More super macro questions

[nortoda1 13]

I have just taken the FX plunge (D800) after a decade of DX (D70, D300). I've invested in a 105VR and can use my old sea and sea NX stanard flat port with the SX extension after a small modification to the inside of the port. Now to the questions;

What are my best options for super macro

 

I have a 6T diopter, but will need to purchase the 40mm extension to use this. Adding the 40mm exntension will mean there is about 2.5cm gap between the diopter and the port glass, will this have any negative effects? Will it have any negative effects if I add a wet lense (e.g. subsee)? If people think the 6T is a good option I will most likely also purchase the subsee +10 to use with and without the 6T

 

Am I better off purchasing subsee +5 and +10 and forgetting about the 6T? Or should I be considering one of the other wet diopter options???

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I'd suggest the Subsee route. Although there is no harm in starting with the 6T - which is great optically - just probably not good in conjunction with the Subsees if you have that gap. Generally you want to minimise the gap between the dioptre and lens - although I have never done the tests to see how much of a difference it makes.

 

Alex

[nortoda1 13]

Cheers Alex, subsee it is then.

[TomR1 5]

I am going to mess with the same issue on a Sigma 150 (An extension port won't work for my 105). I have a 5T and 6T plus subsee +5 and +10. On my D-300/105 I have difficulty locating the subject when i have the +10 mounted and difficulty getting a focus lock when I do. Possibly your later generation camera will do better

[Alex_Mustard 0]

On DX cameras definitely start with Subsee +5. Subsee +10 is very extreme.

 

Alex

[TomR1 5]

Alex-

 

Right. I am hoping that the 150 with the +5 will take comparible pictures to the 105/+10 with less difficulty.

 

Tom

[tdpriest 115]

I am hoping that the 150 with the +5 will take comparible pictures to the 105/+10 with less difficulty.

 

If the "stand-off" distance is greater, then lighting and backscatter may be more difficult. I certainly found that switching from a D300 to a D800 made my macrophotography more difficult as I swapped from using a 60mm most of the time to a 105mm.

[diverdoug1 56]

 

If the "stand-off" distance is greater, then lighting and backscatter may be more difficult. I certainly found that switching from a D300 to a D800 made my macrophotography more difficult as I swapped from using a 60mm most of the time to a 105mm.

Tim, If you kept shooting with the 60mm and then cropped the image to get the same 1.5 DX magnification, you would still have a higer resolution image than you would have had with your D300.

[TomR1 5]

The standoff distance is greater on the sigma 150 but not as much as one might think. The working distance difference is just a couple of inches and the +5 cuts it in about half. I will report my experiences. I have dove wakatobi the last 4 years with the 105 mounted. I plan to start with the 150. We shall see.

 

Tom

[diverdoug1 56]

Tom, just remember your DOF will be VERY limited using the Subsee (even the 5+), so think about increasing you ISO so that you can use a bit tighter aperture.

Doug

[tdpriest 115]

Tim, If you kept shooting with the 60mm and then cropped the image to get the same 1.5 DX magnification, you would still have a higer resolution image than you would have had with your D300.

 

That's cheating!

 

The standoff distance is greater on the sigma 150 but not as much as one might think. The working distance difference is just a couple of inches and the +5 cuts it in about half. I will report my experiences. I have dove wakatobi the last 4 years with the 105 mounted. I plan to start with the 150. We shall see.

 

Tom

 

The lens is longer, so it amounts to about 5-6" more on the strobe arms, which was my particular frustration, with back-lighting in particular.

[TomR1 5]

T.D.

 

I am using a pair of 9" Stix so I think I can get the strobes forward enough and still have enought spread for normal side-to-side parallel to the lens. Backlighting may indeed be a problem. Maybe I should pack a couple more arms. I have a couple of extra 4" Stix. I also have an INON s-2000 with an ultra-long fibreoptic cord that I purchased for snoot work. That could be interesting. Thanks for reminding me.

 

I actually think I may need more working distance using a Subsee. I have successfully taken minimum focus distance shots with the +10 using a 105. However, the working distance is very tight and it limits creative strobe placement. I am hoping the 150 and +5 will give me another inch of working distance and slightly less magnification. One problem is the 150 only goes to F/22 and I am usually at F/32 with the 105/+5 combination.

 

Internet at Wakatobi is very slow so i won't be able to post much or in high res.

 

Tom

[tdpriest 115]

 

I am using a pair of 9" Stix so I think I can get the strobes forward enough and still have enought spread for normal side-to-side parallel to the lens.

 

 

 

I am using a pair of 9" Stix so I think I can get the strobes forward enough and still have enought spread for normal side-to-side parallel to the lens. Backlighting may indeed be a problem.

