Bridge, MFT, achromats, dSLR, primes - a journey of exploration

[GardenersHelper]

I did an experiment today which clarified an issue I've been aware of for some time - the extra flash power needed when using a larger sensor camera.

I have two Metz 58 AF-2 flashes, one Canon fit and one Panasonic fit. I used the Canon fit one on the 70D with the Sigma 105 Macro and the Panasonic fit one on the FZ200.

I captured three images with each camera, with my lasagne tin diffuser on the flash. For the first two FZ200 shots I used the Canon 500D closeup lens, and for the third shot the Raynox 150.

I used f/22 on the 70D and f/8 on the FZ200 in order to get roughly the same depth of field (the 70D would need to be a bit smaller than f/22 to give the same DOF as the FZ200 at f/8, but f/22 is the minimum aperture for the Sigma 105).


70D vs FZ200 flash power comparison shots by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I set the flash level manually, and adjusted it to get as near as I could to the same brightness for each pair of shots. This was a bit rough and ready because I had to go by what I could see comparing the shots on the LCD.

The images were captured raw, imported into Lightroom using my default import parameters (which make no changes to brightness, highlights, shadows etc) and exported to JPEG.

I kept the FZ200 at base ISO 100 and reduced the flash power as appropriate. I had to use maximum flash power for the 70D, and also had to raise the ISO up from base ISO 100.

Starting at the top left of the above illustration, the working distance with the 70D was a large 900mm in order to get the whole of the box in the frame. (The box is about 5 inches square.) Because of the rapid drop off of light with distance I had to raise the ISO almost three stops, to ISO 640. To the right of that is the FZ200 version, using the Canon 500D closeup lens. The working distance was much smaller, about 370mm, and I could keep the FZ200 at base ISO and use one 1/4-- power, almost 1/8. Since ISO 640 is 2 and 2/3 stops up from ISO 100, and 1/4-- is 2 and 2/3 stops down from full 1/1 flash power, there was an overall difference of 5 and 1/3 stops between the two cameras' illumination requirements.

For the middle shot the working distance was about the same for the two setups - unchanged at 370mm for the FZ200 with Canon 500D, and down to 350mm for the 70D with Sigma 105. Even so, using full flash power with 70D I still had to raise the ISO to 200. The FZ200 with 500D remained at the same level of 1/4--. In this case there was an overall difference of 3 and 2/3 stops between the two cameras' illumination requirements.

For the third shot I had to raise the ISO up a notch for the 70D even though the working distance had reduced to 120mm or so. I think this was because the increase in illumination from the decreased distance from the flash was more than offset by the decrease in effective aperture caused by the increase in magnification. For the FZ200 the working distance reduced by a similar amount, increasing the level of illumination, but there was no offsetting decrease in effective aperture because effective aperture is unaffected by magnification when using achromats. So for the FZ200 with Raynox 150 I could decrease the flash power by 1 and 1/3 stops from 1/4-- to 1/16 compared to the level needed with the 500D. In this case there was an overall difference of 5 and 1/3 stops between the two cameras' illumination requirements.

While capturing the shots didn't think of the effect of magnification on effective aperture. A more like for like comparison would have been to increase the aperture of the Sigma 105 to the point where the DOF matched the f/8 DOF on the FZ200. With a magnification of 1:1 this would have needed an increase of perhaps 1 and 2/3 stops, which would have reduced the difference in the two cameras' ilumination requirements to 3 and 2/3 stops.

The bottom line? For a given DOF, a camera with a small sensor needs much less flash power delivered to the scene than a larger sensor camera. Using achromats on the small sensor camera and a macro lens on the larger sensor camera increases this difference. The difference in power requirements means that, for a given flash unit and diffuser, sequences of flash shots can be captured faster with a smaller sensor camera because recycle times are shorter.

 

[TimmyG]

The bottom line? For a given DOF, a camera with a small sensor needs much less flash power delivered to the scene than a larger sensor camera. Using achromats on the small sensor camera and a macro lens on the larger sensor camera increases this difference. The difference in power requirements means that, for a given flash unit and diffuser, sequences of flash shots can be captured faster with a smaller sensor camera because recycle times are shorter.

Well there's something I had never considered. I always assumed the flash power impacts the scene presented and that the sensor size (or more accurately the pixel size on the sensor) would correlate to the amount of light it can extract from a scene. In other words I would have theorised the opposite, that the larger sensor would be more efficient at capturing light and therefore less flash power is needed as sensor size increases. Once again you have demonstrated the importance of experimentation before jumping to any conclusions, and given me something else to mull over

 

[GardenersHelper]

Well there's something I had never considered. I always assumed the flash power impacts the scene presented and that the sensor size (or more accurately the pixel size on the sensor) would correlate to the amount of light it can extract from a scene. In other words I would have theorised the opposite, that the larger sensor would be more efficient at capturing light and therefore less flash power is needed as sensor size increases. Once again you have demonstrated the importance of experimentation before jumping to any conclusions, and given me something else to mull over

I find it very difficult (impossible in some cases) to get my head around some of this stuff, even when there is detailed material to read, and on-line calculators, examples etc. I just blank out after a certain point. Experimenting with my own kit is the only way I can work out practical "how to" guidelines (for my particular kit, methods, subjects etc). As to why it works like it does, sometimes that remains a complete mystery. (And sometimes, much worse, I think I know why but I'm wrong, and that can lead down long and twisty blind alleys, and much confusion and angst.)

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Nick - can you answer a quick question for me please? What is your method with the Raynox + zoom ?

I was setting the focus distance manually (to roughly minimum) then moving in until focussed then take the shot.

However I have just realised that I'm getting much more magnification from further out ?! Eg leave it on auto and move in until autofocus is available (then move in a bit further) then take the shot.

Seems to give much more magnification? Is this right as it seems counter-intuitive to me...

Thanks

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick - can you answer a quick question for me please? What is your method with the Raynox + zoom ?

I was setting the focus distance manually (to roughly minimum) then moving in until focussed then take the shot.

However I have just realised that I'm getting much more magnification from further out ?! Eg leave it on auto and move in until autofocus is available (then move in a bit further) then take the shot.

Seems to give much more magnification? Is this right as it seems counter-intuitive to me...

Thanks

That's odd. I just tried that with the Raynox 150 on the 55-250 at 250 on the 70D.

1. Manual focus. Set focus distance to minimum. Move in until focused. Take shot. ~19mm across.
2. Manual focus. Set focus distance to maximum. Move in until focused. Take shot. ~19mm across.
3. Autofocus (live view). Move in until autofocus is available. Take shot. ~19mm across.

Not at all consistent with what you got.

4. Autofocus (OVF, single, centre point, but I got similar result with centre group of points. Hand-held, ISO 6400, f/8, 1/500 sec). [I don't normally use the viewfinder, and hence phase detect autofocus, but for some reason I decided to try it, just for completeness sake.] Move in until get focus confirmation. Take shot. Move in a bit. Take shot. Continue in this way for 15 shots in total until can't get focus confirmation any more.

Here is what the first shot looked like.

IMG_8775 400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Here is the second.

IMG_8776 400h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The 3rd and 4th were similar. Then one in focus. Then five out of focus. Another one in focus. The remaining four out of focus. (Full set here)

????????????????????

