Question Choose Camera Balance of Three Ease of Use, Cost, Quality for Macro

[bvanant]

The Sony is an interesting choice, I shot one for a while but the choice of macro lens is a bit tricky. An OMD-EM1 Mark 1 to 3) might be the same price but the macro lenses available are (I think) more useful but it is all about choice. Housings are cheap (Meikon is $300) and new versions of the camera are around.

In any case, if the OP is interested in shrimp eyeballs (and small things of that ilk) he will need a good macro lens and a good diopter and lots of patience. Also DOF will be a challenge, in general as your magnification increases the DOF decreases by the square of the magnification (more or less) and lighting at supermacro size is quite difficult.
Getting skills shooting macro is the place to start, get a good 1:1 macro lens and learn to use it. Trying to shoot super macro (2:1 or bigger) as a start is a road to frustration.
Bill

 

[Bubblesong]

@bvanant interesting about lighting at supermacro is difficult, as i had not heard that before. Can you say why, what needs to be addressed?

 

[Blackcrusader]

@bvanant interesting about lighting at supermacro is difficult, as i had not heard that before. Can you say why, what needs to be addressed?

I've not found it diffulcult with my video lights. You do need to be able to swivel them and use just enough lighting at low power but the OP will have a lot of learning about what lighting is enough.

 

[bvanant]

A typical super macro image is taken with a macro lens (1:1) plus a diopter. Adding a diopter makes the working distance shorter. Getting enough strobe light into that thin space is complicated. Video is a different game of course. Using a Canon 100 macro lens plus the SMC-2 diopter, the working distance is 22 mm or 0.8 inches. Getting strobes into the space is tough, particularly getting light on all sides of the subject. That is what makes super macro so much fun.
Bill

 

[Blackcrusader]

This taken with one light from the side. Note there are two pignmy sea horses in this shot.

 

[rmorgan]

interesting about lighting at supermacro is difficult, as i had not heard that before. Can you say why, what needs to be addressed?

Also, depth of field beyond wafer-thin becomes very difficult of achieve at high magnification, so unless that's what you want, you need to stop way down, e.g. f/18-22 on an M4/3 or f/29 on a full-frame. So, the tiny aperture makes it that much harder to light. Retra sells reflectors for macro which concentrate and brighten the light hitting the subject; there may be others which do the same.

 

[tursiops]

Also, depth of field beyond wafer-thin becomes very difficult of achieve at high magnification, so unless that's what you want, you need to stop way down, e.g. f/18-22 on an M4/3 or f/29 on a full-frame. So, the tiny aperture makes it that much harder to light. Retra sells reflectors for macro which concentrate and brighten the light hitting the subject; there may be others which do the same.

You need to be careful not to stop your lens all the way down, because diffraction can ruin sharpness just like being out of focus can. The general rule-of-thumb is to not stop down any further than two f-stops from the smallest aperture, so an f/22 lens could be stopped down to f/11 with no problem with diffraction...f/16 is marginal, and f/22 is noticeable. On my OM-10 (4/3 sensor) I try and stay at f/14 or larger aperture.

On a TG, there are really only two f-stops, wide open (f/2 when not zoomed) and one smaller (f/2.8 when not zoomed). It also has has a 3x neutral density filter it applies in bright light, so that is f/8 equivalent for light, but NOT for depth of field (DOF)...that remains at whatever you get with f/2.8. So diffraction is not a problem with the TG series, amd you get a tolerable but not great DOF.

 

[rmorgan]

You need to be careful not to stop your lens all the way down, because diffraction can ruin sharpness just like being out of focus can. The general rule-of-thumb is to not stop down any further than two f-stops from the smallest aperture, so an f/22 lens could be stopped down to f/11 with no problem with diffraction...f/16 is marginal, and f/22 is noticeable. On my OM-10 (4/3 sensor) I try and stay at f/14 or larger aperture.

On a TG, there are really only two f-stops, wide open (f/2 when not zoomed) and one smaller (f/2.8 when not zoomed). It also has has a 3x neutral density filter it applies in bright light, so that is f/8 equivalent for light, but NOT for depth of field (DOF)...that remains at whatever you get with f/2.8. So diffraction is not a problem with the TG series, amd you get a tolerable but not great DOF.

Right you are, of course. With the 60, I tried not to go smaller than f/14, but would go to 18 in a pinch. I feel like the 90 gives a more latitude, and I am pretty comfortable with it at f/18 and will go to 22 if i want a bit more depth. That said, I may not be using best practice (I'm not shy about using Topaz if need be). Happily, we're headed out on Wednesday--I'll try to remember to do some tests.

 

[Bubblesong]

@rmorgan You mention Topaz, which I’ve heard edges out Photoshop. I’ve taken the Photoshop seminars, but where could i take in person topaz seminars, are they coming to Dive Shows?

 

[tarponchik]

The Sony is an interesting choice, I shot one for a while but the choice of macro lens is a bit tricky.

True. Besides the E-mount 3.5/30 macro ($249 at Amazon) Sony also has the more expensive ($998) and quite bulky 90 mm macro FE mount lens. It is unlikely that there is a housing where it will fit. But 3.5/30 + wet lens may work.