Advice for macro converter

What options do I have with a Nauticam port 65 using an Olympus EM1 60mm macro lens.  Looking for a converter or diopter to add to the port

for super macro.

First off, are you sure you really need it? I found 1:1 to be quite plenty personally especially on MFT with the crop factor. That said both of Nauticam‘s macro converters cmc-1 and cmc-2 are compatible and Nauticams Port chart lists 2:1 magnification with the 60mm +cmc-1. I personally used the 60mm with Sagas +10 diopter which is decent and quite a bit cheaper. Probably would have been fine without the converter if I had just manually set the lens to 1:1 and then moved until in focus though. 

5 hours ago, billywinter said:

What options do I have with a Nauticam port 65 using an Olympus EM1 60mm macro lens.  Looking for a converter or diopter to add to the port

for super macro.

The Nauticam port chart gives details of the CMC-1 and CMC-2, you can get 2x and 1.7x with 22 and 33mm working distance respectively, so you can do it but the small working distance will be quite challenging for framing and lighting.   You could also consider a + 6 to + 7 range diopter which might give you 1.3-1.4x with more working distance.

I agree with hyp that diopters are rarely of use with Zuiko 60mm or Pana 45mm, but I personally still like to have CMC-1 with me on almost every dive with a flip diopter, when I have one of the macro lenses mounted. It is very useful for very small subjects, such as eggs of nudies or clownfish, as you say, real  "supermacro". I would not recommend the CMC-2, as it is too weak and does not add much and significant magnification with MFT lenses...

In case you do not have yet the 65mm port, I recommend you go instead for the 45mm port plus 20mm extension. Then you can use both the 60mm and the 45mm macrolenses: The 60mm is the optimum with respect to working distance, but is limited when you photograph larger subjects (long working distance and reduced contrast then). The 45mm is better in not so clear water, when working distance should be shorter and for larger subjects. For larger subjects the normal range zoom lenses (e.g. 12-40mm) behind a domeport are, however,  much better than any macro lens...

Wolfgang

14 hours ago, billywinter said:

What options do I have with a Nauticam port 65 using an Olympus EM1 60mm macro lens.  Looking for a converter or diopter to add to the port

for super macro.

The olympus 60mm has a very short working distance of his own making the weaker options (CMC-2, Subsee, Inon UCL-90) not useful 

I use and recommend the Nauticam CMC-1 alternatively you can try the Inon UCL-67

@Architeuthis @Interceptor121 I'm not sure I get you.

See my other post on the subject but there's a huge difference on CMC-1/2 working distance, both with 60mm and 45mm.

According to Nauticam port chart, for Oly 60mm:

CMC-1 Max. Magnification 2.0X
Working Distance 22-70mm (48mm)

CMC-2 Max. Magnification 1.7X
Working Distance 33-122mm (89mm)

It's true that 20 or 30mm it's basically the same but with CMC-2 you get nearly double working distance for nearly the same magnification. and probably a higher success rate. 

7 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

@Architeuthis @Interceptor121 I'm not sure I get you.

See my other post on the subject but there's a huge difference on CMC-1/2 working distance, both with 60mm and 45mm.

According to Nauticam port chart, for Oly 60mm:

CMC-1 Max. Magnification 2.0X
Working Distance 22-70mm (48mm)

CMC-2 Max. Magnification 1.7X
Working Distance 33-122mm (89mm)

It's true that 20 or 30mm it's basically the same but with CMC-2 you get nearly double working distance for nearly the same magnification. and probably a higher success rate. 

 

You'll still get the magnification listed for the CMC-2 -  perhaps the way to describe it some of it's capability is wasted but you still get 1.7x out of it at 33mm working distance , but the bonus is at 122mm working distance with the lens at infinity you can achieve focus. 

delete

24 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

@Architeuthis @Interceptor121 I'm not sure I get you.

See my other post on the subject but there's a huge difference on CMC-1/2 working distance, both with 60mm and 45mm.

According to Nauticam port chart, for Oly 60mm:

CMC-1 Max. Magnification 2.0X
Working Distance 22-70mm (48mm)

CMC-2 Max. Magnification 1.7X
Working Distance 33-122mm (89mm)

It's true that 20 or 30mm it's basically the same but with CMC-2 you get nearly double working distance for nearly the same magnification. and probably a higher success rate. 

 

If you look at the distance that does not overlap 70-122mm you see that there the camera already focusses with the bare lens and therefore the benefit of the CMC-2 over the CMC-1 is little

The other issue is that for supermacro where you are in manual focus it does help to make sure you are close so a strong lens is good so that you know that once you are in focus you are achieving more than you had with the bare lens

36 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

You'll still get the magnification listed for the CMC-2 -  perhaps the way to describe it some of it's capability is wasted but you still get 1.7x out of it at 33mm working distance , but the bonus is at 122mm working distance with the lens at infinity you can achieve focus. 