Phase detect (OVF) focus (normally) works fine with this camera and this lens. For example, see these bird in flight images. I've never used the OVF before, and boy was I impressed at its responsiveness and accuracy. I was amazed that I could capture such images.

I haven't been able to get this "OOF with focus confirm" effect with other subjects, like the carpet or my keyboard. But I've tried it several more times with the ruler and got the same OOF results, including when turning the ruler over and using the side with clear rather than worn markings on it.

Perhaps there is something very exceptional about that ruler as a subject. Perhaps for insects etc this issue wouldn't arise. Still, it seems like some caution/awareness may be in order with respect to using the Raynoxes with phase detect focusing.

I always use live view, but that may not be helpful for you because I understand live view is quite clunky on most dSLRs. I specifically waited until the 70D arrived as its live view was reckoned to be (and IMO is) ok, mainly I imagine because of the rather unusual sensor it uses.

As to your question about how I use the Raynoxes, I don't think this will be too helpful, but with all my cameras (bridge, MFT and the 70D) I use live view, move the camera while repeatedly half pressing the shutter button until I can get focus confirmation, and then take a shot. That is for the first shot, or a few shots. If the subject is still there I then move in, testing for focus confirmation, until I can't get it any more, then I move out just a little and continue shooting from there. This is because I believe (but don't have proof) that, especially with lower power achromats like the Raynox 150, it is possible to get false focus confirmation (i.e. focus confirmation for what won't be a properly sharp images) at the further reaches of the range of working distance.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Interesting! Mrs Dibbly is on hols and it's lashing down outside so I'm going have a proper look into this after dinner and a glass of wine to steady my hand!

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Ok results as follows - quite 'interesting' (for the likes of us that is )

All shots taken at 1/200 + f16 + iso100 with Canon 100D, Tamron 16-300 and Raynox 150 on manual focus. I tried to take the shots with a spread of focus distances and focal lengths (40cm is the minimum focus distance of the Tamron).

Focal Length 300 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 15mm
Focal Length 300 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 20mm
Focal Length 300 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 34mm

Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 23mm
Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 25mm
Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 35mm

Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 48mm
Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 45mm
Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 41mm

Focal Length 50 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 90mm
Focal Length 50 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 85mm
Focal Length 50 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 60mm

So for the longer focal lengths I was getting more magnification with a bigger focus distance and the the shorter focal lengths the reverse! Who'd have thought...

No wonder I didn't think the Raynox was working very well as I can now see that the technique I was using was miles off!

So I think what I'll do is set the focus distance to infinity then adjust the focal length depending on the size of the subject and gradually move in until I get focus confirmation then fire. There were no issues with the barrel getting in the way of the flash at infinity focus so I think I might be back in business (pending proper field trials anyway).

Here's a few of samples:

Focal Length 100 + Focus Distance Infinity

Tamron16-300 + Raynox 150 Test Shot 1 by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Focal Length 200 + Focus Distance Infinity

Tamron16-300 + Raynox 150 Test Shot 2 by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Focal Length 300 + Focus Distance Infinity

Tamron16-300 + Raynox 150 Test Shot 3 by Mike Smith, on Flickr

So plenty of magnification, lighting seems ok - just need to check the IQ in the field now but these look decent so I'm quite encouraged

Any comments or thoughts welcomed.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Ok results as follows - quite 'interesting' (for the likes of us that is )

Definitely interesting. And for me at least, rather surprising.

All shots taken at 1/200 + f16 + iso100 with Canon 100D, Tamron 16-300 and Raynox 150 on manual focus. I tried to take the shots with a spread of focus distances and focal lengths (40cm is the minimum focus distance of the Tamron).

Focal Length 300 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 15mm
Focal Length 300 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 20mm
Focal Length 300 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 34mm

Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 23mm
Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 25mm
Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 35mm

Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 48mm
Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 45mm
Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 41mm

Focal Length 50 and Focus Distance Infinity - scene size 90mm
Focal Length 50 and Focus Distance 7m - scene size 85mm
Focal Length 50 and Focus Distance 40cm - scene size 60mm

So for the longer focal lengths I was getting more magnification with a bigger focus distance and the the shorter focal lengths the reverse! Who'd have thought...

I just tried a similar exercise. My 55-250 is fly by wire so the only focus distances I can be sure of are infinity and minimum. Here is what I got.

Focal Length 250 and Focus Distance infinity - scene size 19mm - working distance 195mm
Focal Length 250 and Focus Distance minimum - scene size 19mm - working distance 150mm
Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance infinity - scene size 23mm - working distance 200mm
Focal Length 200 and Focus Distance minimum - scene size 22mm - working distance 150mm
Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance infinity - scene size 46mm - working distance 205mm
Focal Length 100 and Focus Distance minimum - scene size 40 mm - working distance 150mm
Focal Length 55 and Focus Distance infinity - scene size 85 mm - working distance 208mm
Focal Length 55 and Focus Distance minimum - scene size 68 mm - working distance 150mm

So for a given focal length I got more magnification with a smaller focus distance (which intuitively seems to make sense to me), with the difference in magnification between infinity focus and closest focus decreasing as focal length increased, becoming (to the nearest mm) nothing at maximum focal length.

This made me wonder about working distance (the distance between the front of the Raynox 150 and the subject). So I did the measurements again, this time noting the working distance. It remained a constant 150mm at minimum focus distance for all focal lengths. With infinity focus, the working distance reduced slowly from 208mm at 55mm focal length down to 195mm at 250mm focal length.

No wonder I didn't think the Raynox was working very well as I can now see that the technique I was using was miles off!

So I think what I'll do is set the focus distance to infinity then adjust the focal length depending on the size of the subject and gradually move in until I get focus confirmation then fire. There were no issues with the barrel getting in the way of the flash at infinity focus so I think I might be back in business (pending proper field trials anyway).

That technique sounds good to me.

Here's a few of samples ...

So plenty of magnification, lighting seems ok - just need to check the IQ in the field now but these look decent so I'm quite encouraged

Excellent.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Nick - hope you don't mind me sticking this in here as it might be useful to others. Got a quick but reasonably scientific field test thanks to an amenable fly which posed for me while I took multiple shots with various lenses.

The below is the best shot I could get with the Tamron 16-300 + Raynox 150 versus an MPE shot. The lighting isn't great but it's just my popup flash with bolt on diffuser thing (ie nothing very fancy).

(For info I also took a few shots with the Raynox on my 24-105 - they were ok but a lot less mag (about half) so not really worth posting)


MPE-65 v Raynox150 + Superzoom by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Sadly the conclusion has to be that it's a comfortable win for the MPE when you look at some of the finer detail - I am also coming to the realisation that I'm never going to get great lighting with popup flash and a simple little diffuser.

So I think the dream is over! You just can't get great macro results with Tamron 16-300 + Raynox lit with a popup flash and cheapo diffuser. (Do I hear cries of 'No $hit Sherlock' ringing in my ears?!).

So time for a new dream I think:

Going to pick up a Tamron 60mm f2 and also work on my MT24-ex diffusion to see if I can get anywhere near some of the work I am seeing on here. If the Tamron works well on my crop body I may well get rid of the MPE as part of a general downsizing drive (I may also get rid of the 6D and some of my L lenses).

More in due course - comments welcome

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick - hope you don't mind me sticking this in here as it might be useful to others. Got a quick but reasonably scientific field test thanks to an amenable fly which posed for me while I took multiple shots with various lenses.

