A fly, wasp and spider

[GardenersHelper]

I captured these hand-held yesterday in our garden with (as an experiment) two Marumi 330 close-up lenses stacked on a 45-175 on a Panasonic G80 with Venus Optics KX800 twin flash. The Marumi 330 is +3 diopters, so a pair of them gives +6 diopters, in between the power of a Raynox 150 (+4.8) and a Raynox 250 (+8).

I used autofocus as usual for the fly and the wasp. Unusually, for the spider I used fixed focus and moved the camera (almost vertically in this case) as autofocus tends to pick up on the web rather than the spider when the spider is on the opposite side of the web. The fly and the spider were stationary. I was (trying to) track the wasp as it scuttled around continually, in and out of sight going from leaf to leaf. I find autofocus especially useful for moving subjects like this.

From #3 onwards all used minimum aperture of f/22, which is what I generally use for invertebrates. Since the subject was small in the frame the first two could use larger apertures of f/4 and f/5.6 to help isolate the subject from the background while keeping the near side of the subject in focus.

The raw files were batch processed in DXO PhotoLab, Silkypix Developer Pro and Lightroom, with image-specific adjustments in Lightroom. There are 1400 pixel high versions in this album at Flickr.


#1

1367 01 2018_08_25 P1130321_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#2

1367 02 2018_08_25 P1130318_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#3

1367 03 2018_08_25 P1130287_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#4

1367 04 2018_08_25 P1130339_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#5

1367 05 2018_08_25 P1130324_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#6

1367 06 2018_08_25 P1130325_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#7

1367 07 2018_08_25 P1130337_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

#8

1367 08 2018_08_25 P1130399_DxO RAW SP7 LR7 1400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[Graham]

Awesome as ever Nick, I like No 4 & 5.

 

[alfbranch]

Nick
The fly is good a s usual I really like the wasp shots and that spider is cool is that a wasp larvae on it?

 

[GardenersHelper]

Awesome as ever Nick, I like No 4 & 5.

Thanks Graham.

Nick
The fly is good a s usual I really like the wasp shots and that spider is cool is that a wasp larvae on it?

Thanks Alf.

I should be embarrassed to say this (but being me, I'm not ), but I don't know what a wasp larva looks like (How long have I been doing this? I know, I know...).

Are you looking at the patch on the abdomen? The cephalothorax looks more wrinkly than I've seen before (and similarly wrinkly as the patch on the abdomen, which tbh I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it), but I had assumed the wrinkliness on the cephalothorax was because I'm getting a bit more resolution with the kit I used for this. Would that be larvae?

 

[alfbranch]

I should be embarrassed to say this (but being me, I'm not ), but I don't know what a wasp larva looks like (How long have I been doing this? I know, I know...).

Are you looking at the patch on the abdomen? The cephalothorax looks more wrinkly than I've seen before (and similarly wrinkly as the patch on the abdomen, which tbh I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it), but I had assumed the wrinkliness on the cephalothorax was because I'm getting a bit more resolution with the kit I used for this. Would that be larvae?

Nick
I am talking about what looks like an egg or start of a larva by the second leg on the right hand side as we look it.

Have a look at these

https://flic.kr/p/typ36i

https://flic.kr/p/TtteSE

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick
I am talking about what looks like an egg or start of a larva by the second leg on the right hand side as we look it.

Have a look at these

https://flic.kr/p/typ36i

https://flic.kr/p/TtteSE

Oh yes, it does look like the first of those. Well spotted, and thanks Alf. Very educational; I like that.

 

[Cagey75]

Very nice set, I think #5 is my favorite, also #7. That lens is tempting, I have the Raynox 250 and it should work really nice with it, I like that it doesn't protrude when zooming too.

 

[davholla]

Very good, how did you choose f22 as the ideal aperture? Was it the result of some experiment to find the ideal aperture?

 

[GardenersHelper]

Very nice set, I think #5 is my favorite, also #7.

Thanks.

That lens is tempting, I have the Raynox 250 and it should work really nice with it, I like that it doesn't protrude when zooming too.