 

 

 

Two 8" arms were only just long enough to backlight my 105mm in Lembeh, and my favourite subjects were moving, so a remote strobe and a helpful buddy would have been better.

[Glasseye Snapper 47]

Tom, just remember your DOF will be VERY limited using the Subsee (even the 5+), so think about increasing you ISO so that you can use a bit tighter aperture.

Doug

 

That defeats the purpose. Any resolution you gained by getting closer is lost to diffraction and increased noise. It just ups the masochism factor, loses useful field of view, and does not show extra detail you couldn't have seen by cropping an image shot without diopter from a bit greater distance (the only exception being if you are in low viz conditions where just getting closer is a big benefit, but you could do that be selecting a shorter focal length lens).

 

There is nothing wrong in general with trading increased depth-of-field for lower spatial resolution by closing the aperture, except when your primary objective is to maximize the level of detail, then you want the image resolution to be at least close to the max sensor resolution.

 

Bart

[diverdoug1 56]

That defeats the purpose. Any resolution you gained by getting closer is lost to diffraction and increased noise. It just ups the masochism factor, loses useful field of view, and does not show extra detail you couldn't have seen by cropping an image shot without diopter from a bit greater distance (the only exception being if you are in low viz conditions where just getting closer is a big benefit, but you could do that be selecting a shorter focal length lens).

 

There is nothing wrong in general with trading increased depth-of-field for lower spatial resolution by closing the aperture, except when your primary objective is to maximize the level of detail, then you want the image resolution to be at least close to the max sensor resolution.

 

Bart

Uh Bart, what purpose is being defeated?? If you try to shoot a Pygmy Seahorse with a Subsee on a long lens, the DOF will be so narrow, his snout will be blurry if his eyes are in focus! Of couse the angular and spatial resolution are inversely proportional to the diameter of the aperture, but that only holds water in the infinitesimally small optimum focal plane. We are not benchmarking sensor resolution here, we are taking pictures in the real world!

 

My comment you quoted was a suggestion for making the use of the Subsee easier, it does not address the virtues of the use of the Subsee. Had you taken the time to read all of the posts in this thread, you would have seen my post to Tim, extoling the virtue of using a shorter lens and cropping when using the higher resolution cameras. It seems that you have missed the point entirely!

Edited December 21, 2013 by diverdoug1

[TomR1 5]

Here is a Pigmy at minimum focus distance AF-105-Vr, +10 Subsee on a D-300. F/32, 1/200. It is a very difficult shot. The only way i could take it was but getting closer than MFD then slowly rocking backward until the camera achieved focus lock. That limited my strobe placement big-time. I am looking for different ways to get this kind of shot easier

Here is a Pigmy at minimum focus distance AF-105-Vr, +10 Subsee on a D-300. F/32, 1/200. It is a very difficult shot. The only way i could take it was but getting closer than MFD then slowly rocking backward until the camera achieved focus lock. That limited my strobe placement big-time. I am looking for different ways to get this kind of shot easier.

 

The second is a crop of the first.

[TomR1 5]

sorry wrong shot

[diverdoug1 56]

Beautiful shots that are a great example of the point I was making. The DOF is too shallow to get the complete seahorse in sharp focus even with the aperture stopped down to f/32. Had the aperture been more open, the amount of the Seahorse in focus would be even less.

Edited December 21, 2013 by diverdoug1

[Glasseye Snapper 47]

... This is a continuation from message #14 ...

Uh Bart, what purpose is being defeated?? If you try to shoot a Pygmy Seahorse with a Subsee on a long lens, the DOF will be so narrow, his snout will be blurry if his eyes are in focus! Of couse the angular and spatial resolution are inversely proportional to the diameter of the aperture, but that only holds water in the infinitesimally small optimum focal plane. We are not benchmarking sensor resolution here, we are taking pictures in the real world!

My comment you quoted was a suggestion for making the use of the Subsee easier, it does not address the virtues of the use of the Subsee. Had you taken the time to read all of the posts in this thread, you would have seen my post to Tim, extoling the virtue of using a shorter lens and cropping when using the higher resolution cameras. It seems that you have missed the point entirely!

 

Hi Doug, I did read your comment on using the 60mm macro and fully agreed with it (even though Tim considers it cheating). I did not realise that that comment and the one on easing the use of the SubSee were both from you, but it doesn't really matter. The reason for my reply was that in discussions of supermacro the focus, stated or not, often centres on magnification instead of resolution. In practise the two are related, but they are not the same and in my opinion this becomes especially important for supermacro and current high-resolution sensors with very small pixels. The same issue was recently raised by Alex in his review of the Nikon D7100 and I've copied a revealing section below.