The below is the best shot I could get with the Tamron 16-300 + Raynox 150 versus an MPE shot. The lighting isn't great but it's just my popup flash with bolt on diffuser thing (ie nothing very fancy).

(For info I also took a few shots with the Raynox on my 24-105 - they were ok but a lot less mag (about half) so not really worth posting)


MPE-65 v Raynox150 + Superzoom by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Sadly the conclusion has to be that it's a comfortable win for the MPE when you look at some of the finer detail - I am also coming to the realisation that I'm never going to get great lighting with popup flash and a simple little diffuser.

So I think the dream is over! You just can't get great macro results with Tamron 16-300 + Raynox lit with a popup flash and cheapo diffuser. (Do I hear cries of 'No $hit Sherlock' ringing in my ears?!).

So time for a new dream I think:

Going to pick up a Tamron 60mm f2 and also work on my MT24-ex diffusion to see if I can get anywhere near some of the work I am seeing on here. If the Tamron works well on my crop body I may well get rid of the MPE as part of a general downsizing drive (I may also get rid of the 6D and some of my L lenses).

More in due course - comments welcome

Hmmmmm...... The DOF is much larger in the MPE image. What were the apertures for these two shots? What was the magnification on the MPE? (This affects the effective aperture. Given that the MPE starts at 1:1, the effective aperture was at least twice the nominal aperture. For the Tamron +Raynox the effective aperture would be the same as the nominal aperture.) And were the images cropped by the same amount? Was the Anteroposterior axis (had to look that one up! The long axis running from front to back of the fly) the same for each shot? (This would affect the DOF coverage.)

 

[TimmyG]

Nick - hope you don't mind me sticking this in here as it might be useful to others. Got a quick but reasonably scientific field test thanks to an amenable fly which posed for me while I took multiple shots with various lenses.

The below is the best shot I could get with the Tamron 16-300 + Raynox 150 versus an MPE shot. The lighting isn't great but it's just my popup flash with bolt on diffuser thing (ie nothing very fancy).

(For info I also took a few shots with the Raynox on my 24-105 - they were ok but a lot less mag (about half) so not really worth posting)


MPE-65 v Raynox150 + Superzoom by Mike Smith, on Flickr

Sadly the conclusion has to be that it's a comfortable win for the MPE when you look at some of the finer detail - I am also coming to the realisation that I'm never going to get great lighting with popup flash and a simple little diffuser.

So I think the dream is over! You just can't get great macro results with Tamron 16-300 + Raynox lit with a popup flash and cheapo diffuser. (Do I hear cries of 'No $hit Sherlock' ringing in my ears?!).

So time for a new dream I think:

Going to pick up a Tamron 60mm f2 and also work on my MT24-ex diffusion to see if I can get anywhere near some of the work I am seeing on here. If the Tamron works well on my crop body I may well get rid of the MPE as part of a general downsizing drive (I may also get rid of the 6D and some of my L lenses).

More in due course - comments welcome

Don't forget the MP-E is a prime lens and you are comparing it to a zoom with additional glass on top of that. For what it's worth for a web display such as this there isn't much in it. It's not immediately obvious which is sharper although the MP-E wins for me after comparing them a short while. The second is the better image though. What will have far more impact is your lighting and composition (and subject of course), so if you enjoy using the Tammy, stick with it. Just play around with your lighting, maybe try some DIY brackets and diffusers and go out and enjoy finding interesting new subjects to shoot

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Hmmmmm...... The DOF is much larger in the MPE image. What were the apertures for these two shots? What was the magnification on the MPE? (This affects the effective aperture. Given that the MPE starts at 1:1, the effective aperture was at least twice the nominal aperture. For the Tamron +Raynox the effective aperture would be the same as the nominal aperture.) And were the images cropped by the same amount? Was the Anteroposterior axis (had to look that one up! The long axis running from front to back of the fly) the same for each shot? (This would affect the DOF coverage.)

Well the MPE shot was at f11 and the Tamron + Raynox shot was at f13. The mag on the MPE was roughly minimum although I may have inadvertently added some it should have been roughly 1 to 1.

I took the Tamron + Raynox shot at approximately 200mm to try and match the magnification to the MPE - it was roughly successful so the cropping was about the same for both (about 50% of the image cropped away).

I may be disappearing up my own anteroposterior axis here but I think the answer to your last question is 'not quite' as the shots are slightly differently composed

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Don't forget the MP-E is a prime lens and you are comparing it to a zoom with additional glass on top of that. For what it's worth for a web display such as this there isn't much in it. It's not immediately obvious which is sharper although the MP-E wins for me after comparing them a short while. The second is the better image though. What will have far more impact is your lighting and composition (and subject of course), so if you enjoy using the Tammy, stick with it. Just play around with your lighting, maybe try some DIY brackets and diffusers and go out and enjoy finding interesting new subjects to shoot

Yes I agree Tim - really no great surprise. If anything the surprise should be how close the Tamron + Raynox got to the MPE!

You are absolutely right with your point about lighting and composition though - I need to remove my head from my anteroposterior axis and go shoot some cool bugs

(once I have sussed out some better lighting!)

 

[GardenersHelper]

Going to pick up a Tamron 60mm f2

With its shorter focal length extension tubes would have a big impact. If you used a full set of 36+20+12 tubes the magnification would be:

Naked lens magnification + ( extension length / lens focal length) = 1 + ( 68 / 60) = 2.1.

The distance from the sensor to the subject would be 276 mm.

(See Cambridge in Colour page on extension tubes and close-up lenses.)

 

[GardenersHelper]

Well the MPE shot was at f11 and the Tamron + Raynox shot was at f13. The mag on the MPE was roughly minimum although I may have inadvertently added some it should have been roughly 1 to 1.

This means the DOF was roughly twice as much with the MPE.

I took the Tamron + Raynox shot at approximately 200mm to try and match the magnification to the MPE - it was roughly successful so the cropping was about the same for both (about 50% of the image cropped away).

Looks like a fair comparison (in terms of the sharpness and detail of the sharpest areas - ignoring the difference in DOF), so the MPE looks a lot better to me.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

With its shorter focal length extension tubes would have a big impact. If you used a full set of 36+20+12 tubes the magnification would be:

Naked lens magnification + ( extension length / lens focal length) = 1 + ( 68 / 60) = 2.1.

The distance from the sensor to the subject would be 276 mm.

(See Cambridge in Colour page on extension tubes and close-up lenses.)

Thanks - lots of interesting stuff in that link

 

[dibbly dobbler]

This means the DOF was roughly twice as much with the MPE.



Looks like a fair comparison (in terms of the sharpness and detail of the sharpest areas - ignoring the difference in DOF), so the MPE looks a lot better to me.

Yes and to be fair considering the compromises in a lens like the 16-300 versus a dedicated prime macro lens it does extremely well and the results would be very usable with better lighting and possibly a different bug

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Nick - can I trouble you for your thoughts please (again!). I am trying to psyche myself up to buy the 60mm Tamron F2 to replace my MPE and pondering pros and cons. The main issue with the MPE are 1) the scene size is very small on a crop body (which is what I intend to use) at around 23mm and 2) The working distance seems really short (allegedly 4 inches but seems less to me - especially with the MT24-ex stuck on the front!).

