What is Super Macro? Macro vs Super Macro - DX Sensor vs FX Sensor

[jodyelliott 0]

I finally am posting here. This has bugged me for quite some time. It is when figuring out what exactly is super macro. A bit of my history here first.

 

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)

[Undertow 31]

woah jody, my head's spinning after all that...

 

i don't know if there's a technical definition, but i believe anything beyond 1:1 is considered super macro. this would mean different real magnifications b/w DX & FX. I woudlnt' get to caught up in teh definition. Seems like you're playing with bigger and bigger magnifications, so just have fun with it.

 

That is one major strength of DX cameras, the focal length/DOF advantages for macro work. Cheers,

 

Chris

[Autopsea 7]

I think you think too much. You should just have fun with photography, and try t get closer by any ways if you want to. And, don't be so strict with croping : the final goal is to make a great image isn't it? you still have time to challenge yourself then

 

 

Full frame, only one lense with no adds, total lenght of the spider is <1cm.

 

[james 0]

To me super-macro is anything higher magnification than lifesize.

 

Cheers

James

[jodyelliott 0]

It looks like some of you guys have taken my post way too serious. I don't think too much and have lots of fun shooting macro and super macro. But when I first started out with a full frame sensor and not many were shooting full frame, it became a big learning process to get as tight as I had wanted. The DX shooters didn't have that learning curve. Unless you have shot FX you wouldn't know what I mean. As for my post, I thought others just starting out would like to know what I have learned along the way. This is a forum to help others I thought.

 

I like James idea of super macro. Just curious what people think as I have definitely seen things lifesize being call super macro.

 

Like I said before, just my two cents on the subject. Maybe more like 10 cents....

 

Here's to shooting things you really can't see the details with your naked eye......

 

Jody

 

 

To me super-macro is anything higher magnification than lifesize.

 

Cheers

James

[Steve Williams 0]

Hi Jody!

Thanks for jumping in. I'm with the rest of the folks here and think the accepted definition of super macro is anything greater then lifesize or 1:1. I for one would love to know what you've learned about shooting the macromate. I played with it for a dive last year at the Bonaire shoot out and only managed to get one frame in focus. Do you use manual focus when you shoot it? I think it takes some time to get comfortable with. Can you post an image you like or point me to your site so I can see what you've been able to do with it?

 

And oh by the way, thanks Thomas. I won't sleep for a week now.

 

Cheers,

Steve

[jodyelliott 0]

Hey Steve!

 

Finally I got a debate going.

 

The macro mate. I love it! You can look at my 'favorites' gallery on facebook. On the third page, you can see an image with a couple of sea fleas on a sea squirt. That was shot with my 100mm, 1.4x tele and the macro mate. Those guys are about as big as your comma on your keypad. That would be close to shooting like a DX with a macro mate.

 

When i first got the macro mate, I took it into a dive in Monterey. I remember getting mostly crappy shots but one was really cool to me. I was finally getting images that I had wanted without cropping. I hate any extra work for myself..... enough to have to edit some. I took a crab image with my 100mm then popped on the macro mate and took the same crab. I got mostly eyes which I really likes. I had to get closer once I popped on the macro mate but the crab didn't care. I don't know where those images are but if I find them I will let you know. I am in the process of updating my website and may find it.

 

It was really really hard to shoot the macro mater for what seemed like forever. Then I started to notice when I shot with just my 100mm, that set-up seemed really easy. Now it is still hard but harder with my 1.4x tele + the macro mate. But I can usually get some images I really like when I slow down and take my time. The plane of focus is not very big. Just a sliver, but when you just move your rig towards the critter and then back towards your body, you can see what is in focus and then click. Then hope you didn't move.