 

"The only time we may want to consider diffraction on the D7100 is when we are shooting super macro. If you never shoot super macro, no problem! If you do, you have two options. First, just ignore it and use the aperture you want for depth of field you desire. This approach is fine and ignoring diffraction will leave you with images, even at the smallest apertures that are as good as you could have got with a D7000. The alternative is to worry about diffraction and shoot super macro at more open apertures. While this will allow you to realize the full potential of your 24MP, it will mean you are deleting lots of images because of lack of depth of field.

I think the best solution is to generally pick the aperture you need, but only go above f/32 in extreme cases. Ultimately it is the image that matters and it won’t in any way be ruined by a bit of diffraction, you simply loose the extra resolution advantage and end up with an image you could have taken with the 16MP D7000 – hardly the end of the world."

 

Alex is clearly aware of the interplay between DOF and resolution, as are you and most others, but I come to a somewhat different conclusion. The difference is subtle and not so important until you get into supermacro. One way to think about it relates to how you define supermacro. It is often stated as "a magnification larger than 1:1" but in my opinion it is better to think of it as "resolving details smaller than the resolution limit of the sensor". To do the latter you need a magnification larger than 1:1 but a magnification larger than 1:1 does not necessarily give you higher resolution. Another way to think about it, and more closely related to how we shoot, is as follows.

 

Start with your subject of interest. In this case let's stick with the pygmy seahorse. Given the shape and dimensions of its head you need a certain amount of DOF to get both eye and snout in focus. That amount of DOF directly sets the maximum resolution you can obtain. If this resolution is already less than what the sensor can resolve then you are not doing supermacro. Adding diopters, extension tubes, or teleconverters does not change that and in general will just make taking the image more challenging. As you and Alex said; getting the desired DOF takes precedence, you care about "the shot" not "benchmark the sensor". But the point I was hoping to make is that it is worthwhile to consider whether the DOF requirements for your subject qualify it for supermacro photography. If not, taking the diopter off is likely preferable to closing the aperture and boosting ISO.

 

Bart

Edited December 22, 2013 by Glasseye Snapper

[Alex_Mustard 0]

One of the reasons that super macro has become very popular recently is because the shallow depth of field serendipitously gives us great backgrounds.

 

Backgrounds make or break macro shots.

 

And the narrow depth of field of super macro tends to make it easy to get a diffuse, non distracting background.

 

This pypmy was not posing in a good position, although helpfully he was staying still and watching me (as I don't use a torch/focus light - which always makes them turn away). If I had shot this with less magnification the background would have been in focus (or more in focus) and therefore much more distracting in the final image. As I was setup for super macro I got this nice diffuse background - that made the shot worth keeping.

 

 

Taken with Nikon D4 and 105mm VR and 1.7x Nikon AF-S TC and SubSee +5. Subal housing, Inon strobes. 1/250th @ f/40, ISO 200.

 

I know I can shoot on f/40 on my D4, but if I was using a different Nikon I might not have stopped down that far. Here is a crop from the same file to show that there is plenty of sharpness:

 

 

Alex

 

[Glasseye Snapper 47]

Hi Alex,

 

That is a great example to demonstrate and discuss the properties of equipment, imaging goals and choice of camera settings. But your motivation was to actively limit DOF to get the smooth background whereas this discussion started on how to get supermacro while retaining enough DOF for the subject of interest. But it raises an interesting point.

 

You mention: "If I had shot this with less magnification the background would have been in focus (or more in focus) and therefore much more distracting in the final image."

Do you mean the background of supermacro is qualitatively different from a normal macro shot taken at the same shallow DOF? In other words, could you have achieved the same shallow depth of field and background quality without the SubSee by opening the aperture as needed? I am surprised if you couldn't get the same DOF that way, but perhaps there is a different quality to the background due to TC or diopter?

 

The camera you used also plays a role and since it is on the extreme-end of the scale concerning pixel size it is a nice contrast with the D7100 in the review (54Mpix in FF equivalent). As a result the D4's resolution becomes sensor-limited much earlier than the D7100. That means it relies more on image magnification to achieve high-resolution. One interesting result is that in "my definition" of supermacro you would be well into supermacro on a D4 to achieve what is "just" 1:1 macro on the D7100.

 

I'm also interested in your combination of 1.7x teleconverter plus diopter. My guess is that the discrepancy between targeted image resolution and sensor resolution is so great that a diopter strong enough to achieve the desired magnification would give unpractical short focus distances. Because there is excess optical resolution the TC effectively converts the D4 to the equivalent of a 1.7x crop sensor with a pixel density equivalent to a 20Mpixel APS-C sensor. In your review you mention "I took my Nikon 1.7x teleconverter with me to Bali (as I use it a lot on my D4 with the 105mm) and didn’t use it once on the D7100". Chances are that if you had tried, and it would be fun to do the experiment, you wouldn't have gotten the same improvement as on the D4 unless shooting really extreme shallow DOF shots, because more often the sensor is not limiting.

