much deals with this. The D500 with the lenses mentioned above provides really good, clean files for Super Resolution to work with. 
There is also the AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G, which doesn't get talked about much, but works really well for blackwater too. It is a really good lens. 
I think I've just talked myself into buying another D500 body!

I used the OMD m1ii equivalent m5iii with a Panansonic 45mm and CMC-1 on small crustaceans (tube living Jassa) in fall. The AF was much less of an issue than the DOF. With this slightly larger Chameleon shrimp in plane with the sensor the AF did a pretty decent job. With larger sensors the DOF will be even less, but this could be counteracted by better dedicated lenses (?)  and better cropping opportunities.

* The image lost its nice sharpness on the belly & legs after uploading.

10 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

Another vote for the D500 for this.
The fact that it has been discontinued actually makes it more attractive. I think it will be class leading (for underwater shooters) for a good few years yet and there will be plenty available at pretty reasonable prices.
The only drawback is the lack of resolution, but Adobe's Super Resolution pretty much deals with this. The D500 with the lenses mentioned above provides really good, clean files for Super Resolution to work with. 
There is also the AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G, which doesn't get talked about much, but works really well for blackwater too. It is a really good lens. 
I think I've just talked myself into buying another D500 body!

I apologize for the hijack

Adam:  Do you find it difficult to light subjects with the 40mm and its short working distance?  I was thinking of trying it, but not sure I am up to the challenge of properly lighting a subject so close to the lens.

3 hours ago, Floris Bennema said:

 With larger sensors the DOF will be even less, but this could be counteracted by better dedicated lenses (?)  and better cropping opportunities.

* The image lost its nice sharpness on the belly & legs after uploading.

 

Depth of field is related to magnification and aperture, you can't fix it by changing lenses.  You can back off and crop but you'll just end up where you were with the smaller sensor and possibly not as detailed due having larger pixels in the larger sensors.

The biggest issue when DOF is so thin is placing it correctly, which also means being absolutely rock steady, IBIS can't help you as it can't compensate for back and forth movement. 

55 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Depth of field is related to magnification and aperture, you can't fix it by changing lenses.  You can back off and crop but you'll just end up where you were with the smaller sensor and possibly not as detailed due having larger pixels in the larger sensors.

The biggest issue when DOF is so thin is placing it correctly, which also means being absolutely rock steady, IBIS can't help you as it can't compensate for back and forth movement. 

What I meant was that, when looking for a certain magnification, you will get a better DOF from a dedicated macrolens than from a macrolens+diopter (45m + CMC-1).  At least that is what was told to me in the past. But I wonder if there's a Nikkon macrolens reaching the same magnification as my combo (2.0x).

31 minutes ago, Floris Bennema said:

What I meant was that, when looking for a certain magnification, you will get a better DOF from a dedicated macrolens than from a macrolens+diopter (45m + CMC-1).  At least that is what was told to me in the past. But I wonder if there's a Nikkon macrolens reaching the same magnification as my combo (2.0x).

No that's not the case if the magnification is the same the depth of field remains the same.  The dedicated macro lens is certainly easier to use than a lens plus diopter  as it focuses continuously from infinity to 1:1 and if it is a longer focal length will have more working distance.

13 hours ago, Draq said:

Adam:  Do you find it difficult to light subjects with the 40mm and its short working distance?  I was thinking of trying it, but not sure I am up to the challenge of properly lighting a subject so close to the lens.

No, particularly for blackwater. It uses the same port as the 60mm (with my housing) so the lighting issues are really the same for both lenses. 

11 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

No, particularly for blackwater. It uses the same port as the 60mm (with my housing) so the lighting issues are really the same for both lenses. 

Thank you.

On 2/26/2022 at 4:31 AM, Susa said:

thanks! That advice is exactly what I'm looking for. I was also thinking in direction of D500, but what do you think about the age of the D500 and it is also running out from Nikon? 

The D500 remains the best stills DX camera, dslr or mirrorless.  Mirrorless has af advantages in video, and newer cameras have better video specs.  But for stills, you have the advantage that the D500 costs are down.  Buy two and keep one for a spare!  If you were going to have a D500 at all, now seems a perfect time to buy one.