 

I shoot this type of set-up a couple of ways. I will pick a scene I like, then I will auto-focus for a starting point, then I manual focus from there until I see what I want to shoot. When I manual focus I am usually moving towards the critter as I want to be closer. But if I go too far, forward then I just back off and continue to manual focus. You aren't moving that far so it is not big deal. But if it is surgy, omigod is it hard! The other set-up is where I want to shoot just 1:1 on my lens and know it is 1:1. So for my Subal housing (I hope I have this right as I just do it automatic now) I turn the focus knob towards the back of the housing 3-4 times. I know then it has 'pegged' to 1:1. Then I just move in and out until I see what I want in focus. No more auto or manual focusing. I know my Aquatica was the opposite direction, so I hope I didn't mix them up. I use my company's product, a focus/zoom knob for good fingertip control. When my husband designed me one fits all gear set to shoot all these set-ups, he moved the focusing off the port up to my zoom knob, so I didn't have to take one hand off my housing to manual focus. Which is a pain in the ass and I rarely did it. When I got my Subal rig it was a bit harder to turn with my fingers. Just mechanically for some reason. So then the focus/zoom knob was born, just to give me better leverage. It is so easy to focus now I don't care if I need to manual focus. It takes awhile to learn to shoot the macro mate but I would not switch for a minute.

 

I just got back from shooting a month in Dumaguete (as you know Steve) and I shot with 1.4x tele and 100mm for the first few weeks. Putting the macro mate on when ever I wanted to get closer to some aspect of the critter. This is one of my favorite set-ups. For some reason, I decided to take off the 1.4x and just shoot the 100mm and macro mate. I shot this set-up mostly the last week. I realized some things about the advantages and disadvantages to shoot the two set-ups. With just the 100mm and the macro mate, I found because I had to move closer once I popped the macro mate on, I tended to scare some of the critters away sooner than I would have liked. I was in their personal space too much. With the 1.4x 100mm, I didn't see as a problem so much. I did see that I had to use less of an f-stop than I had wanted to and sometimes if i wanted more I had to change my iso settings some. on the 1.4x, it was iso 200 or 250 to get my higher f-stops whereas with the 100mm it was iso 100 no problem. The condition of the water varied though out the trip. But mostly the last two week the vis went down and was more murky and less sun, more rain. So that made a difference as well. But it is a thing to be aware of when you pick which to use.

 

Hope that explains something for you, Steve.

 

Long winded again! I am usually not so wordy, guess just being back from vacation I don't really want to work.

 

Jody

Hi Jody!

Thanks for jumping in. I'm with the rest of the folks here and think the accepted definition of super macro is anything greater then lifesize or 1:1. I for one would love to know what you've learned about shooting the macromate. I played with it for a dive last year at the Bonaire shoot out and only managed to get one frame in focus. Do you use manual focus when you shoot it? I think it takes some time to get comfortable with. Can you post an image you like or point me to your site so I can see what you've been able to do with it?

 

And oh by the way, thanks Thomas. I won't sleep for a week now.

 

Cheers,

Steve

[Autopsea 7]

It looks like some of you guys have taken my post way too serious. I don't think too much and have lots of fun shooting macro and super macro. But when I first started out with a full frame sensor and not many were shooting full frame, it became a big learning process to get as tight as I had wanted. The DX shooters didn't have that learning curve. Unless you have shot FX you wouldn't know what I mean. As for my post, I thought others just starting out would like to know what I have learned along the way. This is a forum to help others I thought.

Jody

 

Sorry if it wasn't that clear that I was just posting that to post that, as it's always coming at some point in this kind of debate so now it's done. I totally understand what you mean, having used a lot both croped sensor and full frames. As the "super macro" question, I would be bit more far that you guys, saying normal macro is down to 2:1, like puting a nudibranch full size on you screen, and then it comes super macro, from 2,5:1 to 10:1 croped or microscopes stuff. I wouldn't call any of my underwater shot supermacro, when the spider's eyes I posted will fit in it.

 

To add a difficulty to the debate, we do not have croped sensor cameras with the same quality than full frames cameras.

This mean you will get a better images croping a real 1:1 on a full frame (boom 21 mpx) than the original 1.6:1 of a croped sensor.

The comparaison is then very difficult. I'm far better with my 5d2 than my 400D, even in macro (with allowing me, of course to crop/post-treatment on both).

 

So, in the end I say it again (sorry, I'm not saying that being very serious, but with a funny smile) : It doesn't really matter. If I would buy a new camera/lense, I would think about two things : 1. which one will give me more fun, and 2. which one will allow me to do original and high quality images.

 

 

[jodyelliott 0]

okay, makes sense with a smile.

 

I really do like the spider eyes though. I hope Steve slept well last night..... Showed my husband and he coul d see why someone could have nightmares.

