Advice for macro converter

[billywinter 0]

What options do I have with a Nauticam port 65 using an Olympus EM1 60mm macro lens.  Looking for a converter or diopter to add to the port

for super macro.

[hyp 115]

First off, are you sure you really need it? I found 1:1 to be quite plenty personally especially on MFT with the crop factor. That said both of Nauticam‘s macro converters cmc-1 and cmc-2 are compatible and Nauticams Port chart lists 2:1 magnification with the 60mm +cmc-1. I personally used the 60mm with Sagas +10 diopter which is decent and quite a bit cheaper. Probably would have been fine without the converter if I had just manually set the lens to 1:1 and then moved until in focus though. 

[ChrisRoss 150]

5 hours ago, billywinter said:

What options do I have with a Nauticam port 65 using an Olympus EM1 60mm macro lens.  Looking for a converter or diopter to add to the port

for super macro.

The Nauticam port chart gives details of the CMC-1 and CMC-2, you can get 2x and 1.7x with 22 and 33mm working distance respectively, so you can do it but the small working distance will be quite challenging for framing and lighting.   You could also consider a + 6 to + 7 range diopter which might give you 1.3-1.4x with more working distance.

[Architeuthis 183]

I agree with hyp that diopters are rarely of use with Zuiko 60mm or Pana 45mm, but I personally still like to have CMC-1 with me on almost every dive with a flip diopter, when I have one of the macro lenses mounted. It is very useful for very small subjects, such as eggs of nudies or clownfish, as you say, real  "supermacro". I would not recommend the CMC-2, as it is too weak and does not add much and significant magnification with MFT lenses...

In case you do not have yet the 65mm port, I recommend you go instead for the 45mm port plus 20mm extension. Then you can use both the 60mm and the 45mm macrolenses: The 60mm is the optimum with respect to working distance, but is limited when you photograph larger subjects (long working distance and reduced contrast then). The 45mm is better in not so clear water, when working distance should be shorter and for larger subjects. For larger subjects the normal range zoom lenses (e.g. 12-40mm) behind a domeport are, however,  much better than any macro lens...

 

Wolfgang

Edited March 20 by Architeuthis

[Interceptor121 843]

14 hours ago, billywinter said:

What options do I have with a Nauticam port 65 using an Olympus EM1 60mm macro lens.  Looking for a converter or diopter to add to the port

for super macro.

The olympus 60mm has a very short working distance of his own making the weaker options (CMC-2, Subsee, Inon UCL-90) not useful 

I use and recommend the Nauticam CMC-1 alternatively you can try the Inon UCL-67

[Davide DB 600]

@Architeuthis @Interceptor121 I'm not sure I get you.

See my other post on the subject but there's a huge difference on CMC-1/2 working distance, both with 60mm and 45mm.

According to Nauticam port chart, for Oly 60mm:

CMC-1 Max. Magnification 2.0X
Working Distance 22-70mm (48mm)

CMC-2 Max. Magnification 1.7X
Working Distance 33-122mm (89mm)

It's true that 20 or 30mm it's basically the same but with CMC-2 you get nearly double working distance for nearly the same magnification. and probably a higher success rate. 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

7 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

@Architeuthis @Interceptor121 I'm not sure I get you.

See my other post on the subject but there's a huge difference on CMC-1/2 working distance, both with 60mm and 45mm.

According to Nauticam port chart, for Oly 60mm:

CMC-1 Max. Magnification 2.0X
Working Distance 22-70mm (48mm)

CMC-2 Max. Magnification 1.7X
Working Distance 33-122mm (89mm)

It's true that 20 or 30mm it's basically the same but with CMC-2 you get nearly double working distance for nearly the same magnification. and probably a higher success rate. 

 

You'll still get the magnification listed for the CMC-2 -  perhaps the way to describe it some of it's capability is wasted but you still get 1.7x out of it at 33mm working distance , but the bonus is at 122mm working distance with the lens at infinity you can achieve focus. 