It works well with all my close-up lenses, including the Raynox 250. The fact that it does not extend makes it particularly useful as the magnification goes up. At higher magnifications it can be frustratingly difficult to line up the camera on the subject even though you know exactly where it is, the more so when the subject is moving around. What you need to do is to decrease the magnification, line up on the subject and then zoom in to get the magnification/framing you want for the shot. The trouble with extending lenses at higher magnifications is that in order to keep within the usable working distance range you have to move the camera in as you decrease the magnification and then move it out again as you increase the magnification to get the shot. At higher magnifications the tolerance in the working distance is very small and the extension of the lens is very large in comparison, and as you move not very far outside the working distance range it becomes very difficult to make out anything at all. Then, having lined up on the subject, perhaps with some difficulty, it is very easy to lose it again, especially if it is moving around or is on a leaf that is moving around in a breeze.

The 45-175 more or less cures this problem. You can zoom in and out without moving the camera, or moving it only very slightly. It is also helped by the fact that the 45-175 is a power zoom lens with a zoom lever on the lens very conveniently placed for the index finger of the left hand, and the lever can be operated with a very light touch. Using this means the camera doesn't wobble as you zoom in and out, which it does tend to (when working hand-held, which I do) when using a zoom ring on the lens (not much wobble perhaps, but at higher magnifications all movements become much magnified.

I don't generally do much with small subjects, but I've had such trouble finding my usual sized subjects that I have been trying with small subjects in the past couple of days. For example yesterday I was testing setups with a Raynox 150 on the two Marumi 330s (total 10.4 diopters compared to the +8 for the Raynox 250), a Raynox 250 on the twin M330s (total +14 diopters) and (what turned out to be most of the time, and by itself) a Raynox MSN-202 (+25 diopters). With the MSN-202 on the 45-175 you get scene widths of 15mm down to 4.5mm, with autofocus right across the range. The working distance is about 30mm, so you need to be a bit canny with the flash setup.

I have posted eight MSN-202 examples in this thread, seven of which used the MNS-202 on a 45-175.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Very good, how did you choose f22 as the ideal aperture? Was it the result of some experiment to find the ideal aperture?

Yes it was - a lot of experimenting. It is an issue I have kept coming back to in one way and another in my long "Journey" thread that has been going on for more than four years now. It is so counter-intuitive (once one knows about diffraction) that it took me a long time to convince myself that I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. By now I'm quite relaxed about using minimum aperture for invertebrates (and occasionally for botanical scenes), but I do get into discussions about it from time to time, occasionally (not here) somewhat fractious.

Some people know, for certain, that it is a terrible idea (and that it is obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about) and that using small apertures couldn't possibly produce anything but rubbish results "Nobody who is serious about macro would do that, but if it floats your boat feel free" and similarly belittling remarks. Very tedious. Actually, I think there may be more acceptance of it these days; that is the impression I get over at dpreview.

 

[Cagey75]

Thanks.



It works well with all my close-up lenses, including the Raynox 250. The fact that it does not extend makes it particularly useful as the magnification goes up. At higher magnifications it can be frustratingly difficult to line up the camera on the subject even though you know exactly where it is, the more so when the subject is moving around. What you need to do is to decrease the magnification, line up on the subject and then zoom in to get the magnification/framing you want for the shot. The trouble with extending lenses at higher magnifications is that in order to keep within the usable working distance range you have to move the camera in as you decrease the magnification and then move it out again as you increase the magnification to get the shot. At higher magnifications the tolerance in the working distance is very small and the extension of the lens is very large in comparison, and as you move not very far outside the working distance range it becomes very difficult to make out anything at all. Then, having lined up on the subject, perhaps with some difficulty, it is very easy to lose it again, especially if it is moving around or is on a leaf that is moving around in a breeze.

The 45-175 more or less cures this problem. You can zoom in and out without moving the camera, or moving it only very slightly. It is also helped by the fact that the 45-175 is a power zoom lens with a zoom lever on the lens very conveniently placed for the index finger of the left hand, and the lever can be operated with a very light touch. Using this means the camera doesn't wobble as you zoom in and out, which it does tend to (when working hand-held, which I do) when using a zoom ring on the lens (not much wobble perhaps, but at higher magnifications all movements become much magnified.

I don't generally do much with small subjects, but I've had such trouble finding my usual sized subjects that I have been trying with small subjects in the past couple of days. For example yesterday I was testing setups with a Raynox 150 on the two Marumi 330s (total 10.4 diopters compared to the +8 for the Raynox 250), a Raynox 250 on the twin M330s (total +14 diopters) and (what turned out to be most of the time, and by itself) a Raynox MSN-202 (+25 diopters). With the MSN-202 on the 45-175 you get scene widths of 15mm down to 4.5mm, with autofocus right across the range. The working distance is about 30mm, so you need to be a bit canny with the flash setup.