 

How do you like your 5d2? What housing did you end up with? Try putting a 2x tele, 100 and macro mate on that set-up? you could have some real fun with that. I have been too chicken to put that together. Well, not chicken as I know what the macro mate does to the 1.4x, it is more, do I really need to do a dive strickly 2:1 instead of a wider range of options to shoot with? I am going to Komodo in Sep. again. I may slap it on to, try the sea fleas/ladybugs with it. The 1.4x with the macro mate really gave me some nice tight shots in the ladybug with some cool backgrounds to play with. I need to find one that is double comma size to see what other details you could see that big.

 

Your def. seems pretty good to me. both for macro/super macro and I like how you buy your lenses. I love the fisheye lens for that very reason.

 

For a parting shot, i am posting this image of a hairy shrimp that was maybe 3mm big. I love seeing the details like the eggs in her as I only saw the fuzzball moving around and through the lens I only saw the whites of her eye and hoped all else of her was in focus.....

 

Jody

 

PS I hope the image shows up, my first time attaching one.... I preview'd but didn't see it.

[TheRealDrew 0]

I think you think too much. You should just have fun with photography, and try t get closer by any ways if you want to. And, don't be so strict with croping : the final goal is to make a great image isn't it? you still have time to challenge yourself then

 

 

Full frame, only one lense with no adds, total lenght of the spider is <1cm.

 

That is one heck of an image. Don't care what anyone calls it, wide angle, macro, super macro or otherwise. (Sometimes I think attaching words like that with too much emphasis on what things are gets in the way, though of course knowing how an image was taken is helpful ) Also you owe me some money, I had to FedEx Steve a glass of warm milk so he could sleep soundly

[Autopsea 7]

Hehe, I'm sure steve will be fine, he already saw some far more scary self portrait of me and is still alive. ... .... steve ???

 

Jody, I really like my 5D2. it's like I don't have a limit anymore. what miss me is a 24mm II but too expensive (1800 ebay) for now.

about macro, I considered a lot of things as I really like super macro. I'm not really hurrying myself as I might start a PhD soon which will not let me that much time playing around with photography, but here are my ideas :

1- buying (almost sure I will) a new SubSee when the new versions will be out. might be by the end of summer. will allow me 2:1. the good part is that I keep my superfast AF if I take it away with only the 100mm on the camera. then, if I see something small, I can just put it on.

2- find a port for the 65mm. This is BIG challenge, especially to use it then. I'm not sure if any housing manufacturer can do a housing that change size underwater with the lense (I'm sure it's possible, been thinking about it) from 20 to 35cm (5:1).

 

you can as well consider the pentax 28mm reversed with tubes. go up to 10:1.

 

If you want to see someone who knows about it, and my spider shot suck a lot compared to what he do, check here :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7539598@N04/

 

Enjoy

[jodyelliott 0]

woah, i am going to be jumpy all day after looking at those shots! those are amazing, thanks for sharing. your's is still one of my favorites.

 

just a note on #1, backscatter may be bias but i would call and talk to jim over there and ask about the glass quality differences between the two. i have heard some rumors but am not an expert in that area. that is the same set-up that i really like, instead of the subsee i use a macro mate.

 

on #2 why not use an extension ring with your macro port? is it s diameter thing? I don't have a 65mm or a 24mm for that matter. I have shot with a 180mm on one dive. It was so hard to shoot. But towards the end of over an hour dive I started to get the hang of it. I could see some cool stuff you can get but not worth the weight it is and I like more versatility under water.

 

what housing did you get for your 5d2?

 

i don't know what you mean by reversed with tubes, can you explain?

 

j

[secretsea18 0]

For a parting shot, i am posting this image of a hairy shrimp that was maybe 3mm big. I love seeing the details like the eggs in her as I only saw the fuzzball moving around and through the lens I only saw the whites of her eye and hoped all else of her was in focus.....

 

Jody

 

PS I hope the image shows up, my first time attaching one.... I preview'd but didn't see it.

 

Nice shot. Where did you see your shrimp? I got some of these in Lembeh in 2007. They were specks of fuzz on the yellowish sponge. Didn't see the eggs until reviewing in the computer later that day. (My image is cropped, taken with D80, 60mm, Woody diopter)

Edited July 27, 2009 by secretsea18

[TheRealDrew 0]

If you want to see someone who knows about it, and my spider shot suck a lot compared to what he do, check here :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7539598@N04/

 

Enjoy

 

First, your spider shot does not suck, even compared to those in the link, but those shots in the link are amazing. Very cool and so much dedication to get them I would guess. (Steve, do not check the link. You will never sleep again.)