Thing is - do you reckon the Tamron would be any better in these respects - ie bigger scene size and more working distance ?

Any thoughts welcomed!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick - can I trouble you for your thoughts please (again!). I am trying to psyche myself up to buy the 60mm Tamron F2 to replace my MPE and pondering pros and cons. The main issue with the MPE are 1) the scene size is very small on a crop body (which is what I intend to use) at around 23mm and 2) The working distance seems really short (allegedly 4 inches but seems less to me - especially with the MT24-ex stuck on the front!).

Thing is - do you reckon the Tamron would be any better in these respects - ie bigger scene size and more working distance ?

Working distance

With prime macro lenses (like the MPE and the Tamron) the working distance reduces as the magnification increases.

At its maximum magnification of 1:1 the Tamron 60mm macro is at its minimum working distance of around four inches (it says in this post at dpreview, which has a credible look to it IMO. I am assuming the post is talking about the same Tamron 60mm macro as you are thinking of buying. If there is a later/different version, it might have a different working distance).

The MPE has a minimum magnification of 1:1, at which the working distance is slightly more than four inches. The working distance reduces as the magnification increases, down to about an inch and a half at the maximum magnification of 5:1 (it says in this review at The-Digitial-Picture).

At 1:1 therefore, it looks like there isn't much in it between the Tamron and the MPE in terms of working distance.

Remember however that you won't always be working at or very close to the maximum magnification with the Tamron, so some or possibly a lot of the time the working distance will be more than four inches. On the MPE, it is never more than four inches.

As explained in the post linked above from dpreview, working distance is not related in a simple way to focal length. For example, the Tamron 90mm macro (or at least the version discussed in that post) apparently has a working distance that is fractionally less than that of the Tamron 60mm macro. In contrast, the Canon 100mm macro has a minimum working distance of about 6 inches at 1:1 magnification, so it does provide a bit more working distance than the Tamron.

[Skippable aside. I know you aren't considering closeup lenses after your experience with the Raynox 150, but one of the things I like about my FZ200 rig is that the Raynox 150 gives me a constant usable working distance range of 6 to 8 inches, independent of magnification. As the maximum magnification of the Raynox 150 on the FZ200 is 1.5:1, this means I can get to 1.5:1 with a working distance of up to 8 inches - with very functional autofocus too btw. With the Raynox 250 I get down to 2.4:1 from around 4 inches, also with good autofocus.]

Scene width

The maximum scene width with the MPE-65 on a Canon crop camera is 22.5mm (going down to 4.5mm at maximum magnification of 5:1)

With the Tamron you can have a scene as wide as you like, and can go down to a minimum scene width of 22.5mm at 1:1. If you are finding the 22.5 maximum scene width of the MPE unsuitable, then any 1:1 macro lens would be more suitable for you in terms of scene width. (Of course, If/when you do want to go to higher magnifications/smaller scenes, then obviously you will need to crop or use extension tubes, teleconverter, closeup lens, reversed lens, your MPE or one of the Venus lenses. FWIW even though I stick with whole insect pictures rather than hyper closeups of flies' eyes etc,, and don't do much with really small subjects like fruit flies, barkflies and springtails, I still find that I want to go beyond 1:1 fairly often.)

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks Nick - that's really helpful again

Much to ponder. I was out with the MPE tonight with some new diffusion on (thin foam packing sheets) and they worked very well on the MT24-ex so I'm now pretty happy with the lighting but trying to poke in around bushes etc is tricky with the front mounted flash, combined with the diffusers, combined with a short working distance! (Incidentally another side effect of using an MT24 is that I don't believe a Raynox would be able to be mounted - at least not easily).

So maybe I should be looking at something like a 100L for more working distance then stick a tube or two on if more magnification is required. How did you calculate the scene width (at minimum working distance) for the Tamron by the way? If there's an easy method I'd be interested to see what it worked out at for a 100mm.

Actually this site http://macroshooting.com/Macro_Magnificaion_Caculations_Examples.htm has some interesting information for the 100mm:
- 15cm minimum working distance gives 36mm scene width (approx 1:1 mag)
and with a 65mm tube on you can get:
- 13cm mwd which gives 18mm scene width (approx 2:1 mag)

So that seems quite promising! Maybe a 100mm is the answer, as on the face of it that would 'solve' both of the issues I have with the MPE and still give decent magnification....

PS - here's a sample with the new lighting:


Fly Macro by Mike Smith, on Flickr

 

[GardenersHelper]

I was out with the MPE tonight with some new diffusion on (thin foam packing sheets) and they worked very well on the MT24-ex so I'm now pretty happy with the lighting

The fly looks very good.

but trying to poke in around bushes etc is tricky with the front mounted flash, combined with the diffusers, combined with a short working distance!

Yes, that's what I found with the MT24. I much prefer using a flash mounted in the hot shoe so it sits further back and doesn't get in the way as much.

(Incidentally another side effect of using an MT24 is that I don't believe a Raynox would be able to be mounted - at least not easily).

Do I recall right that the MT24 doesn't have a thread on the front?

So maybe I should be looking at something like a 100L for more working distance

That looks sensible to me.

then stick a tube or two on if more magnification is required.

Or a teleconverter. When using a teleconverter the minimum working distance does not change. With a teleconverter attached, at the (same as before) minimum working distance you get more magnification than before. Alternatively, you can get the same magnification as before from further away. The extra glass will cause a deterioration in image quality, but this may not be noticeable with a 1.4X teleconverter. I experimented with teleconverters and extension tubes and wrote it up starting with this post, which contains a table of contents for the posts on teleconverters and extension tubes. You may find this post and this post particularly relevant at the moment.

How did you calculate the scene width (at minimum working distance) for the Tamron by the way? If there's an easy method I'd be interested to see what it worked out at for a 100mm.

For a macro lens which goes to 1:1, the scene width at 1:1 is equal to the width of the sensor, which for a Canon crop camera is 22.5mm. The scene width is independent of the focal length of the lens and its minimum working distance - the 1:1 Tamron 60mm, the 1:1 Canon 100L, the 1:1 Sigma 105 Macro etc all have the same minimum scene width of 22.5mm when used on a Canon 1.6x crop body.

Actually this site http://macroshooting.com/Macro_Magnificaion_Caculations_Examples.htm has some interesting information for the 100mm:
- 15cm minimum working distance gives 36mm scene width (approx 1:1 mag)
and with a 65mm tube on you can get:
- 13cm mwd which gives 18mm scene width (approx 2:1 mag)

And of course these scene widths refer to 1:1 and 2:1 magnification on a full frame sensor, which is 36mm wide.

So that seems quite promising! Maybe a 100mm is the answer, as on the face of it that would 'solve' both of the issues I have with the MPE and still give decent magnification....

You still have to provide flash light though.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

For a macro lens which goes to 1:1, the scene width at 1:1 is equal to the width of the sensor, which for a Canon crop camera is 22.5mm. The scene width is independent of the focal length of the lens and its minimum working distance - the 1:1 Tamron 60mm, the 1:1 Canon 100L, the 1:1 Sigma 105 Macro etc all have the same minimum scene width of 22.5mm when used on a Canon 1.6x crop body.

And of course these scene widths refer to 1:1 and 2:1 magnification on a full frame sensor, which is 36mm wide.