I have posted eight MSN-202 examples in this thread, seven of which used the MNS-202 on a 45-175.

Wow, thanks for the detailed response, very helpful indeed I used the Panasonic 100- 300 for macro for a while, you can get up to 3:1 macro on the long end with the Raynox 250 attached, but you do encounter issues when trying to move in and out to focus like you mentions. With the barrel extended it's easy to misjudge when looking through the evf in particular. I sold that lens on a while back, but for the coming Autumn/Winter I'd like to have a tele lens, but a bit more compact, the 45-175 seems ideal. It would double for my garden birds and for macro using the Raynox. I will have a look at that thread now

 

[GardenersHelper]

Wow, thanks for the detailed response, very helpful indeed I used the Panasonic 100- 300 for macro for a while, you can get up to 3:1 macro on the long end with the Raynox 250 attached,

That's rather good. Did you get any vignetting at 100mm?

but you do encounter issues when trying to move in and out to focus like you mentions. With the barrel extended it's easy to misjudge when looking through the evf in particular. I sold that lens on a while back, but for the coming Autumn/Winter I'd like to have a tele lens, but a bit more compact, the 45-175 seems ideal. It would double for my garden birds and for macro using the Raynox.

It is surprisingly small and light. I do wonder though if it would have enough reach for small birds. You would have to get very close to them.

 

[Cagey75]

That's rather good. Did you get any vignetting at 100mm?



It is surprisingly small and light. I do wonder though if it would have enough reach for small birds. You would have to get very close to them.

No vignetting at 100mm, and you get 1:1 at that FL with the 250. It might be a little short for any serious wildlife but for me it should be fine for birds in the garden through winter. I set feeders up pretty close to the kitchen window and usually shoot from there.

 

[GardenersHelper]

No vignetting at 100mm, and you get 1:1 at that FL with the 250.

Thanks.

Presumably that is APS-C 1:1? That is what I get with the 45-175 at 100mm. I get MFT 1:1 at around 125mm. The minimum scene width, at 175mm, is around 12.5mm, which is around 1.4:1 I think. Not as much as you would have been used to with the 100-300.

It might be a little short for any serious wildlife but for me it should be fine for birds in the garden through winter. I set feeders up pretty close to the kitchen window and usually shoot from there.

Makes sense.

 

[Cagey75]

Thanks.

Presumably that is APS-C 1:1? That is what I get with the 45-175 at 100mm. I get MFT 1:1 at around 125mm. The minimum scene width, at 175mm, is around 12.5mm, which is around 1.4:1 I think. Not as much as you would have been used to with the 100-300.



Makes sense.

M43 1:1, as far as I knew sensor size doesn't matter as 1:1 is in relation to the sensor you are using at the time. You can calculate magnification on here, really handy: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

 

[GardenersHelper]

M43 1:1, as far as I knew sensor size doesn't matter as 1:1 is in relation to the sensor you are using at the time. You can calculate magnification on here, really handy: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

At 1:1 on a Canon APS-C sensor you capture a scene 22.5mm wide. At 1:1 on M43 you capture a scene 17.3mm wide. I just measured the scene width with the Raynox 250 on the 45-175 at 100mm as around 22mm, which is less than 1:1 for m43, but would be 1:1 if captured with a Canon APS-C sensor.

 

[Cagey75]

At 1:1 on a Canon APS-C sensor you capture a scene 22.5mm wide. At 1:1 on M43 you capture a scene 17.3mm wide. I just measured the scene width with the Raynox 250 on the 45-175 at 100mm as around 22mm, which is less than 1:1 for m43, but would be 1:1 if captured with a Canon APS-C sensor.

It's still 1:1 regarding the sensor you're using at the time, you still get 1:1 with the smaller sensor but less of the subject if it's a little large. I know when I used the 100-300 I'd struggle to get larger species, like bigger orb weavers, complete in frame. For those I used a 60mm with the Raynox which gave me just over 1:2. You're right on the measurements of course, but isn't it still 1:1 no matter? it's how big the subject is in relation to your sensor, like if you dropped that insect onto your physical sensor, that is the size you'll get when focused at 1:1

 

[GardenersHelper]

It's still 1:1 regarding the sensor you're using at the time, you still get 1:1 with the smaller sensor but less of the subject if it's a little large. I know when I used the 100-300 I'd struggle to get larger species, like bigger orb weavers, complete in frame. For those I used a 60mm with the Raynox which gave me just over 1:2. You're right on the measurements of course, but isn't it still 1:1 no matter? it's how big the subject is in relation to your sensor, like if you dropped that insect onto your physical sensor, that is the size you'll get when focused at 1:1

Correct.