I shoot a D850, which has a few advantages and several disadvantages, to a D500 but with similar AF and DX performance.  If not cropping, I can have a tremendous amount of pixels on subject, with an amazing dynamic range. I used to shoot a D810 and before that a Sony RX100 II.   If you are doing autofocus, you want a camera like a D500 or D850 - my D850 was significantly better (faster, accurate) than my D810.  If focusing manually, not so much.  But it was noticeably easier to shoot some subjects that required near-instant focus.

For supermacro specifically, I'm not sure there is an advantage of a D500 over a D850 (or Z7) beyond cost.  I'm figuring you do more manual focus at the supermacro level.

9 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

The D500 remains the best stills DX camera, dslr or mirrorless.  Mirrorless has af advantages in video, and newer cameras have better video specs.  But for stills, you have the advantage that the D500 costs are down.  Buy two and keep one for a spare!  If you were going to have a D500 at all, now seems a perfect time to buy one.

I shoot a D850, which has a few advantages and several disadvantages, to a D500 but with similar AF and DX performance.  If not cropping, I can have a tremendous amount of pixels on subject, with an amazing dynamic range. I used to shoot a D810 and before that a Sony RX100 II.   If you are doing autofocus, you want a camera like a D500 or D850 - my D850 was significantly better (faster, accurate) than my D810.  If focusing manually, not so much.  But it was noticeably easier to shoot some subjects that required near-instant focus.

For supermacro specifically, I'm not sure there is an advantage of a D500 over a D850 (or Z7) beyond cost.  I'm figuring you do more manual focus at the supermacro level.

Hi, many thanks for your thoughts!

This is first time someone brings Z7 in here which is not so heavy as the D500 (beside money questions). But I talk to another underwater photographer about z7(II) and he said autofocus for Macro is too slow with the new Nikon macro for Zmount. And also depth of field is not enough for macro with this camera. What do you think about Z7(II) here?

And yes for "super Macro" most I focus manually, sometimes more or less trying to move the camera for and back :-) ..., but I use the autofocus very often for example Isopods which are moving very fast (or also a combination of auto and manual which is possible with Oly system. 

Thanks to all for every comment!

On 3/2/2022 at 2:14 AM, Susa said:

Hi, many thanks for your thoughts!

This is first time someone brings Z7 in here which is not so heavy as the D500 (beside money questions). But I talk to another underwater photographer about z7(II) and he said autofocus for Macro is too slow with the new Nikon macro for Zmount. And also depth of field is not enough for macro with this camera. What do you think about Z7(II) here?

And yes for "super Macro" most I focus manually, sometimes more or less trying to move the camera for and back :-) ..., but I use the autofocus very often for example Isopods which are moving very fast (or also a combination of auto and manual which is possible with Oly system. 

Thanks to all for every comment!

 

I suspect that if you weighed a Z7 it would be a lot lighter than my D850.  But weigh it in a dive housing with a wide zoom, a 230mm dome port, a focus light and a pair of strobes and they're going to be exactly the same: 'heavy'.

I see certain advantages and disadvantages of EVF compared to OVF, so I'm happy to stay with my D850 for now.  A Z9 interests me, but the housing alone is over $7000.

Macro - I don't do supermacro - I always use autofocus.  I never install the focus ring for my 105vr, and I've never tried rocking back and forth.  I use single point AF-C, back button focus, usually the center focus point.  I'll do focus and recompose, or just focus-and-crop.  I appreciate very fast AF.   One subject in particular: blennies peeking out of holes.   I usually find them in shallow areas with a lot of current surge, and the surge sometimes carries me 3-4 feet back and forth, back and forth.  I time my shot for the closest approach, which only happens for a split second.  I try to keep the focus point on the (tiny) subject. In those conditions, the D810 got about 2 out of 30 shots in focus.  (This is from experience.)  The D850 got three in row and I didn't need to keep trying.

I just don't know that the Z7 focuses as quickly as a D850 - probably does more accurately overall, but maybe not as quick.  I don't know.  I do know that the D500 is said to focus even a bit quicker than the D850, so well done there.

As for the comments about the 105s being slow and depth of field - macro lenses tend to be geared slow for the tiny little shifts needed at those tiny little depths of field.  My 105vr is no exception.   You want it to be in the general focus range before you shoot, which when shooting macro isn't a big deal.   Just do a little prefocus.

The depth of field 'not enough for this camera' makes no sense.  DOF on FX is DOF.   105mm is 105mm, except for rounding.  Want more DOF, stop down more.

