Why these particular choices of kit?
I have discussed a lot of what follows before but it is spread out across a number of posts so I thought it would be timely to summarise the situation.
An obvious question is why I would want to use close-up lenses on an old camera with a small and noisy sensor when I have modern cameras with better sensors and high quality lenses. That is for invertebrates. For flowers etc I will be using Panasonic’s top of the range stills camera with a very good Olympus macro lens, but the question still arises of why not use a full frame camera, for which I also have high quality macro lenses.
The short answer is that, for what I photograph and the way I go about it, the better equipment rarely produces noticeably better image quality even in the circumstances where the better kit does have an advantage. And very often because of the shooting conditions the better kit does not have an advantage and there is no difference at all in image quality. On the other hand the not so good equipment has better handling characteristics for my purposes which let me work faster and with higher success rates.
Flowers etc
The key factor here is the ability to use aperture bracketing and post focus video. The A7ii and the FZ200 don’t do either of these. The FZ330 does post focus video but not aperture bracketing. The G80 and the G9 do both, but the G9 has several advantages over the G80:
- The G80 can only do post focus video in 4K. This produces 8 mpix JPEGs to work with. The G9 can do 6K post focus, and this produces 18 mpix JPEGs.
- Unlike the G80, the G9 has the flat Cinelike D profile. This helps with dynamic range and with normal post processing produces a subdued tonality that I very much like for my flowers etc.
- The G9 has a better auto ISO/shutter speed implementation.
- The G9 has a better arrangement of buttons and dials, and unlike the G80 it also has a joystick. The G9 buttons have a better profile (they are easier to find by touch) and there are two buttons that are very conveniently placed on the front of the camera. The setup of the buttons and joystick is highly customisable.
The G9's auto ISO/shutter speed and button/joystick arrangements have let me create a working setup which minimises the adjustments I have to make, speeds up those that do need my input, and lets me work fast and fluidly right through sometimes long sessions.
I did think that the A7ii might produce better image quality for single-capture images compared to any of my other kit and so might make it worth foregoing aperture bracketing and post focus video. However it turned out that the main advantage of the A7ii was that it could produce slightly less noisy images in good light, but I don’t have a problem with image noise in good light. In less than good light, and especially when it was breezy, which it often is here, equivalence kicked in and in order to get the depth of field and shutter speed I needed I had to raise the ISO with the A7ii, which negated the noise benefits.
There were some other disadvantages of the A7ii such as weight (of lenses – the A7ii is light enough) and the tilting but not fully articulated screen, which made it more difficult and sometimes impossible to work in portrait mode, which I do a great deal for flowers etc. These problems were moot though given the lack of significant image quality benefit and the absence of aperture bracketing and post focus video.
Image quality for invertebrates
For invertebrates I use single-image captures out in the field working hand-held. The reason that I don’t get better image quality for invertebrates when using better equipment is because I use very small apertures to maximise depth of field. Diffraction then becomes the dominant factor and pretty much equalises lens arrangements in terms of detail capture, which is a primary consideration for invertebrate images. I have seen theoretical explanations of this equalising effect (not that I understand the details), but my conclusions are based on numerous practical tests of capturing a bank note at various magnifications, both using a tripod so as to look at the intrinsic capabilities of a camera/lens setup, and working hand-held to see how those capabilities pan out in practice for my working methods. Basically the image quality I got with close-up lenses on small sensor bridge cameras were overall as good as I got with any other setup.
Kit for medium sized invertebrates
Since image quality is much the same whatever the equipment, the decision as to what kit to use is down to usability.
Because of the weight of the lenses, most of the A7ii setups are heavier and less well balanced than I am comfortable with for long sessions. (The Laowa 25mm macro is not so heavy.) In contrast the G80/G9 setups and the FZ200 setups are light and balanced enough to be comfortable for long sessions.
I much prefer to use autofocus. However, although I can have autofocus up to 1:1 with the A7ii using a Sigma 105 macro, as the magnification gets towards 1:1 the autofocus gets slower and can hunt a lot, sometimes being unable to gain focus at all. And with higher magnification lenses such as the MPE-65 autofocus is not available. The situation is similar with the G80/G9 when using these same macro lenses. In contrast I get usable autofocus at all the magnifications I use with close-up lenses on G80/G9 and FZ200. I can use very small focus areas, which lets me place the centre of focus/DOF exactly where I want it to be. (The focus area is movable, but I generally use focus and recompose.) The autofocusing does not hunt at all for medium sized invertebrates and not excessively with smaller subjects given the size of the hand movement effects it has to cope with.
I need to cover a range of scene sizes. This turns out to be awkward with the A7ii. The Sigma 105 only goes to 1:1, the MPE-65 only goes from 1:1 and the Laowa 25mm macro only goes from 2.5:1. For my purposes 1:1 on full frame is a rather inconvenient break point which means that with the A7ii I would need to switch back and forth frequently either between lenses and/or with additions such as extension tubes, teleconverters and/or close-up lenses.
