Macro with MFT lenses, a nightmare

I just got my first MFT macro lens (the PL 45mm) and I love it.
It fits perfectly my macro technique, i.e. manual focusing to closest, and moving the camera. The broader DOF is a huge advantage - I can shoot 1:1 at 2.8 without having a hair-like narrow DOF like in FF. In camera MF assist works very well too: I use magnified view and focus peaking.

I currently use it with my GM1 (my only MFT camera for now) but I will probably buy a second MFT body, more suited for macro (with tilt screen at least) because I missed too much shots because of the poor handling of the camera in such situations. There is something I really want to try, it's E-M1 with MAL-1.






Shot handheld under very dim light with GM1 + PL 45mm macro, MF, 1600 ISO, 0.8".

Belgarchi said:

To clarify things: I don't have a macro lens, and I am using extension tubes with Sigma 60/2.8 (excellent lens by the way) on an Olympus E-M10-II.

I really dislike the non-direct feeling of the focusing ring of all my MFT lenses. I also miss the 'stops' of classic lenses, the written distance scale, and the immediacy of optical reflex viewfinders.

How are the MFT Macro lenses? Do you know some lenses with better focusing ring?

Or should I buy on old Nikon AI, Olympus OM or Pentax A Macro lens?

Click to expand...

Would it be an issue of your Sigma? There is some interesting findings during my testing of the extension tubes that some old lenses and old cameras, I might not stack both 16mm & 10mm tube together but when shooting with them individually, they were alright. There seems to have some sort of mysterious communication problem which is lens and camera body dependence. Not sure would your Sigma lens be one of it and so has affected the AF performance. Try any lens from Panny or Oly to see would you still have that AF problem.

If you have the native macro AF lenses (Oly 60, Pany 30, Pany 45), why still use MF? Of course, you might always use MF for fine tuning but the distance scale is no longer useful (specially for macro work) I think....

Optical view finder could not provide live view, so no focus point magnification. Do you really need an optical VF and putting a magnify glass in front of it to check the focus on tiny objects?

YMMV.

--
Albert

Stejo said:

The 14-140ii's min focusing distance is 30cm only at the wide end (up to 21mm). Goes up to 50cm from 22-140. The 19cm you're quoting with the extension tubes, are they throughout the zoom range? Considering buying a set of tubes.

Click to expand...

I tested the min focus distance at the longest end, i.e. @140.

Tariag said:

I just got my first MFT macro lens (the PL 45mm) and I love it.
It fits perfectly my macro technique, i.e. manual focusing to closest, and moving the camera. The broader DOF is a huge advantage - I can shoot 1:1 at 2.8 without having a hair-like narrow DOF like in FF.

Click to expand...

Just a nitpick really, but at 1:1 magnification DOF is no deeper on MFT than it is on FF.

Of course you'll fill the frame with a smaller subject at 1:1 on the smaller sensor camera, while you'd have to crop the shot (or go higher than 1:1) to get the same field of view on FF, but at 1:1 on each you'll basically get the same depth of field.

Personally, I don't see MFT as having a depth of field advantage over FF for macro work. After all, the FF camera can simply be stopped down to get a deeper depth of field, and the ISO increased to compensate if needed. Diffraction softening will be a problem at around the same depth of field on either sensor size. DOF only becomes more of an issue on FF if you run out of f-stops and still need more depth of field, but then pushing MFT past f/16 significantly degrades quality.

For MFT macro I've been using a Raynox dioptre on a Panasonic 45-175mm. The advantage of that, compared with a prime on extension tubes, is that it allows for quite a wide range of magnification.

At 45mm it can be used to photograph fairly large creatures like butterflies/damselflies, while zoomed to 175mm it gets to around 1.8:1 magnification with the Raynox DCR-250.

Here's an example of the difference in magnification possible just by zooming, without having to change lenses or add/remove tubes/filters:






This is a stack of two images due to the shallow depth of field even at f/16

A telephoto zoom + dioptre also provides a lot more working distance than a standard prime on extension tubes. In fact, the working distance is greater than I'd get with the Olympus 60mm macro. That's very nice when trying to photograph skittish creatures.

Overall I think it's a much easier option to work with if you don't want to invest in a dedicated macro lens.

19cm at 140mm sounds great, thanks.

Tapper123 said:

shupp said:

I have figured out that the 100 mm has a near focus limit that is farther away from the lens, which I like. But at the same time the EM1 has a smaller sensor which could help with the magnification I guess.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that is right. Slightly less distance from subject but also subject fills more of the sensor so it balances out.

The big difference for me is the IBIS. With the Canon setup I had to work hard to stabilize and use a tripod to get a sharp shot. With Olympus I can shoot handheld and get reliably sharp images. As a hobbyist who wanted a smaller, lighter kit, this alone makes MFT much more enjoyable for me. I think it's really wonderful for macro.

Now for very hardcore macro shooters, Canon has that MPE 65mm 5X lens, which is very tricky to use but can yield incredible images when used properly. But it's not a trivial task and not something you just carry around for fun like you can with a MFT kit.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that helps a lot. The Oly 60 could be the next lens I get. A decent flash and diffuser is also on the list.