 

Having pondered on this some more I wonder if the focus on magnification is not driven by the desire to compose the shot in camera. To fill the frame with a small creature you have no choice but to boost magnification, even if DOF-limitations don't allow you to increase resolution. My attitude is not to bother and achieve the same effect by cropping the image later. But if you are in a photo competition (of if you consider it cheating) then that is not an option.

 

Bart

[TomR1 5]

Here is the crop of the White Pigmy I posted earlier. These critters are d@mn small. The entire Pigmy seemed to fit in my focus rectangle using the 105/+10/D-300. I did not use a focus light either for the reasons Alex states. One shot was all I felt acceptable to take as thes critters hate strobes.

 

I am not against cropping but this is about a maximum crop for a printable picture. It was the first time I had seen the crown on the Pigmy's head.

 

Regards

 

Tom

[diverdoug1 56]

Hi Alex,

 

That is a great example to demonstrate and discuss the properties of equipment, imaging goals and choice of camera settings. But your motivation was to actively limit DOF to get the smooth background whereas this discussion started on how to get supermacro while retaining enough DOF for the subject of interest. But it raises an interesting point.

 

You mention: "If I had shot this with less magnification the background would have been in focus (or more in focus) and therefore much more distracting in the final image."

Do you mean the background of supermacro is qualitatively different from a normal macro shot taken at the same shallow DOF? In other words, could you have achieved the same shallow depth of field and background quality without the SubSee by opening the aperture as needed? I am surprised if you couldn't get the same DOF that way, but perhaps there is a different quality to the background due to TC or diopter?

 

The camera you used also plays a role and since it is on the extreme-end of the scale concerning pixel size it is a nice contrast with the D7100 in the review (54Mpix in FF equivalent). As a result the D4's resolution becomes sensor-limited much earlier than the D7100. That means it relies more on image magnification to achieve high-resolution. One interesting result is that in "my definition" of supermacro you would be well into supermacro on a D4 to achieve what is "just" 1:1 macro on the D7100.

 

I'm also interested in your combination of 1.7x teleconverter plus diopter. My guess is that the discrepancy between targeted image resolution and sensor resolution is so great that a diopter strong enough to achieve the desired magnification would give unpractical short focus distances. Because there is excess optical resolution the TC effectively converts the D4 to the equivalent of a 1.7x crop sensor with a pixel density equivalent to a 20Mpixel APS-C sensor. In your review you mention "I took my Nikon 1.7x teleconverter with me to Bali (as I use it a lot on my D4 with the 105mm) and didn’t use it once on the D7100". Chances are that if you had tried, and it would be fun to do the experiment, you wouldn't have gotten the same improvement as on the D4 unless shooting really extreme shallow DOF shots, because more often the sensor is not limiting.

 

Having pondered on this some more I wonder if the focus on magnification is not driven by the desire to compose the shot in camera. To fill the frame with a small creature you have no choice but to boost magnification, even if DOF-limitations don't allow you to increase resolution. My attitude is not to bother and achieve the same effect by cropping the image later. But if you are in a photo competition (of if you consider it cheating) then that is not an option.

 

Bart

I think that for me, it would be difficult to see if my sublect was in focus if it was very small in my viewfinder (I am talking about the VERY small subjects. So if I go too low on magnification, it is a crap shoot as far as getting spot on focus. I think you could get some good super-macro images shooting 60mm on a D800 with subsequent croppping,but it unless you have eagle eyes, it sure would be hard to focus. I truly feel that the concern about decreased resolution with with smaller apertures is a non-issue in the real world with the images we are talking about here. Alex's photo is a great example when shot at f/40 the resolution is still great.

Edited December 30, 2013 by diverdoug1

[Glasseye Snapper 47]

I think that for me, it would be difficult to see if my sublect was in focus if it was very small in my viewfinder (I am talking about the VERY small subjects. So if I go too low on magnification, it is a crap shoot as far as getting spot on focus. I think you could get some good super-macro images shooting 60mm on a D800 with subsequent croppping,but it unless you have eagle eyes, it sure would be hard to focus. I truly feel that the concern about decreased resolution with with smaller apertures is a non-issue in the real world with the images we are talking about here. Alex's photo is a great example when shot at f/40 the resolution is still great.

 

Excellent point! My subjects are pretty much limited to fish and with them that problem rarely comes up. But I can see that with tiny invertebrates just seeing them becomes a challenge. Just goes to show that practice beats theory.

 

Bart

[Mark K 5]

Dear Nortoda 1

You can see the formula is quite simple

A macro lens stopping down to the smallest possible aperture, highest flash sync speed, a close up filter in front of your macro plus/minus extension tube.