Yes you are right.
My limited experience with macro is that there is really a huge gap between theory/technical data and actual use. It seems to me from personal experience that the difficulties and limitation of use of these wet lenses are not well understood.

29 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

You'll still get the magnification listed for the CMC-2 -  perhaps the way to describe it some of it's capability is wasted but you still get 1.7x out of it at 33mm working distance , but the bonus is at 122mm working distance with the lens at infinity you can achieve focus. 

With Zuiko 60 mm you get:

2.0 x at 22mm with CMC-1

1.7x at 33mm with CMC-2

You also can have 1.7x with CMC-1 and it will be more working distance than 22mm then (I guess similar to the 33mm you get with with CMC-2)...

The difference is that you can get closer with CMC-1 and hence have more magnification, in case you need it. On the other side you can have a longer distance, with less magnification, with CMC-2 (122mm) compared to CMC-1 (70mm). I, personally, think the range of CMC-1 is more useful...

With EM1-II, BTW, I use 60mm and 45mm with CMC-1 in C-AF mode, but it is a challenge. Certainly only for static subjects...

Wolfgang

Here an example of a photo where I think CMC-1 and 60mm is useful (not seldom, I have the CMC-1 mounted on the flip adapter, but I never use it during a macro dive. These dives pay off just for occasions like this)). It is possible to photograph the clownfish eggs also without CMC-1 and crop later, but with the small sensor and 20 Mpixel IQ will suffer:

Wolfgang

An here an example of Zuiko 60mm without diopter (but I think it would not be possible to get much closer without a diopter). The 1x magnification on MFT sensor is already a lot by itself:

Wolfgang

An here an example of Zuiko 60mm without diopter (but I think it would not be possible to get much closer without a diopter). The 1x magnification on MFT sensor is already a lot by itself:

 
Wolfgang

I want to expand on why the CMC-1 is a good idea and the CMC-2 isn’t
Majority of users rely on autofocus with the 60mm
This means that you are not actually sure that the lens will be at 1:1.
If you use the CMC-2 this will focus in the same distance range of the bare lens and closer however you will not actually know if you are in super macro or not
With the cmc-1 it will not be possible to focus unless you are in the working range of the adapter and at that point is guaranteed you are hitting super macro
Hence most people that use autofocus will find more beneficial to get the cmc-1

Other topic this is the reason why I have a focus gear which is a pity to use as it has a long run but then you onow when the lens is at the closest working distance hence I get more magnification than other people with the same lens that use autofocus
If I recall olympus has a pre-mf mode that you can use to preset the minimum distance however it is not accurate from memory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I take a counter argument that I don't care if I'm in super macro range or not, I find the subject move in till I'm happy with size in frame and shoot, this may or may not be in super macro range.  To me a wider working range makes it easier to find the subject in the viewfinder. 

In fact, this is the classic case where technical arguments go against the reality of the facts.

Now, I may be a wimp at shooting but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a very difficult lens to use and that the success ratio is very low. Certainly for photos it will be higher than video but the substance does not change.

Then of course everyone has their own preferences. I just wouldn't recommend it lightly.

Then we can go on ping ponging endlessly.

I can't imagine shooting supermacro video without a tripod and a subject that is almost completely static. Photo is difficult enough.

The op wants to do supermacro so that is the suggestion use a CMC-1 so you are 100% you will. The flip holder is ideal to use in those circumstances where you are not sure

Video is different from photos in fact for video I use Subsee +5 tops if handheld and otherwise tripod legs on the tray

The point is many people have a macro lens but do not take a 1:1 macro picture...

On 3/20/2023 at 9:24 AM, Architeuthis said:

I agree with hyp that diopters are rarely of use with Zuiko 60mm or Pana 45mm, but I personally still like to have CMC-1 with me on almost every dive with a flip diopter, when I have one of the macro lenses mounted. It is very useful for very small subjects, such as eggs of nudies or clownfish, as you say, real  "supermacro". I would not recommend the CMC-2, as it is too weak and does not add much and significant magnification with MFT lenses...

In case you do not have yet the 65mm port, I recommend you go instead for the 45mm port plus 20mm extension. Then you can use both the 60mm and the 45mm macrolenses: The 60mm is the optimum with respect to working distance, but is limited when you photograph larger subjects (long working distance and reduced contrast then). The 45mm is better in not so clear water, when working distance should be shorter and for larger subjects. For larger subjects the normal range zoom lenses (e.g. 12-40mm) behind a domeport are, however,  much better than any macro lens...

 

Wolfgang

Hmm other than the CMC/larger subject/murky water, would you say you have any preference between the 45 and 60 ?
Read all the topics I could find around here but seems in general its 50/50 sort of... and I have so far only used 45.

Curious as I am in the middle of "simplifying" setup and switching to WWL, and was planning to get a 20mm extension thingie, for an existing 45 port, but I am thinking if I will actually use both lenses sufficiently, i.e. if it won't end up to be the case where I am using 60 all the time, in which case getting 30mm and stuffing that on 35 port could be better option. And one less port to carry around