Yeah, that Canon 65 mm is a bit to much for me right now. I prefer more versatile gear since I am on a budget as well. But I am sure it would be fun to try it out.

I have the oly 60mm and an adapted vivitar series 1 90 2.5 with 1:1 adapter. The oly 60mm is nice but I do seem to get better results with the old gigantic lens when I go past 1:1. I am hand holding a fl-300r without any diffusion so far, will see how things look when I add a second flash and some brackets.

vivtar with 42mm of extension tubes + 1:1 adapter.





oly 60mm with 26mm of tubes:

Macro was a nightmare.....

....when I didn't know what I was doing.

Not funny.....

Please use a good SLR with a manual focus macro lens, then use a M43 camera with an EVF and a 'wire' manual focusing ring to take macro and 'micro' photos, and get back to me..... I hope you will understand the difference.

Belgarchi said:

Not funny.....

Please use a good SLR with a manual focus macro lens, then use a M43 camera with an EVF and a 'wire' manual focusing ring to take macro and 'micro' photos, and get back to me..... I hope you will understand the difference.

Click to expand...

I used to dislike the electronic focus feature until I got used to it. I am still using a Zuiko ED 50mm F 2. which has electronic so called fly by wire. It works well enough for me.



Blue bonnets / OMD E-M 1 with adapted Zuiko 50 mm F 2 lens / MF mode set.

I also recognize that fine focus entails moving the whole camera body. That said, I must add that I do not seek to shoot 1to 1 and often not more than close focus. My game is sharpness and ease of seeing the object in a bright viewfinder. To choose the point of focus that yields what I am after. I have used good SLRs with a good manual mechanical helicoid. I can do either way. E-M1 shot of some small buds in a close up mode. No bugs, sorry for all entomologists out there..

Belgarchi said:

Not funny.....

Please use a good SLR with a manual focus macro lens, then use a M43 camera with an EVF and a 'wire' manual focusing ring to take macro and 'micro' photos, and get back to me..... I hope you will understand the difference.

Click to expand...

I do. So I updated my technique. Now m4/3 stomps all over the DSLR for macro.

Belgarchi said:

Not funny.....

Please use a good SLR with a manual focus macro lens, then use a M43 camera with an EVF and a 'wire' manual focusing ring to take macro and 'micro' photos, and get back to me..... I hope you will understand the difference.

Click to expand...

I find the focus clutch on the 12-40 provides a very direct feeling manual focus that is close to my legacy lenses. I rarely attempt close ups with anything other than the 12-40 or legacy glass - the 12-40 for best IQ, and legacy for specific rendering or a different FOV beyond 40mm. I have experienced the coarse manual focus mode on some FT and mFT lenses, and it can be annoying.

Belgarchi said:

Not funny.....

Please use a good SLR with a manual focus macro lens, then use a M43 camera with an EVF and a 'wire' manual focusing ring to take macro and 'micro' photos, and get back to me..... I hope you will understand the difference.

Click to expand...

I understand the difference.

My wife and I used good DSLRs with manual focus macro lenses for several years before switching to m43. For us, m43 gear had been much better. EVF based features like focus peaking, image magnification and blown highlight detection make it so much easier to get very reliable results.

'Wire' focusing has not been a problem. The focus ring of the Oly 60mm macro lens has plenty of travel and is quite precise.

A distance scale on the lens would not be precise enough to be of use to me.

Belgarchi said:

Not funny.....

Please use a good SLR with a manual focus macro lens, then use a M43 camera with an EVF and a 'wire' manual focusing ring to take macro and 'micro' photos, and get back to me..... I hope you will understand the difference.

Click to expand...

I have used a good DSLR (and SLR, if you go back far enough) with a manual focus macro lens, and I always had a beast of a time getting things in good enough focus to not be blurry a good portion of the time. As soon as I switched to M43, it was a revelation: Using that same type of macro lens ( an adapted manual old Nikon), I could instantly magnify my subject, focus, and get sharp shots. Hallelujah!

I currently use the PL 45mm M43 lens as my primary macro, but still will use the old Nikon every so often. To be honest with you, I just don't even notice the focus-by-wire feel difference anymore. When I first used it, I noted the difference, but it really just didn't make any difference at all after I worked with it for a while.

The thing is; even if I use the old mechanical MF on a non -M43 lens, there is only so accurate I am going to get with the focus (hand held that is) by moving any focusing ring, since even small movements of my body will put the subject in or out of focus. The way to do it, is to get the focus as spot on as you can by moving the focus ring, and then gently move back and forth yourself for the last little bit to get exactly what you want in focus exactly. Here's also where M43 is hugely better than a DSLR: That magnified view in the EVF I was talking about earlier? Using that makes this last part of the focusing algorithm hugely easier. You can enlarge your subject enormously, and doing that allows you to get dead on focus with just slight body movements, because you can see exactly where your focal point is in that highly magnified EVF view. No DSLR with an OVF will ever give you anything like that capability.

So, my suggestion is to change your technique rather than grump at the format. If you can't get used to it, then so be it. But don't insist that M43's macro functionality is the devil incarnate, as a lot of people who do a lot of macro work with it (myself included) have had a very different experience with it than you have.

-J