You still have to provide flash light though.

You know that seems really obvious now that you've said it! For some reason I got it into my head that the shots on that site were taken with a 7D (ie crop).

Hmm - so if I go for a crop body then I'm stuck with a scene with of 22.5mm at 1:1 but I guess at least with a 100mm I could increase the working distance a bit. Really the answer is to have both I suppose.

Ok - my sincere thanks for your help and apologies for clogging up this excellent thread with my ponderings. I'll either stick with the MPE or buy a 100mm and go with both for a while and then make a decision

 

[GardenersHelper]

apologies for clogging up this excellent thread with my ponderings.

No need to apologise. Seeing you working through the possibilities in search of the best (combination of) kit for you to use is exactly in line with what this long thread has been about, and adds extra information and a different viewpoint to think about for others who are interested in their options.

I'll either stick with the MPE or buy a 100mm and go with both for a while and then make a decision

Going with both for a while makes sense to me. See how often you want to go beyond what the 100 offers (and remember you can get beyond 1:1 using the 100L by simply cropping a bit). If it turns out after a while that you really do need more than the 100 offers, but you really don't want to use the MPE to get there, then you can try some other options, extension tubes being a relatively inexpensive one (compared for example to using the Venus 60mm, which goes to 2:1). But there's no point going there until you know the 100 doesn't give you enough.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Do I recall right that the MT24 doesn't have a thread on the front?

Actually I tried it this morning and the Raynox mounts fine on the MT24! So another factor in favour of the 100mm (as I would prefer to continue with the Mt24 also) - it would quickly and easily (ie with no need to unmount the lens as per with tubes) get me from 1:1 up towards 2:1 possibly?

Still don't want to rush into it but a 100mm now seems like a good option as my current lighting will work find and I can easily stick the Raynox on for more magnification

 

[GardenersHelper]

Actually I tried it this morning and the Raynox mounts fine on the MT24!

Excellent!

So another factor in favour of the 100mm (as I would prefer to continue with the Mt24 also) - it would quickly and easily (ie with no need to unmount the lens as per with tubes)

And with an achromat, unlike with extension tubes, you don't lose light.

get me from 1:1 up towards 2:1 possibly?

I just did some measurements with various achromats on my Sigma 105 Macro on my 70D. As we have discovered, apparently similar lenses can behave rather differently, so this is FWIW.


Magnification using achromats on Sigma 105 DG Macro HSM on Canon 70D by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks Nick - great info again

I've been pondering 100 v 100L given the various prices: new, second hand etc etc and I nearly bid on a second hand 100 non-L which went for £220ish on eBay. Then it hit me as I browsed the classified section on this site - the 55-250 is cheap as chips! And after some extensive research you have found it to be at least the equal of the 100L in terms of IQ. So maybe a 55-250 STM is the answer - the MT24 would mount ok (58mm filter size) then as above I can mount the Raynox on top of that. If I can get anywhere near what you have been producing with your 70D rig I'll be chuffed - and the working distances and magnification should work out favorably as well if I read things right

Seems sensible? Think I would need a Raynox 250 also ?

Cheers

 

[GardenersHelper]

Thanks Nick - great info again

I've been pondering 100 v 100L given the various prices: new, second hand etc etc and I nearly bid on a second hand 100 non-L which went for £220ish on eBay. Then it hit me as I browsed the classified section on this site - the 55-250 is cheap as chips! And after some extensive research you have found it to be at least the equal of the 100L in terms of IQ. So maybe a 55-250 STM is the answer - the MT24 would mount ok (58mm filter size) then as above I can mount the Raynox on top of that. If I can get anywhere near what you have been producing with your 70D rig I'll be chuffed - and the working distances and magnification should work out favorably as well if I read things right

Seems sensible? Think I would need a Raynox 250 also ?

Cheers

HOLD ON Mike. It's complicated. (Oh dear, here he goes. Again.)

First thing (this may not be relevant - you did mention the STM version specifically, but I want to be sure to avoid any confusion). There are three Canon 55-250 lenses.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Announced Aug 20, 2007
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Announced Jun 13, 2011
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced Aug 22, 2013

When I bought my 70D I hadn't researched these, and hadn't actually intended to get a lens in this range. After all, I was going to use the 100L IS and the MPE65, with the MT24, so there was no need. But for some reason, on the spur of the moment, I bought one. I think it was the second of them. As far as I recall it worked ok with the 500D, but the Raynox 150 would only autofocus some of the time and the Raynox 250 wouldn't autofocus at all. I took it back to the shop and tested the achromats with the latest, STM version. Autofocus worked fine with the achromats.

But bear in mind I almost always use live view, and the live view focusing on the 70D is a bit special because it has a very unusual sensor, and this is I believe what makes the 70D's live view implementation actually usable compared to the extremely clunky (not really usable IMO) live view on other dSLRs that I have tried - briefly, in shops, not fair tests, but even so..... Anyway, I assume that you would be using the OVF. I think the 55-250 works ok with the OVF on my camera. It has on the few occasions I've tried it, but that is rather limited evidence.

So, I think you would probably need to be sure to get the STM version. And I really don't know how well it would work with achromats on your (or any other) dSLR, either using the OVF or live view.

I believe it is the STM version that has the reputation of being as sharp (so I've seen claimed anyway) as a version 1 L lens (70 - 200 or similar presumably). It certainly does seem to be sharp enough for my purposes, and it works very nicely on my 70D.

Secondly, almost all the stuff I post here (actual photos in ordinary threads rather than the endless comparisons in this thread), are of insects, and they are captured using achromats, but not using the 55-250. I almost always use my FZ200 bridge camera for insects. I use the 55-250 for flowers (and I've recently discovered it can be quite good for birds too.) The only achromat I use at all regularly on the 55-250 is the least powerful one, the 500D.

As to the IQ of the 55-250 plus achromats relative to the 100L, that is pretty contentious, and a lot of people are certain that you need the better optics of a macro lens to get the best results. One of the reasons the 100L (or Sigma 105) may look as good as the 55-250 with achromats is that I use all my lenses in "dumbed down" mode. That is, I use really small apertures, usually the smallest available. That causes a great loss of sharpness and detail from diffraction, and tends to bring all the lenses down to a common (rather low) level of sharpness/detail. I prefer the extra depth of field, and I find the sharpness good enough for my purposes (which is 1300 pixel high images on screen, and occasional prints, almost always A4). But I wouldn't want to argue for generalised equivalence between what can be done with a macro lens and what can be done with achromats on a zoom lens. I think some of the stuff done with larger apertures with prime macro lenses like the 100L, Sigma 105 and MPE65 has detail and microcontrast and sheer "presence" that I can't match.

But the 55-250 STM is inexpensive. And it is pretty sharp. And it does play nicely with achromats (on my camera). And with the MT24 on the front you wouldn't have the problems I had in providing flash illumination. So yes, definitely worth a try. But I wouldn't want to be accused of misleading you!

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Right - point noted about the version, I am looking at the STM. Also point noted that there is no guarantee for the results - YMMV

Interesting little outing this afternoon - just a quick 20 minute effort before dinner with the MPE. Lots of nice bees buzzing around in the sunshine but very very difficult to get anything at all with the MPE - given the time it takes to get in close and the small scene size you need to deal with. Just frustrating really. So I've made up my mind I want something and at just over £100 new I can't really go wrong with the 55-250. If it doesn't work I can live with a small loss as the price of finding out

I'll buy one tonight and should have it by the middle of next week - more in due course...