Suppose you have an insect which is 17mm long. If you drop it on a m43 sensor it will fill the whole width of the sensor. That is 1:1.

If you dropped it on a Canon APS-C sensor it would not fill the sensor. There would be a 5 or 6mm gap at the edges. So this would not be 1:1.

1:1 captures different scene widths for different sensor sizes.

 

[Cagey75]

Correct.

Suppose you have an insect which is 17mm long. If you drop it on a m43 sensor it will fill the whole width of the sensor. That is 1:1.

If you dropped it on a Canon APS-C sensor it would not fill the sensor. There would be a 5 or 6mm gap at the edges. So this would not be 1:1.

I getchya but when using the calculators they don't ask for sensor size, not for the Raynox one at least.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I getchya but when using the calculators they don't ask for sensor size, not for the Raynox one at least.

I've had a play with the calculator and the answers it gives do not tally with my measurements.

For example, for my 45-175 at 100mm focal length, the calculator looks like this


Calculator screenshot 45-175 at 100 with raynox 250 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 0.2 magnification and 90cm minimum focus distance are taken from the dpreview information about the 45-175, and those numbers tally with my measurements. So the calculator gives a magnification of 1.16:1 at 100mm focal length. For m43 this is a scene width of 17.3 / 1.16 = 14.9mm. However, the scene width I measure with the Raynox 250 on the 45-175 at 100mm on a G80 at closest focus is around 21mm, nowhere near what the calculator says.

As another example, for my FZ330 at 108mm the calculator looks like this


Calculator screenshot FZ330 at 108 with raynox 250 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 0.08 magnification is from a measured scene width of 80mm with the FZ at 108mm focal length. The sensor width is 6.17mm so the magnification ratio is 6.17 / 80 = 0.08. The minimum focus distance of 1 metre was measured. So the calculator gives a magnification of 1.01:1. For a 1/2.3" sensor, which is 6.17mm wide, this is a scene width of 6.17 / 1.01 = 6.1mm. However, the scene width I measure with the Raynox 250 on the FZ330 at 108mm focal length at closest focus is around 8mm, which is significantly different from what the calculator says.

I'm happy to be corrected about any of this of course.

 

[Cagey75]

I've had a play with the calculator and the answers it gives do not tally with my measurements.

For example, for my 45-175 at 100mm focal length, the calculator looks like this


Calculator screenshot 45-175 at 100 with raynox 250 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 0.2 magnification and 90cm minimum focus distance are taken from the dpreview information about the 45-175, and those numbers tally with my measurements. So the calculator gives a magnification of 1.16:1 at 100mm focal length. For m43 this is a scene width of 17.3 / 1.16 = 14.9mm. However, the scene width I measure with the Raynox 250 on the 45-175 at 100mm on a G80 at closest focus is around 21mm, nowhere near what the calculator says.

As another example, for my FZ330 at 108mm the calculator looks like this


Calculator screenshot FZ330 at 108 with raynox 250 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 0.08 magnification is from a measured scene width of 80mm with the FZ at 108mm focal length. The sensor width is 6.17mm so the magnification ratio is 6.17 / 80 = 0.08. The minimum focus distance of 1 metre was measured. So the calculator gives a magnification of 1.01:1. For a 1/2.3" sensor, which is 6.17mm wide, this is a scene width of 6.17 / 1.01 = 6.1mm. However, the scene width I measure with the Raynox 250 on the FZ330 at 108mm focal length at closest focus is around 8mm, which is significantly different from what the calculator says.

I'm happy to be corrected about any of this of course.

The calculator is measuring from the sensor, not the lens element? I just use it as a rough guide when attaching the raynox to lenses to get an idea of the magnification I can achieve really. I imagine it's giving min focus distance from the sensor, I've not seen anyone on there say it's wrong or they surely would have changed it well by now, that site is about years

 

[davholla]

I've had a play with the calculator and the answers it gives do not tally with my measurements.