Here is one place you want fast autofocus: Wire Shrimp

I can see why you want fast and accurate af for blennies in surge but why for wireshrimp. They just sit there. I have no problems getting them in accurate focus on my 2012 Olympus EM5. Like @Interceptor121 I feel that while better AF Performance is always nice, it is overrated and often bad AF performance can be overcome by good technique.

@hyp

Fast AF is a requirement for many macro subjects. Spend any time on the sand in Lembeh during a tidal movement and you'll experience the need...

Definitely not overrated...

@phxazcraig - I have both the D850 and D500 (and still use both fairly frequently). The D500 feels (very) slightly faster in practical AF (for macro), but you only really experience the delta in edge cases (like shooting bw).  

On 3/2/2022 at 5:14 AM, Susa said:

And also depth of field is not enough for macro with this camera. What do you think about Z7(II) here?

It is the case that you get more DOF with a D500 and its DX format than you would with a D7 and its FX format. That is something I have really come to appreciate having moved from a D800 to a D500 using both 105mm and 60mm Nikkor lenses. 

But of course you can always stop down more to a smaller aperture with a D7 - things like diffraction/light etc then having an impact though.

Yeah, the D7 is significantly lighter than the D500 (and, I guess the D850) but, as phxacraig writes, by the time you add all the other bits and bobs on it makes little significant difference.

I think we need to bear in mind that, while the subjects may not be moving fast, we have to maintain our position in the water column  (assuming we are not sitting on the bottom). So good AF is needed to keep our subjects in focus as we move - rather than the subject!

Of course, if we lie or kneel on the bottom, this requirement goes away, but I hope that the Wetpixel community understands the issue with this, not least of which is the tendency to destroy the viz

20 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

not least of which is the tendency to destroy the viz 

A WHOLE other story..... (gnashing of teeth)

8 hours ago, oneyellowtang said:

@hyp

Fast AF is a requirement for many macro subjects. Spend any time on the sand in Lembeh during a tidal movement and you'll experience the need...

Definitely not overrated...

@phxazcraig - I have both the D850 and D500 (and still use both fairly frequently). The D500 feels (very) slightly faster in practical AF (for macro), but you only really experience the delta in edge cases (like shooting bw).  

 

Maybe the EM5 AF is fast enough. I only had problems with very few subjects when I went to Lembeh. To be fair I only use single AF, because I know C-AF on those older cameras just sucks. Apart from supermacro where I struggled with "shaun the sheep" nudis (sitting on leafs that moved with the water) and a pipe see horse, because it was rocking in the surge and it was impossible to get the AF point onto the creature, I don't remember any struggles. Both of those were quite tricky, although a more modern camera with focus peaking would have made manual focus and just hit the shutter when they move into focus easy enough. 

So really apart from a few edge cases a mft camera from 10 years ago was good enough for the vast majority of shots. If you look at winning competition shots most of those don't seem dependent on super fast AF-C with tracking either. As I said, better is always nice, but compared to Birds in Flight or sports I find underwater photography much less AF dependent, except for those special circumstances. 

7 hours ago, hyp said:

Maybe the EM5 AF is fast enough. I only had problems with very few subjects when I went to Lembeh. To be fair I only use single AF, because I know C-AF on those older cameras just sucks. Apart from supermacro where I struggled with "shaun the sheep" nudis (sitting on leafs that moved with the water) and a pipe see horse, because it was rocking in the surge and it was impossible to get the AF point onto the creature, I don't remember any struggles. Both of those were quite tricky, although a more modern camera with focus peaking would have made manual focus and just hit the shutter when they move into focus easy enough. 

So really apart from a few edge cases a mft camera from 10 years ago was good enough for the vast majority of shots. If you look at winning competition shots most of those don't seem dependent on super fast AF-C with tracking either. As I said, better is always nice, but compared to Birds in Flight or sports I find underwater photography much less AF dependent, except for those special circumstances. 

I had the EM-5 MkII initially and had a bunch of issues with the 60mm macro hunting around in temperate waters around Sydney where there's lots of particles and surge is an ongoing challenge.   I found the AF improvement with the EM-1 MkII significant and quite a worthwhile upgrade.

I found the 45mm to be much better in terms of AF speed. I had my eyes on a used Em1mkii housing but was too slow. Don’t get me wrong. It’s definitely worthwhile to chase AF improvements but I don’t think it’s the most important factor in a camera like some here seem to believe. 

Thanks for all thoughts, at the moment I will stay with my Oly and try to improve with another wetlens in Anilao  :-) and wait for more ....