Thanks once again for your guidance.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Well. Got the 55-250 through today. Initial impressions - nice little lens: compact, light, focuses quickly and quietly - seems sharp! Tried it briefly with the Raynox150 - plenty of mag - got up to about 1.2:1 if my sums are correct. Working distance was pretty good too - around 6 inches or so even with the MT24 + Raynox stuck on the front of the lens.

But... (you just know that was coming didn't you!)... there seems to be very little dof even at f16ish. Is this possibly because I'm used to genuine 1:1 macros which get the benefit of 'effective aperture' as we discussed earlier? Anyway I'll have to try it out in the field (literally) before I'll know - just need the rain to stop for a bit...

 

[GardenersHelper]

Well. Got the 55-250 through today. Initial impressions - nice little lens: compact, light, focuses quickly and quietly - seems sharp!

All those. Yes.

Tried it briefly with the Raynox150 - plenty of mag - got up to about 1.2:1 if my sums are correct.

That's the number I've got. 19mm scene width.

Working distance was pretty good too - around 6 inches or so even with the MT24 + Raynox stuck on the front of the lens.

Yes. That's one reason I like the 150. I have the same 6 (to 8 or so) inch working distance with the 150 on my bridge and MFT cameras.

But... (you just know that was coming didn't you!)... there seems to be very little dof even at f16ish. Is this possibly because I'm used to genuine 1:1 macros which get the benefit of 'effective aperture' as we discussed earlier? Anyway I'll have to try it out in the field (literally) before I'll know - just need the rain to stop for a bit...

Could be. The effective aperture is "twice" (or should that be half??) the nominal aperture at 1:1, so f/16 with a macro lens is in fact f/32. The minimum aperture of the 55-250 varies with focal length, from f/22 at minimum zoom to f/32 at maximum zoom, and those are as far as you will get with the 150 on it (or any other close-up lens).

I don't know how much DOF you need/want. If you would be content with the DOF I get with the FZ200 and 150 etc (using minimum aperture of f/8), then that's fine, because you can get the same DOF with the 55-250 and 150 etc (using minimum aperture of f/22 - f/32). If you want more than that you'll need to add extension tubes or teleconverters at the other end (and pump out more light from the flash to compensate for the light lost, or raise the ISO,).

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks for the comments Nick. Just as an aside - had another go with my 24-105 which supposedly gets 0.7x magnification (see here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Macro-Lens.aspx) - however when I set it to closest focus + max focal length I get a scene width of around 90mm? Even with the Raynox it's only around half that - ie 45mm.

So what am I missing here as '0.7x magnification' would surely give something around a 30mm scene width?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Actually don't bother - another review (here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) states maximum magnification of 0.23 which seems about right!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Actually don't bother - another review (here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) states maximum magnification of 0.23 which seems about right!

I seem to have being seeing that sort of number quite a bit looking at various zoom lens specs recently. I see from here that the 55-250 STM has somewhat larger maximum magnification of 0.31, which I suppose sort of justifies (a bit at least) the use of the rather misleading "Macro" printed on the 55-250 STM.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Right - the 55-250 is going back and I have bagged a nice cheap 100mm from the classifieds! Sorry for the about face but actually I don't think the Canon 55-250 + Raynox is that much better than the Tamron 16-300 + Raynox - that is to say good but not brilliant from what I can see and what I like to do.

So the last option I have is to try the 100mm with Raynox150 (and potentially a Raynox 250 also) - this should work well and if it does I *may* get rid of the MPE but so far nothing has looked like toppling it off its throne. Half the problem is that in cold, wet Scotland it's largely smaller bugs I shoot so I do need a fair bit of magnification but am just occasionally annoyed when trying to get Bees and the like especially when they are moving around rapidly in the middle of the day!

Any idea how much mag a 100mm + Raynox 150 might give?

Thanks in advance

 

[GardenersHelper]

Any idea how much mag a 100mm + Raynox 150 might give?

I don't have numbers for 100 macro, but for the Sigma 105 macro (which presumably will be quite similar to a 1;1 100mm macro lens);

With Raynox 150, minimum scene size about 14mm at a working distance of about 75mm (magnification about 1.6:1 in APS-C terms).
With Raynox 250, minimum scene size about 11mm at a working distance of about 60mm (magnification about 2:1 in APS-C terms).

 

[GardenersHelper]

Another round of questions, research and experiments. Some more purchases, and another return.

This round of activity started with the question of whether I could get better image quality by using a full frame camera. I have seen images from full frame cameras that seem to have a special "something" that I don't think I can achieve with any of my current kit. I can't quite pin it down - something to do with the rendition of colours and textures, the transition from in focus to out of focus areas, the appearance of out of focus areas. I don't know what it is, but some full frame images seem to have a very strong "presence" that draws my eye in. I've seen it with images of flowers and invertebrates.

An important factor for me in choosing a camera is its LCD. All my cameras apart from my little point and shoot camera have articulated LCDs, and I rarely use a viewfinder. A lot of my shots wouldn't be practical using a viewfinder because of the angles involved, for example ground level shots. I could use an angle finder with the 70D (but not my other cameras) but this wouldn't help with shots where I have to hold the camera away from me, for example to reach around obstructions.

I've been waiting for Canon to produce a full frame camera with an articulated screen and usable live view like the 70D, but they haven't yet. This has made Sony full frame cameras look interesting, as some of them have had articulated screens. Recently I became aware of the Sony A7rii. The more I looked at what it promised (spending a great deal of time on the dpreview Sony E mount forum) the more interesting it became, and the people on the Sony forum were getting very enthusiastic about it. It has a 42 megapixel sensor, which would obviously have good potential for cropping, and apparently also has very good dynamic range, with plenty of potential for highlight and shadow recovery, which I use a lot.

As yet Sony only have a small number of native lenses for the E mount used on the A7 series cameras, but these include an apparently very good 90mm macro lens and a pretty good 24-240 lens, which I could use for flowers like I use the 55-250 on the 70D. By using an adaptor, the a7 series cameras can use Canon EF mount lenses. The a7rii takes this a step further and autofocus of (some) Canon EF mount lenses allegedly works pretty much as fast as on Canon cameras. This might mean I could use my Sigma 105 instead of the Sony 90mm macro lens, and more importantly I would also be able to use the MPE65. The MT24EX wouldn't be usable, but there are alternatives to that.

Now, I tried the MPE-65 and Canon 100L IS (that is where this journey thread started) and I sent them both back. I later bought the Sigma 105 Macro to give primes another go. I still have it, but I don't use it. But I thought that if I wanted to get better image quality then perhaps it was now time to get serious, and simply get used to using this sort of kit, accepting that there are some shots I can get with my current kit that I couldn't with prime macro setups, but living with this in the interests of getting better quality for the shots I did get. Also, the a7rii only has a tilting LCD, not a fully articulated one, so some more of the shots I get now would not be possible. But the same logic applied - fewer shots, but better quality.