I can do a significantly greater proportion of my invertebrate photography with a Raynox 150 on a 45-175 on the G80/G9. However, the break point between Raynox 150 and 250 is still somewhat inconvenient meaning that I have to switch back and forth quite a lot between the 150 and 250. This is especially troublesome if I want to zoom in and out between full body shots of the subject and “environmental” shots showing the subject in its natural surroundings, often using intermediate framings. It is even more troublesome when I am framing in and out on a subject that I am tracking as it moves around. With a Raynox 150 on the FZ200 I can do a very large proportion of my invertebrate photography without having to make any change to the setup. In some sessions I don't change from the Raynox 150 throughout the whole session. This is the main reason I have chosen to use the FZ200 for medium sized invertebrates.
Another, lesser factor is that the Raynox 250 has a shorter working distance than the 150, and that means that with frequent switching between the 150 and 250 with the G80/G9 I am more often using the shorter working distance of the 250, which increases the likelihood of scaring off some subjects.
Kit for small invertebrates
I don’t often photograph small invertebrates such as springtails, although I do intend to try to do more of it this year.
Similar considerations apply as with medium sized invertebrates. However, as the subjects get smaller the extension of the lens on the FZ200 becomes increasingly problematic. Being able to change the magnification/framing without moving the camera with the G80/G9 close-up lens setup is distinctly advantageous for small subjects. Also, there is rarely any magnification/framing break point issue for these small subjects. That is the reason I favour a setup using the non-extending 45-175 with a close-up lens on G80/G9 for small subjects.
I favour the G9 over the G80 in this role because of the convenience and speed of moving the focus point with the G9 joystick (focus and recompose does not work well for small subjects) and because of the slightly better cropability of the G9’s 20 mpix sensor compared to the G80’s 16 mpix sensor.
Kit to cover small and medium sized invertebrates in the same session
Taking out the G9 and FZ200 at the same time would be awkward, with each having their differently configured KX800 attached. I have been gathering the stuff needed to make a carrier that would let me take both out at the same time, but even if I do succeed in making something suitable I think I am much more likely to go out for sessions with a single camera and concentrate on either medium sized or small sized subjects in a particular session. However, both cameras can cover both roles, just not as well as one another, so by taking all four close-up lenses with me I will be able to cover both medium and small subjects with whichever camera I am using.
EDIT: On reflection I was a bit too positive here. I have different KX800 setups for (a) the G9 for small subjects and (b) the FZ200 for medium sized subjects. Whichever camera I was using, even if I took all my close-up lenses, unless I took both flash setups I wouldn't have the right setup for the alternative use. I could bend the arms around on either setup to cover the alternative use, but I really wouldn't want to do that as getting the setups just right is quite tricky, so putting it properly back in place after an alternative use could be difficult, especially out in the field. I suppose it might be easier to carry around just the alternative flash unit rather than carrying around both cameras with flash units attached. I need to look closer at the practicalities here.
Larger invertebrates
I rarely come across larger invertebrates such as butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies. When I do it tends to be quite bright and I tend to use natural light rather than flash. Given how rare this is it would not be worth carrying additional equipment to cover this eventuality. Either the FZ200 or G80/G9 with 45-175 can cover this, especially if I take one more close-up lens, the low power Canon 500D.
Choice of close-up lenses
I have looked at various options for close-up lenses.
For small invertebrates the Raynox 202 and 505 seem to be the best options, although both sometimes suffer from significant and occasionally difficult to remove chromatic aberration at higher magnifications. Even so, they have produced better results in my tests than stacking less powerful close-up lenses.
For large invertebrates, where close-up lenses are used at all the choice from my available close-up lenses would be between the Canon 500D and the Marumi 330. The 500D has a larger working distance, which is better in this context with sometimes jumpy subjects, and my tests have not shown the Marumi 330 to produce better results than the 500D. My choice is therefore the Canon 500D.
For medium sized invertebrates I have options including, singly and in combination, Raynox 150 and 250, Canon 250D and 500D, Marumi 200 and 330.
I am attracted to the larger diameter Canon and Marumi close-up lenses as they produce less vignetting on the FZ200, giving me a larger range of magnifications to work with compared to the Raynoxes. However, my tests on two copies each of the Canon 250D and Marumi 200 have shown them to perform poorly in terms of image quality. The Canon 500D is good but not really powerful enough in this role. The Marumi 330 tested well, singly and as a stacked pair which was between the Raynox 150 and 250 in terms of maximum magnification. However, and here too I don’t recall the details, the Raynoxes did better overall in my testing, and they are therefore my choice in this role.