For example, for my 45-175 at 100mm focal length, the calculator looks like this


Calculator screenshot 45-175 at 100 with raynox 250 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 0.2 magnification and 90cm minimum focus distance are taken from the dpreview information about the 45-175, and those numbers tally with my measurements. So the calculator gives a magnification of 1.16:1 at 100mm focal length. For m43 this is a scene width of 17.3 / 1.16 = 14.9mm. However, the scene width I measure with the Raynox 250 on the 45-175 at 100mm on a G80 at closest focus is around 21mm, nowhere near what the calculator says.

As another example, for my FZ330 at 108mm the calculator looks like this


Calculator screenshot FZ330 at 108 with raynox 250 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 0.08 magnification is from a measured scene width of 80mm with the FZ at 108mm focal length. The sensor width is 6.17mm so the magnification ratio is 6.17 / 80 = 0.08. The minimum focus distance of 1 metre was measured. So the calculator gives a magnification of 1.01:1. For a 1/2.3" sensor, which is 6.17mm wide, this is a scene width of 6.17 / 1.01 = 6.1mm. However, the scene width I measure with the Raynox 250 on the FZ330 at 108mm focal length at closest focus is around 8mm, which is significantly different from what the calculator says.

I'm happy to be corrected about any of this of course.

Is that calculator on line somewhere?

 

[davholla]

Yes it was - a lot of experimenting. It is an issue I have kept coming back to in one way and another in my long "Journey" thread that has been going on for more than four years now. It is so counter-intuitive (once one knows about diffraction) that it took me a long time to convince myself that I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. By now I'm quite relaxed about using minimum aperture for invertebrates (and occasionally for botanical scenes), but I do get into discussions about it from time to time, occasionally (not here) somewhat fractious.

Some people know, for certain, that it is a terrible idea (and that it is obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about) and that using small apertures couldn't possibly produce anything butrubbish results "Nobody who is serious about macro would do that, but if it floats your boat feel free" and similarly belittling remarks. Very tedious. Actually, I think there may be more acceptance of it these days; that is the impression I get over at dpreview.

Silly attitude if people take that, attitude, your photos speak for themselves. Macro is not a fixed science* and people get very good results with different setups, some with large apertures and some with small apertures.

Aactually I thought that with macro that small apertures gets best results. This year, I put my 60mm lens on a tripod and took photos of 2 dead bumble bees at different apertures and found f13 seemed to have the best results with THAT LENS. Saying that I have got decent results with smaller apertures in the past.
Although I think getting the correct angle is the main thing, it is annoying when I take a photo that looked ok on the view finder but is not so good on a PC, particularly if it is a one off shot.

*It would be great to do some experiments to try to settle it, but that is another thread in itself.

 

[GardenersHelper]

The calculator is measuring from the sensor, not the lens element? I just use it as a rough guide when attaching the raynox to lenses to get an idea of the magnification I can achieve really. I imagine it's giving min focus distance from the sensor, I've not seen anyone on there say it's wrong or they surely would have changed it well by now, that site is about years

The magnification result given at the bottom is independent of the minimum focus distance entry (change that entry and the magnification result doesn't change), so it doesn't matter (for the magnification result) whether the measurement is taken from the sensor or the front of the close-up lens.

As to whether the calculator must surely be correct because no one has questioned it, all I can do is report my measurements and calculations compared to the results given by the calculator. They are different. One or other is therefore wrong. My experiments are repeatable by anyone with the same kit, and the same type of comparison can be done with different kit for that matter.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Is that calculator on line somewhere?

http://extreme-macro.co.uk/raynox-adapter-techniques/

 

[Cagey75]

My measurements are from the sensor. Besides which, the magnification result given at the bottom is independent of the minimum focus distance entry (change that entry and the magnification result doesn't change).

As to whether the calculator must surely be correct because no one has questioned it, all I can do is report my measurements and calculations compared to the results given by the calculator. They are different. One or other is therefore wrong. My experiments are repeatable by anyone with the same kit, and the same type of comparison can be done with different kit for that matter.

Hmm, so you don't think it's reliable? if even just for the magnification? I'm not great with math so thought it was handy just for a quick check on what kind of ratio I can expect to get with different combinations.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Silly attitude if people take that, attitude, your photos speak for themselves.

Some examples usually quieten down the debate (or the goalposts get moved ).

Macro is not a fixed science* and people get very good results with different setups, some with large apertures and some with small apertures.

Indeed so.