[Interceptor121 843]

delete

Edited March 20 by Interceptor121

[Interceptor121 843]

24 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

@Architeuthis @Interceptor121 I'm not sure I get you.

See my other post on the subject but there's a huge difference on CMC-1/2 working distance, both with 60mm and 45mm.

According to Nauticam port chart, for Oly 60mm:

CMC-1 Max. Magnification 2.0X
Working Distance 22-70mm (48mm)

CMC-2 Max. Magnification 1.7X
Working Distance 33-122mm (89mm)

It's true that 20 or 30mm it's basically the same but with CMC-2 you get nearly double working distance for nearly the same magnification. and probably a higher success rate. 

 

If you look at the distance that does not overlap 70-122mm you see that there the camera already focusses with the bare lens and therefore the benefit of the CMC-2 over the CMC-1 is little

The other issue is that for supermacro where you are in manual focus it does help to make sure you are close so a strong lens is good so that you know that once you are in focus you are achieving more than you had with the bare lens

[Davide DB 600]

36 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

You'll still get the magnification listed for the CMC-2 -  perhaps the way to describe it some of it's capability is wasted but you still get 1.7x out of it at 33mm working distance , but the bonus is at 122mm working distance with the lens at infinity you can achieve focus. 

Yes you are right.
My limited experience with macro is that there is really a huge gap between theory/technical data and actual use. It seems to me from personal experience that the difficulties and limitation of use of these wet lenses are not well understood.

[Architeuthis 183]

29 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

You'll still get the magnification listed for the CMC-2 -  perhaps the way to describe it some of it's capability is wasted but you still get 1.7x out of it at 33mm working distance , but the bonus is at 122mm working distance with the lens at infinity you can achieve focus. 

With Zuiko 60 mm you get:

2.0 x at 22mm with CMC-1

1.7x at 33mm with CMC-2

You also can have 1.7x with CMC-1 and it will be more working distance than 22mm then (I guess similar to the 33mm you get with with CMC-2)...

 

The difference is that you can get closer with CMC-1 and hence have more magnification, in case you need it. On the other side you can have a longer distance, with less magnification, with CMC-2 (122mm) compared to CMC-1 (70mm). I, personally, think the range of CMC-1 is more useful...

With EM1-II, BTW, I use 60mm and 45mm with CMC-1 in C-AF mode, but it is a challenge. Certainly only for static subjects...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

[Architeuthis 183]

Here an example of a photo where I think CMC-1 and 60mm is useful (not seldom, I have the CMC-1 mounted on the flip adapter, but I never use it during a macro dive. These dives pay off just for occasions like this)). It is possible to photograph the clownfish eggs also without CMC-1 and crop later, but with the small sensor and 20 Mpixel IQ will suffer:

 

Wolfgang

Edited March 20 by Architeuthis

[Architeuthis 183]

An here an example of Zuiko 60mm without diopter (but I think it would not be possible to get much closer without a diopter). The 1x magnification on MFT sensor is already a lot by itself:

 

Wolfgang

Edited March 20 by Architeuthis

[Interceptor121 843]

An here an example of Zuiko 60mm without diopter (but I think it would not be possible to get much closer without a diopter). The 1x magnification on MFT sensor is already a lot by itself:

 
Wolfgang

1:1 is a frame 17.3x13mm which is very small
CMC-1 makes this 9mm which is extremely small…
Many users can’t even get 1:1 with the 60mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Interceptor121 843]

I want to expand on why the CMC-1 is a good idea and the CMC-2 isn’t
Majority of users rely on autofocus with the 60mm
This means that you are not actually sure that the lens will be at 1:1.
If you use the CMC-2 this will focus in the same distance range of the bare lens and closer however you will not actually know if you are in super macro or not
With the cmc-1 it will not be possible to focus unless you are in the working range of the adapter and at that point is guaranteed you are hitting super macro
Hence most people that use autofocus will find more beneficial to get the cmc-1

