I started diving about 4 1/2 years ago. I used some point and shoots soon after my open water. I shot with those for about 1 1/2 years. I have been shooting a full frame sensor (FX) camera for 2 1/2 years. I had a 5D Mk I and now shoot a 1DS Mk III. The 5D Mk I was the only FX camera on the market at the time. I shoot mostly with a 100mm macro lens. I bought a Macro Mate, I think, about a year after getting the 5D. That was harder than heck to get used to but when I did, it was really fun to shoot with. I kept seeing other shooters images that were not cropped but were closer than what I could get with the 100mm. I was told no diopters were used. This confused me until I finally realized the difference between a full frame and a cropped framed sensor. The images I saw were taken by DX shooters . The Macro Mate helped some on what I was trying to achieve but... not quite what I was trying for. Just get closer, right? At some point I also was told I probably wasn't getting the full range on my lens, 1:1. So I knew I had room there to 'get closer'. I finally figured out how to know when I achieved 1:1. I did see I had not been getting 1:1 in the past. Then popping on the Macro Mate on top of that, was awesome! I could get a lot of the shots I had been trying for. But..... still not exactly what I wanting compared to what I saw other DX shooters were getting. Plus I didn't want to crop. I wanted to compose my image as I shot without thinking that I had to crop later. This still bugged me so I investigated extension tubes and tele-converters. I opted with tele-converters. I bought two, 1.4x and 2x Tameron tele's. I have not used the 2x as of yet as the 1.4x suits me just fine. I will try the 2x this year, I swear..... The macro mate on top of that, omigod! The 1.4x with the Macro Mate is hard enough! But I have mastered that, to some degree, and I like to have that option now and then on a dive. That is what I was looking for! I recently was shooting in Dumaguete and shot about two weeks with my 1.4x and 100mm using the Macro Mate now and then. For some reason I wanted to shoot just my 100mm again and it was refreshing to shoot with that lens again. But I did miss being at the same distance away and getting a more of a full framed image of a critter without scaring them away. As when I popped the Macro Mate on just my 100mm set-up was doing as I had to get closer to get that 1:1 image.
So..... macro vs super macro DX sensor vs FX sensor
Here is what Super Macro' is to me.
It would be an FX camera with a 1.4x tele or a 2x tele + 100mm or 105mm lens PLUS a Macro Mate with the critter being less than an inch big
Or it would be a DX camera with a 100mm or 105mm lens PLUS a Macro Mate or a 100mm or 105mm with a 1.4x or 2x tele with the critter being less than an inch big
and NOT a DX camera with just the 100mm or 105mm lens.
I think shooting Super Macro is very hard, but fun and very rewarding. But when I shoot just with a 100mm lens or the 1.4x + the 100mm lens, those are easy to do with my FX camera. (well... you still have to get stuff composed and in focus... which can be hard in themselves) And the 1.4x is a lot more difficult to use than just the 100mm by itself. That is where I compare a FX to most DX cameras shooting just the 100mm or 105mm. It is when I put the Macro Mate on top of the 1.4x + 100mm when it gets a lot more difficult. That is what I consider Super Macro... hard, fun, and trippy (to use a word my friends tease me about using)
So...... what do you think? is this my definition the way super macro really is?
I see too many images that say they are super macro but they don't seem close enough to me. I guess you could call a crocodile fish's eye (full framed shot) super macro as it is close and tight. But I would consider a pygmy seahorse's eye or a rhinophore of a nudibranch (fulled framed shots) as the real super macro image.
Food for thought....
Jody
(Sorry for such a long winded post)