I had been thinking mainly in terms of flowers, but I then thought about the isues I've been having with nasty highlights in flash images of invertebrates. I had been thinking of reverting to natural light for invertebrates. It struck me that the a7rii would let me use very high ISOs to get decent shutter speeds in poor light, and would also let me do deep manipulation of highlights and shadows which is needed to handle the very high dynamic range that can be encountered in bright sunshine.

One obvious downside was cost. The a7rii (body only) costs around £2,600. The Sony lenses I was interested in cost around £1,000 each. Big money. I decided to do some practical natural light "simulation" tests. I went out with the 70D and the Sigma 105. This would involve a similar weight as using the a7rii with the Sony 90mm macro or the Sony 24-240, and would involve the same working practices as using the Sony 90mm macro or the Sigma 105 on the a7rii. I was determined to have a good go at making it work. The quality I had seen from the first images from a7rii users was stunning. You could use 100% crops with no bother, and I saw terrific shadow and highlight recovery. I wanted some of that, and I was ready for some inconvenience and changes of habit to get it.

I failed. Just like with the 100L, MPE65 and Sigma 105. Even though I was highly motivated by the quality potential, I quickly lost my enthusiasm for this approach. I just can't get on with prime lenses even at low magnifications like 1:1 (for example experiencing slow, hunting autofocus, compared to the quick focusing with my current rigs, and having to move the camera to change magnification and framing instead of being able to do this without moving). And at higher magnifications there are added difficulties such as no autofocus, difficulty finding the subject, following a moving subject and refinding a lost subject, all of which are much better with my current rigs. And to cap it all, it was a sunny day and I saw that even using natural light there were nasty highlights on shiny subjects, looking worse than any amount of (non-cloning) post processing could deal with.

Of course, for flowers I wasn't intending to use prime lenses. The 24-240 was what I had in mind. But did I want to spend £3.5k or more just to produce better flower pictures? And was it sensible to get a £2.6k camera body and then use it with a superzoom lens which was bound to have less than stellar optical qualities compared to primes? But I really didn't want to use primes for flowers.

The a7rii was looking doubtful. And as I read more on the dpreview Sony forum more issues came to light, for example about slow focusing and hunting (not just with the macro lens), optical issues and Canon compatibility issues (the 100L apparently doesn't autofocus, even slowly, on the a7rii).

I'm sure I'll see wonderful results from the a7rii, just as I have from other full frame cameras. But they won't be my pictures. I couldn't persuade myself that an a7rii, or any other full frame camera at the moment, would work well for me. At some point in the future, perhaps.

In the meantime, I decided to think again about how to improve the quality of my photos.

I came up with three major issues. These are discussed in the following posts:

I very much like the way the FZ200 handles, but its images are noisy
I would like more reach with the 70D
I would like to do better with small subjects

 

[GardenersHelper]

FZ200 noise

I'm using the FZ200 with flash, and even at minimum aperture using base ISO it only needs 1/8 or so power with my current diffuser. This means I can for the most part shoot as quickly as I want without having to wait for the flash to recycle. But even at ISO 100 it can be noisy, especially if I adjust highlights and shadows, which I often do. By using DXO Prime (raw only) noise reduction I can keep noise under control while retaining sufficient detail. It's a complication of the workflow that I'd rather not have, but I can live with it.

The FZ330 (also known as FZ300 in other regions) has been announced. This has the same lens as the FZ200, which is good news. According to Panasonic it also has the same sensor. If true (there is some debate about what exactly Panasonic marketing people mean by "the same sensor"), it looks like this won't solve the noise problem. Pansonic do talk of improvements regarding noise, but it looks very much as though this is to do with the processing applied to produced JPEGs, not the intrinsic quality of the image as captured. As I always shoot in raw, any such in-camera processing improvements would make no difference to me.

The FZ330 will be available in October. I may get one anyway, for other reasons (such as faster focus, weather sealing, better LCD and stills from 4K video) but I doubt it is going to fundamentally alter the noise equation. I'm not aware of any other camera that would do what it does (for me) better (for me). I think I'm stuck with the more complicated workflow for now.

 

[GardenersHelper]

70D reach

I'm using the 70D for natural light work. I use the 55-250 STM on the 70D and like it a lot. It is light and sharp. I would like a bit more reach though, for example to capture flighty butterflies from a bit further away to avoid spooking them, and capture flowers that are in positions I can't approach near enough. I would also like to be able to fill the frame better with smaller butterflies from the current minimum working distance.

The 55-250 is an EF-S lens (it only works on crop cameras, which is why it is light), but EF-S lenses can't use teleconverters. Well, you can if you add an extension tube in front of the teleconverter, but you lose infinity focus.

Kenko have very recently announced an EF-S capable teleconverter (1.4x and 2x versions). It looks like these are upgrades to their less expensive (not so good) range of teleconverters rather than the ones that I have tested and documented in this thread. Still, my investigations showed that, at least with the teleconverters I have, using a teleconverter with the 55-250 (for subjects you can reach with an extension tube added) can give better results than cropping.

There are no reviews of these EF-S teleconverters yet, but I took the plunge and bought one anyway, a 1.4X version. If it works well it would allow greater reach and also greater magnification from the (unchanged) minimum working distance. I could also stack the EF-S teleconverter with one of the EF teleconverters for greater reach.

It is £200 - that includes an early adopter price penalty I imagine - making it more expensive than the 55-250 I'd be using it with. At that price I would expect it to provide enough image quality to be an improvement over cropping.

It doesn't.

A set of comparisons of cropped bare 55-250 images versus uncropped images using the 1.4 converter on the 55-250 showed better image quality from cropping most of the time. And it doesn't focus very well either. Live view focusing is not too bad, but phase detect focusing is at best slow, and often unusable.

I'm asking for a return and my money back.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Small subjects

I don't often shoot much beyond 2:1. The main reason is that I've rarely felt satisfied with the image quality I have obtained at higher magnifications, compared for example to what I see from the MPE65 or other macro lenses augmented by extension tubes and/or achromats. However, high magnification work is difficult, and I haven't done much of it, so it may be partly a matter of practice.

My previous investigations have suggested (but only based on a small sample) that I could get the best results from my existing kit by using the 45-175 lens on my G3, with the Raynox Raynox 150 and 250 stacked and the (more powerful) Raynox MSN-202. With the MSN-202 this gives a minimum scene width of about 4.5mm, which is 5:1 in Canon APS-C terms and 8:1 in full frame terms. This is less than the 8:1(APS-C equivalent) I can get with the MSN-202 on the FZ200, but enough to be going on with. Besides, G3 images should have more cropping potential than FZ200 images because of the 9 times larger area of the G3 sensor.

So, I decided to try again with the G3 and the MSN-202 and the Raynox 150 and 250 stacked, this time using my latest diffuser that works nicely (for non-shiny subjects) on the FZ200. I was quickly reminded of what I don't like about this setup with the G3. It was a sunny day and (unlike with the FZ200 and 70D) I couldn't see what was going on on the LCD. I haven't used my DIY LCD hood for a long time now because I haven't needed it, but I dug it out and put it on the G3. However, the LCD visibility was still poor. Also, the LCD hood slid around and obscured one or other edge(s) of the screen and needed frequent adjustment, which was distracting. I had forgotten about that aspect of it.

The other thing I was reminded about was the controls on the G3. The buttons are small and difficult to use, and there are not enough programmable buttons for my needs and so I have to dig into the menus to adjust the flash exposure compensation, or use the buttons on the flash, both of which approaches are fiddly and prone to error.