Other topic this is the reason why I have a focus gear which is a pity to use as it has a long run but then you onow when the lens is at the closest working distance hence I get more magnification than other people with the same lens that use autofocus
If I recall olympus has a pre-mf mode that you can use to preset the minimum distance however it is not accurate from memory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChrisRoss 150]

I take a counter argument that I don't care if I'm in super macro range or not, I find the subject move in till I'm happy with size in frame and shoot, this may or may not be in super macro range.  To me a wider working range makes it easier to find the subject in the viewfinder. 

[Davide DB 600]

In fact, this is the classic case where technical arguments go against the reality of the facts.

Now, I may be a wimp at shooting but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a very difficult lens to use and that the success ratio is very low. Certainly for photos it will be higher than video but the substance does not change.

Then of course everyone has their own preferences. I just wouldn't recommend it lightly.

Then we can go on ping ponging endlessly.

[Barmaglot 262]

I can't imagine shooting supermacro video without a tripod and a subject that is almost completely static. Photo is difficult enough.

[Interceptor121 843]

The op wants to do supermacro so that is the suggestion use a CMC-1 so you are 100% you will. The flip holder is ideal to use in those circumstances where you are not sure

Video is different from photos in fact for video I use Subsee +5 tops if handheld and otherwise tripod legs on the tray

The point is many people have a macro lens but do not take a 1:1 macro picture...

[makar0n 72]

On 3/20/2023 at 9:24 AM, Architeuthis said:

I agree with hyp that diopters are rarely of use with Zuiko 60mm or Pana 45mm, but I personally still like to have CMC-1 with me on almost every dive with a flip diopter, when I have one of the macro lenses mounted. It is very useful for very small subjects, such as eggs of nudies or clownfish, as you say, real  "supermacro". I would not recommend the CMC-2, as it is too weak and does not add much and significant magnification with MFT lenses...

In case you do not have yet the 65mm port, I recommend you go instead for the 45mm port plus 20mm extension. Then you can use both the 60mm and the 45mm macrolenses: The 60mm is the optimum with respect to working distance, but is limited when you photograph larger subjects (long working distance and reduced contrast then). The 45mm is better in not so clear water, when working distance should be shorter and for larger subjects. For larger subjects the normal range zoom lenses (e.g. 12-40mm) behind a domeport are, however,  much better than any macro lens...

 

Wolfgang

Hmm other than the CMC/larger subject/murky water, would you say you have any preference between the 45 and 60 ?
Read all the topics I could find around here but seems in general its 50/50 sort of... and I have so far only used 45.

Curious as I am in the middle of "simplifying" setup and switching to WWL, and was planning to get a 20mm extension thingie, for an existing 45 port, but I am thinking if I will actually use both lenses sufficiently, i.e. if it won't end up to be the case where I am using 60 all the time, in which case getting 30mm and stuffing that on 35 port could be better option. And one less port to carry around

Edited April 3 by makar0n

[Architeuthis 183]

30 minutes ago, makar0n said:

Hmm other than the CMC/larger subject/murky water, would you say you have any preference between the 45 and 60 ?
Read all the topics I could find around here but seems in general its 50/50 sort of... and I have so far only used 45.

Curious as I am in the middle of "simplifying" setup and switching to WWL, and was planning to get a 20mm extension thingie, for an existing 45 port, but I am thinking if I will actually use both lenses sufficiently, i.e. if it won't end up to be the case where I am using 60 all the time, in which case getting 30mm and stuffing that on 35 port could be better option. And one less port to carry around

Hi Makar0n,

The preference is, of course, personal and individual, but I prefer the 60mm lens (when visibility allows)). This is because it gives the longer working distance, important for almost all critters. The 45mm has its advantage when murky water/larger subjects (but I personally never go a priori for larger subjects with a macro lens, but use the 12-40mm standard zoom&domeport for this purpose and the results have clearly better IQ; therefore larger subjects are never an indication to take a macro lens for me). CMC-1 works with both lenses and with both the working distance is small (even a little bit smaller with 45mm). Not to forget the 45mm has IS, also nice to have...

