Supermacro

[Mariozi]

I use the Sea&Sea Compact Macro Ports (for the old 105mm) and I use a Kenko PRO300 3x TC in several configurations with extension tubes, diopters... for that I had help from Mr. Koda from Sea&Sea Japan on the specs of every port and extension for the Compact Macro Ports. If you tell me what you have (or want), I can probably tell you how to house it in this system.
You just need to know how much length the accessories you want add to your lens.
I will get one of the SubSee soon as well

 

[AussieByron]

Sorry if I am a little late in replying to this thread but I am currently using the Kenko 2x teleconverter with my 60mm Nikkor macro. It turns it into a 120mm focal length lens with 2x image size. I am still playing around with it and looking at maybe a 2+ dioptre to turn the setup into a 4x supermacro.

Regards mark

 

[Mariozi]

Sorry to inform, but the +2 diopter does not have that effect. You will get just a little more than 2:1, but most probably not even 3:1. And will lose precious working distance on your already limited 60mm (the new one is even worse on that!).
As an example on the 105mm the +2 diopter will make it go only to something like 1,27:1. And the effect of diopters varies with focal distance, and (sadly to you) are weaker on shorter focal lengths like the 60mm.
If one is interested in SuperMacro I STRONGLY suggest the 105mm.
I don't have the 60mm here, but once you get that could you please check it (shooting a ruler on the dry)? My guess is that the 60mm + TC2x + CU+2 will give you something like 2,6:1 (3,4:1 underwater).

 

[bvanant]

Marcelo:
That's the point of the 2x tele. Makes the working distance a lot more palatable. It is not unreasonable approach but for me the 1.4 makes much more sense. As for total magnification, the same setup on the 105 is only a few percent larger magnification.
Bill

 

[AussieByron]

Marcelo,

What do you actually use for supermacro?

105mm with Dioptre's?
105mm with the Kenko pro3000 3x as you sated you have above??

I would really like to see your shots with your supermacro setup.

Regards Mark

 

[Mariozi]

I use mostly the 105mm(old) w/ the Kenko PRO300 3x.
But I also have the ET kit from Kenko that allows the use of AF, and the CU Kit from Tiffen (+1,+2,+4). That I can use in several configurations even beyond (4,5:1) on Sea&Sea Compact Macro Ports, (111, 67 ER40 and ERSX). Most of the time I need to house this on the 111 plus at least one extension.

I find it VERY difficult when I go past 4,5:1 underwater.
In fact I have reached 6,25:1 underwater and 9:1 on land, but although it is possible, it is not very pleasing, just to much time spent on one shot. But if I happen to find something still, certain that I could go to the boat and back and find it in the same place I would try to go past it again.

This is a tiny juvenile, at 4,5:1 I suspect this fish is 1mm wide at it's widest part.

You can tell by the size of the polyps on the coral he was.

This is his daddy at the same setup.

This is a simple 3:1 of a detail of a normal sea star:

It was a bit tricky as we had some waves at the time, and I wasn't that deep.

This one I do not remember the setup, it's a scorpionfish eye:

This is a 6:1, at the MAX flash setting with pushed film... and even then depth of field was very limited, I find it really hard... it's a scorpionfish juvenile very tiny, this whole image fits with plenty of space in my hands little finger nail.

This was amazing because I remember seeing the reflection in his eye through the viewfinder!!! I was very excited when I exited the water.

Most of these images were obtained in National Championships of UWPhoto in Brasil.
I have a table here somewhere about all the different configs I use, I can send you via e-mail if you want.

 

[Mariozi]

These magnification factors don't take into account the 1,33x water density factor that I now use to apply.
The 4,5:1 I achieved with the 105mm + TC3x + ET36mm
to get to 6,25:1 I add a +4 diopter to that.
All magnifications were checked taking pics of milimitured paper.
I am planning a new more complete article about it with images of all the configurations for my home page, as soon as I get it done I will post here.

 

[AussieByron]

Hi Marcelo,

I presume the series of shot are film based and not Digital?

Regards Mark

 

[Mariozi]

Yes, if you remember was a lot harder uh? In extreme SM like that we were never really sure of the focus and used to take some extra clicks to "bracket the focus", and had to nail the demanding lighting on previous tests...
Since I moved to digital (and moved to Dubai) I am really OK with the "added power" to the 105mm as you can see on my recent "Dibba" threads or on my Flickr, although on some last dives I found some really small nudibranchs that I want to revisit at 3:1 (4:1UW) with the TC3x (which is what I would suggest for your intentions of going 4:1).
Anyway, the magnification factor (being described as a "ration between image size - as measured on the film/sensor plane - and subject size) doesn't change from film to digital and I try to be really careful when I publish my number for two reasons, the first being personal ethics, and also by trying to give the right information on equipment to uwphotographers and on the specimens to the biologist I work with and that see my pictures.
The DX x1.5 factor is just a "crop" and does not alter that relation.
The water density x1.33 factor is a different story, and I will start to apply it in my images from now on, because they can really give you the correct size of your subjects. The number you see on the last post does not take that into account.

Good Pics, and if you still have any doubt on how it work just shout!

 

[AussieByron]

Yes, if you remember was a lot harder uh? In extreme SM like that we were never really sure of the focus and used to take some extra clicks to "bracket the focus", and had to nail the demanding lighting on previous tests...
Since I moved to digital (and moved to Dubai) I am really OK with the "added power" to the 105mm as you can see on my recent "Dibba" threads or on my Flickr, although on some last dives I found some really small nudibranchs that I want to revisit at 3:1 (4:1UW) with the TC3x (which is what I would suggest for your intentions of going 4:1).
Anyway, the magnification factor (being described as a "ration between image size - as measured on the film/sensor plane - and subject size) doesn't change from film to digital and I try to be really careful when I publish my number for two reasons, the first being personal ethics, and also by trying to give the right information on equipment to uwphotographers and on the specimens to the biologist I work with and that see my pictures.
The DX x1.5 factor is just a "crop" and does not alter that relation.
The water density x1.33 factor is a different story, and I will start to apply it in my images from now on, because they can really give you the correct size of your subjects. The number you see on the last post does not take that into account.

Good Pics, and if you still have any doubt on how it work just shout!

I have some doubts on using a 105mm with a Kenko por3000 3x teleconverter on a digital camera. Your focal length grows out to 315mm or with 1.5x DX factor you have 472.5mm focal length. Trying to hold a camera onto a very small subject is going to be hard and there will be a need to increase shutter speed to handle the shake.

Taking into account the extra glass in the 3x TC that your going to loose a few f-stops along the way. So you have to drop your f-stops well below f22.

Your going to need some strong modeling lights as the AF will be hunting around alot.

As per film Super Macro wouldn't it be easier just to enlarge the shot and crop? Something which is easy done with film.

I will just stick to my 60mm with 2x TC with a focal length of 120mm (only 15mm more than the 105mm) but with 2x image size and look at a wet dioptre like a woodies than adds about another 2x. Easier to find the subjects in the viewfinder and the lens and TC fits into my 105mm port.

Regards Mark