On the plus side, the 45-175 shares one great advantage with the FZ200 when it comes to using a lot of magnification. The 45-175 does not extend as it zooms so the close-up lens stays in the same place as you change magnification. It is the same for the FZ200 when the close-up lens is mounted on the adaptor tube.

This is a huge advantage when using powerful achromats because, having spotted a subject, it can be extremely difficult to line the camera up on it. And if it is moving around, it is easy to lose it, and difficult to find it again. With the G3 a light touch on the (fly by wire) zoom ring takes me out to full wide angle, making it easier to find the subject. I can then centre the subject in the frame and zoom in. The working distance is unchanged as you zoom in and out, so there is no need to move the camera as the magnification/framing changes. The lens goes from full wide to full telephoto with a 90 degree rotation of the focus ring, and this can be done easily using my thumb. Just behind the zoom ring there is a zoom lever, and that can be used with the thumb too.

It is difficult to overstress the significance of this ability to zoom in and out (and retain focus by the way) without moving the camera. I first used the MSN-202 on the kit 45-200, which extends as you zoom. I found it pretty much unusable (similar to my experience with the MPE-65, which extends/contracts a lot as you change magnification.).That is why I bought the non-extending 45-175, and with it the MSN-202 became a fully practical proposition.

Not being able to see what was going on very well, and the fiddlyness of the controls, made the G3 distinctly suboptimal to use. I decided to look at other micro four thirds cameras with which I could use the 45-175. Panasonic recently announced two new cameras that might be suitable. One was the G7, which is three generations on from the G3 (G5, G6, G7 - there never was a G4, because 4 is apparently regarded as unlucky in Japan. It was the same with the Canon S3 that I used and its successor, the S5). The other new Panasonic camera is the GX8, a rangefinder style camera almost at the top of the Panasonic range, beneath the GH4. The Olympus EM5 Mark II was another obvious candidate.

The G7 costs around £550 for the body only, the GX8 around £1,000 and the EM5 II around £850. In the course of reading about these I read reviews of the G5 and G6. Both appeared to have better LCDs and controls than the G3. I saw a G5 body only available for £140 from one of the Bristol branches of London Camera Exchange. I went in to Bristol and had a look at it. Holding it up against the G3 outside the shop the LCD did seem a bit brighter. I put the 45-175 on it and that seemed to work ok, as it did with the MSN-202 when I tried that.

At £140 (with a two week "change your mind" period and 6 months warranty) it seemed worth a try, especially as the reviews said it had a better sensor (same 16 megapixel size, but better), and better focusing than the G3 (which was by no means bad anyway). When I got it home I quickly found that I could set it up for easy, quick access to flash exposure compensation, switching between autofocus and manual focus, and moving and resizing the autofocus box. Along with access via a fixed function button to ISO and via a wheel to aperture and shutter speed, that is everything I need quick access to.

Like any new piece of equipment it will take time to get used to it and acquire the necessary muscle memory for fluid operation, but the signs are good so far. The LCD seems pretty usable and the focusing seems better - for example it will autofocus at full magnification with the MSN-202, which is something the G3 couldn't do. Autofocus is a bit slow and on and off at full magnification with the MSN-202 (5:1 in APS-C terms, scene width about 4.5mm), especially hand-held, which is how I'm working all the time just at the moment, but at lower magnifications with the MSN-202 (and at all magnifications with the less powerful achromats) autofocus works nicely and seems definitely usable (this is with a very small focus box, so I can place the centre of focus where I want it, so I can either use focus and recompose or (less so these days) move the focus box to a suitable position.

Being able to switch conveniently between autofocus and manual focus is good, because I do change between them a lot these days, sometimes for the same scene.

I have only gone through the selection and processing of one of my G5 sessions so far, so it is a bit early to say much about image quality. I used a mixture of ISO 200 and ISO 400, and felt the need to do selective noise reduction on the backgrounds for some of the ISO 400 images. Here are a couple of them (one ISO 200, one ISO 400) that Bryn kindly faved at Flickr.

This first one was really difficult because the ... I don't know, I'll call it a wasp ... was rushing about. It looked like it was carrying something quite big, but I couldn't make out what it was. It's not quite as much in focus as I'd like, but I thought it had interest value all the same. Is it the predator, carrying the spider off somewhere? Or is it the prey, trying to get rid of the spider hanging on to it? It was going in somewhat of a straight line, as if going somewhere in particular and not just rushing around in a panic. I followed it for a couple of metres trying to get a shot of it, but it was out of sight most of the time, just briefly appearing on top of the London Pride foliage before darting back out of sight.


0757 05 2015_08_02 P1020405 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I placed the centre of focus just a fraction too far away for this one, so an area of the near wing is out of focus.


0757 19 2015_08_02 P1020560 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Still, it looks like the camera is working ok.

Since capturing these I have discovered, during a night time session, that I can work at base ISO (160) with flash as the dominant (in this case, of course the only) light source, and the flash recharges fast enough for my purposes most of the time, for example letting me capture a shot every 1 to 2 seconds for a while. But I did have to wait for the flash sometimes. Working at base ISO might simplify things as far as noise goes, but I'll have to balance that against shots lost because the flash isn't ready.

The night time session also highlighted another weakness of my setup - illuminating the scene so I can see what is going on for subject acquisition, composition, and focus (auto or manual). I have a head (hat) mounted LED light, which is fine for surveying the scene and finding subjects, but it gets blocked by the diffuser so I can't use it for illuminating the scene at capture time. I had a small torch pointing downwards with two thin "ribbons" attached, one going up and one going down, which could be attached to the bits of velcro spread around on the outside of the diffuser. However, it was very difficult to get and keep the light pointing in the right direction, and ribbons needed to be adjusted if I rotated the diffuser sideways, or tipped the camera down at a sharp angle. The upshot was that I was working in almost complete darkness a lot of the time (partly because of the positioning issue, partly as the session went on because the torch batteries were running down but I didn't realise until I got back indoors just how little light the torch was putting out).

I went to Homebase today and found a sort of torch/lamp that I've not seen before.


0759 1 P1020629 600h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

As well as a normal torch light at one end it has eight LEDs down the side. This means that with a couple of bits of velcro attached to it, I can mount it on the diffuser so it shines down. It spreads the light far enough sideways and front to back that it works, without needing to be adjusted, for the different working distances of my achromats and with the diffuser rotated.


0759 2 P1020630a 600h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I went out and tried it briefly tonight, before getting rained off, and it worked a treat. It's not much different from working in daylight as far as acquiring the subject, composition and (manual and auto) focusing is concerned. I shall buy another couple tomorrow just in case it doesn't sell well and disappears from the market.

 

[dibbly dobbler]

First outing with the new 100mm today! Not much time but managed to get a couple of half decent shots off. Looks sharp with or without the Raynox 150 - mag is up at about 1.7:1 according to my quick test shots. Quite encouraged as there's definitely a bit more working distance when you need it, it's definitely sharp and enough mag for 95% of what I would shoot with the MPE. (Also I am likely to pick up a Raynox 250 at some point). So the end for the MPE ? Time will tell and I'm not going to rush it but maybe just maybe...


100mm Test Shot by Mike Smith, on Flickr


100mm + Ranox150 by Mike Smith, on Flickr