 My wife prefers the 45mm macro, this is because it is easier to find subjects in the viewfinder, as also Chris says...

I think the new 90mm macro goes into the same direction as the 60mm, but much further and with less comprimise regarding murky waters/larger subjects. It even gives 2x magnification, the same as 60mm+CMC-1 (CMC can still be added and then you get more...).This would have been my macro lens of choice, if I would have stayed with MFT. 45mm plus 90mm is certainly the best repertoire for macro and highly complementary, but you need to lugg around an additional big lens + separate dedicated port (with 60mm it is just a small lens and a small 20mm N85 extension, but there is a lot more of overlap between 45mm and 60mm). As always, no free lunch...

 

Wolfgang

Edited April 3 by Architeuthis

[Davide DB 600]

I have read several times how difficult it is to centre the subject with a snoot without having a built-in guide light...

Here, I would like to patent a macro lens with a built-in guide light exactly in the centre that would allow me to see where the hell I am pointing the lens.

Follow me for more macro tips!

[makar0n 72]

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

Hi Makar0n,

The preference is, of course, personal and individual, but I prefer the 60mm lens (when visibility allows)). This is because it gives the longer working distance, important for almost all critters. The 45mm has its advantage when murky water/larger subjects (but I personally never go a priori for larger subjects with a macro lens, but use the 12-40mm standard zoom&domeport for this purpose and the results have clearly better IQ; therefore larger subjects are never an indication to take a macro lens for me). CMC-1 works with both lenses and with both the working distance is small (even a little bit smaller with 45mm). Not to forget the 45mm has IS, also nice to have...

 My wife prefers the 45mm macro, this is because it is easier to find subjects in the viewfinder, as also Chris says...

I think the new 90mm macro goes into the same direction as the 60mm, but much further and with less comprimise regarding murky waters/larger subjects. It even gives 2x magnification, the same as 60mm+CMC-1 (CMC can still be added and then you get more...).This would have been my macro lens of choice, if I would have stayed with MFT. 45mm plus 90mm is certainly the best repertoire for macro and highly complementary, but you need to lugg around an additional big lens + separate dedicated port (with 60mm it is just a small lens and a small 20mm N85 extension, but there is a lot more of overlap between 45mm and 60mm). As always, no free lunch...

 

Wolfgang

Thanks for the insight. Hmm dilemma dilemma. Not doing much murky water stuff (as in Baltic sea type of murky) per se but subject size wise I can think of those giant frog fish thingies in Komodo, where indeed having 60 could be troublesome, as 45 was already challenging. Well OIS is certainly nice but then I have no idea whether just the in-body would still do its job as in whether the difference would be noticeable. And do not have a viewfinder but good to know. So guess for now it will all come down to whether I want to lug that extra port with me or not
Sadly 90mm is not an option for now...tad to pricey for a poor peasant like myself plus it think I would like to see some real UW reviews first before spending this kind of money, if ever ...plus then it is indeed a rather big port to carry around. Goes against the whole simplify idea somehow.

Edited April 3 by makar0n

[makar0n 72]

14 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

I have read several times how difficult it is to centre the subject with a snoot without having a built-in guide light...

Here, I would like to patent a macro lens with a built-in guide light exactly in the centre that would allow me to see where the hell I am pointing the lens.

Follow me for more macro tips!

[Interceptor121 843]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

I have read several times how difficult it is to centre the subject with a snoot without having a built-in guide light...

Here, I would like to patent a macro lens with a built-in guide light exactly in the centre that would allow me to see where the hell I am pointing the lens.

Follow me for more macro tips!

Canon EF - S 35mm has a light ring around the lens