Aactually I thought that with macro that small apertures gets best results. This year, I put my 60mm lens on a tripod and took photos of 2 dead bumble bees at different apertures and found f13 seemed to have the best results with THAT LENS. Saying that I have got decent results with smaller apertures in the past.
Although I think getting the correct angle is the main thing, it is annoying when I take a photo that looked ok on the view finder but is not so good on a PC, particularly if it is a one off shot.

I think a lot of people settle on an aperture in that region for APS-C and micro four thirds - f/11 to (less often) f/16. (But see Mark Berkery, who uses f/16 on micro four thirds, which is equivalent to f/20 on Canon 1.6 crop factor APS-C.)

 

[GardenersHelper]

Hmm, so you don't think it's reliable? if even just for the magnification? I'm not great with math so thought it was handy just for a quick check on what kind of ratio I can expect to get with different combinations.

I may be wrong. You can check the calculator yourself by putting your Raynox 250 on any lens, noting the focal length you are using and focusing on the millimetre scale on a rule to see what scene width you get. (It will vary a bit depending on how near or far you are from the subject, but with the 250 you don't have a lot of latitude there and so the range of scene widths you can get with a particular focal length is quite small.

Then put the focal length and the maximum magnification of the camera lens into the calculator to get its calculation of the magnification. (You can generally get the maximum magnification of the camera lens from the lens pages at dpreview.com. You can work it out for yourself of course by measuring and calculating, but looking it up is quicker and easier.)

Then work out the scene width predicted by the calculator, using its calculation of the magnification.

Scene width = sensor size / magnification

So for example with a micro four thirds sensor 17.3 mm wide and a magnification of 1.2:1, the predicted scene width is 17.3 / 1.2 = 14.4mm.

Compare that with the measured scene width.

I would be interested to see what results you (or anyone else following this) gets. (I am always happy to be proved wrong btw. It means I have misunderstood something or observed or calculated wrongly, in which case I would rather be corrected than carry on using wrong assumptions.)

 

[petersmart]

Yes it was - a lot of experimenting. It is an issue I have kept coming back to in one way and another in my long "Journey" thread that has been going on for more than four years now. It is so counter-intuitive (once one knows about diffraction) that it took me a long time to convince myself that I was seeing what I thought I was seeing. By now I'm quite relaxed about using minimum aperture for invertebrates (and occasionally for botanical scenes), but I do get into discussions about it from time to time, occasionally (not here) somewhat fractious.

Some people know, for certain, that it is a terrible idea (and that it is obvious to anyone who knows what they are talking about) and that using small apertures couldn't possibly produce anything but rubbish results "Nobody who is serious about macro would do that, but if it floats your boat feel free" and similarly belittling remarks. Very tedious. Actually, I think there may be more acceptance of it these days; that is the impression I get over at dpreview.

I doubt if diffraction limiting is a problem with macro images since the image on the sensor is so large the slight loss of sharpness due to diffraction limiting is negligible, whereas it can help to destroy sharpness in the fine detail in an ordinary shot.

I have never worried about it when taking macro shots and have never had problem with loss of sharpness in those shots due to it.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I doubt if diffraction limiting is a problem with macro images since the image on the sensor is so large the slight loss of sharpness due to diffraction limiting is negligible, whereas it can help to destroy sharpness in the fine detail in an ordinary shot.

I have never worried about it when taking macro shots and have never had problem with loss of sharpness in those shots due to it.

It seems significant to me. For example, the first illustration below compares two shots captured using a 10 second timer at f/5 and f/22 at almost 1:1 using a Panasonic G80 and an Olympus 60mm macro. On the left is the centre of the image from a shot using f/5, which is around the sharpest aperture for the Olympus 60mm macro. On the right is the centre of the image using f/22. These are shown at 40% in Faststone Image Viewer, which makes them very close to the size I make my macro images for viewing on screen (1400 pixels high). To my eye the f/22 version is significantly worse in terms of sharpness, details and microcontrast.


1372 1 F5 vs F22 at 40% by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The next illustration shows the comparison at 100% and to my eye the f/22 shot is clearly much worse in terms of sharpness, detail, texture and microcontrast. This could a big difference with cropping, especially heavy cropping.


1372 1 F5 vs F22 at 40% by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I think that whether this softness etc matters depends on the context. It matters to me, but all the same I still use minimum aperture for insects etc. That is because with the post processing I do, and given that I restrict the size to 1400 pixels high, the sharpness/detail is good enough for my purposes and I like having the extra depth of field that I get from small apertures.