[Autopsea 7]

on #2 why not use an extension ring with your macro port? is it s diameter thing? I don't have a 65mm or a 24mm for that matter. I have shot with a 180mm on one dive. It was so hard to shoot. But towards the end of over an hour dive I started to get the hang of it. I could see some cool stuff you can get but not worth the weight it is and I like more versatility under water.

what housing did you get for your 5d2?

i don't know what you mean by reversed with tubes, can you explain?

 

I will answer to "why no extension ring by showing a photo of the lense : http://www.flickr.com/photos/schoolbookdep...ory/1231381606/

It is not only very long, it's also very large and it doesnt fit in most of regular port. you focus point is stuck to a few centimeters, meaning you need the glass to be against the lense and so a very precise port size. then, you can only use one magnification (between 1 and 5:1) for one flat port.

I don't say it's not possible, but I don't feel like spending 2 months an 3000$ on that.

 

I have the Ikelite housing for the 5D2. experience tend to show me I don't get worst shots than anyone with a 3500$ housing, so I won't spend to few $ I have in this. plus I did some very bad things with my first ikelite housing and he never flood (huge waves, cascades, -65m...). plus customer services are great.

 

About the last point : Take a wide angle, turn it around on your camera, and check in. it will give you great magnification. I did a few shot with a reversed tokine 10-17 and it worked not so bad. the more used lense for that job is the pentax 28mm. I prefer my 65 but I guess the reversed pentax will be less long and so easier to house.

[james 0]

Here's a thought - you're buying that NP65 to shoot 5:1 right? So who cares about the shorter lengths, just stretch it out to 5:1 and make a port to match. :-)

 

I personally use a LLLOOOOOONNNNNGGGG port for my Tamron 70-200 macro (See library article/review) and find it works well. The air in the port helps a LOT to balance out the housing.

 

Cheers

James

[jodyelliott 0]

Nice shot. Where did you see your shrimp? I got some of these in Lembeh in 2007. They were specks of fuzz on the yellowish sponge. Didn't see the eggs until reviewing in the computer later that day. (My image is cropped, taken with D80, 60mm, Woody diopter)

 

 

I saw them first in Lembeh as well. At Panti Parigi site. This one was taken in Dumaguete, Philippines (just in case someone doesn't know) at a site called Dauin Norte. I was told in Lembeh Oct. 2008 (Kaswawari Resort) that these guys had only been found about three months b4. Trippy that you saw them in 2007. They were off by a few months or what?

 

J

Edited July 28, 2009 by jodyelliott

[Autopsea 7]

Here's a thought - you're buying that NP65 to shoot 5:1 right?

James

Well, not really. when you buy it first, of course you do a lot of 5:1.

but, in the end, 5:1 is really extreme and will only be usefull sometimes.

taking account of the distortion, focus lenght, DOF, and more, it give for most of the not that small subject better results to shoot 3:1, and if necessary to crop then.

 

So, if I really had to choose one port, I would buy it for 3:1.

[secretsea18 0]

Nice shot. Where did you see your shrimp? I got some of these in Lembeh in 2007. They were specks of fuzz on the yellowish sponge. Didn't see the eggs until reviewing in the computer later that day. (My image is cropped, taken with D80, 60mm, Woody diopter)

 

 

I saw them first in Lembeh as well. At Panti Parigi site. This one was taken in Dumaguete, Philippines (just in case someone doesn't know) at a site called Dauin Norte. I was told in Lembeh Oct. 2008 (Kaswawari Resort) that these guys had only been found about three months b4. Trippy that you saw them in 2007. They were off by a few months or what?

 

J

 

The Kasawari guys missed the boat. They were there in July 2007. I dived with Lembeh Resort. I saw these fuzz hopping around, and took some shots, Ronald was my guide. Looked at them on the lcd screen with zoom and still had no clue what they really were, but thought they were shrimp. Just looked it up, we were at Hairball in the shallowish area. Go figure, they must be a little bit common, albeit exquisitely little. The ones I found were often with eggs.

I'm going to Anilao next month, and will look for them in the muck there.... who knows?