Request for comments on dpreview.com table

[DQE]

I look forward to the anticipated 2012 Olympus macro lens for this camera, and suspect that this might be the option that completes this rig for my partner. EDIT: Olympus *seems* to be listing it as available for aboutr $500 US dollars, but I am not sure it is actually available. Is it possible to estimate the working distance (from front of lens to subject) for this lens at 1x mag?

It is not available yet, but some sites might be taking pre-orders.

It is difficult to estimate the working distance. This lens obviously has internal focusing, so its effective focal length at maximum magnification (about 0.5x real magnification) will probably be between 40 and 50 mm. The positions of the front and rear pupils are also a matter of guesses at this point. The "closest focusing distance" specified by Olympus might be relative to the sensor plane, so assuming its amount is good, subtract from it the registration distance (almost 20 mm) and the length of the lens (does anyone know it? it seems longish, anyway) and you will get a good estimate of the working distance. Most likely less than 100 mm.

I am also somewhat curious about this lens, but on the other hand an old Micro Nikkor 55mm on a Nikon to M4/3 adapter does everything that the Olympus macro lens will do except autofocus and auto aperture, and a Micro Nikkor D 60 mm f/2.8 on the same adapter will actually get twice the magnification (1x). A Micro Nikkor D 105 mm will do the same and also have a significantly longer working distance. The Olympus 60 mm could double as an all-round, relatively fast lens and will likely be somewhat slimmer than the Micro Nikkors, but at this point it does not have a high priority for me because I already have all three Micro Nikkors mentioned above.

Edit: ...not to mention that an Apo Rodagon or Apo Componon 40-50mm on a focusing helicoid will get to perhaps 2x in a relatively compact package (probably smaller and lighter than the Olympus 60 mm)

Thanks for the comments and lens options. One of the many interesting things about the Olympus system is accessibility to alternative lenses through adapters.

Would the Olympus D5 camera work similar to my 5DII/MT-24 rig in ETTL mode, using full manual settings on the camera body? More specifically, I don't need camera-based control of the lens aperture or the shutter speed, setting them to preferred values in manual mode (typically 1/200 sec, f6.3 to f11). Then, setting the flash to ETTL causes the system to set flash duration to the value needed to create a properly exposed photo.

Hmmm...but my partner probably can't cope with the extra weight of an external flash, and exclusively does natural light macro photography. I guess full manual mode, as may be required by alternative lenses, would be necessary.

Perhaps the bottom line is that she should mostly consider the new Olympus 50mm macro lens. Is the lens listed below at Amazon for sure the new macro lens? If so, it seems to be available now.

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Telephoto ... 631&sr=8-1

[enricosavazzi]

Thanks for the comments and lens options. One of the many interesting things about the Olympus system is accessibility to alternative lenses through adapters.

Precisely one of the thoughts behind the Micro 4/3 standard. This applies to all Micro 4/3 cameras I know of, including Panasonic models.

Would the Olympus D5 camera work similar to my 5DII/MT-24 rig in ETTL mode, using full manual settings on the camera body? More specifically, I don't need camera-based control of the lens aperture or the shutter speed, setting them to preferred values in manual mode (typically 1/200 sec, f6.3 to f11). Then, setting the flash to ETTL causes the system to set flash duration to the value needed to create a properly exposed photo.

Good question, but I haven't tried yet.

Is the lens listed below at Amazon for sure the new macro lens? If so, it seems to be available now.

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Telephoto ... 631&sr=8-1

No, this is the 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) 50 mm f/2, which has been available for years (and will autofocus via an adapter on the OM-D, although probably slowly). The new lens is a 60 mm f/2.8.

[DQE]

There is a helpful discussion of the Micro 4/3 system advantages and disadvantages, etc, at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_4/3 ... LR_cameras

If anyone with experience with these systems would care to comment on the Wikipedia summary, I would greatly appreciate it.

I see that Amazon sells an adapter for the Micro 4/3 systems. Yet Amazon is quite vague as to what it does and what it won't do. Issues such as enabling quick autofocus and exposure control are the key points AFAIK. Part of the answer would depend on what lens you hook up to the adapter, of course.

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-MMF-3-4-3 ... pd_sim_p_5

What does this adapter provide and what does it fail to provide vs using a lens that does not need an adapter? In particular, would it enable full functionality with the currently available Olympus 4/3 macro lens? The currently available Olympus macro lens link is below, for convenience:

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Telephoto ... 437&sr=1-1

With all the flexibility of this system, it's somewhat confusing to try and figure out what does and does not work. Fortunately, my partner only wants a reasonably functional macro lens and isn't trying to achieve publication-quality photos. Just having better low-light capability than her P&S would be a very large improvement - currently, anything not in almost full sunlight doesn't have enough light to work with a usable ISO speed and exposure settings. Fortunately, she doesn't shoot much higher mag than a FOV of about 25-35mm.

Finally, are extension tubes that work with autofocus and exposure control available for the Olympus OM-D E5 camera? Again, the specs at Amazon are unclear to me.

[enricosavazzi]

...
I see that Amazon sells an adapter for the Micro 4/3 systems. Yet Amazon is quite vague as to what it does and what it won't do. Issues such as enabling quick autofocus and exposure control are the key points AFAIK. Part of the answer would depend on what lens you hook up to the adapter, of course.

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-MMF-3-4-3 ... pd_sim_p_5

What does this adapter provide and what does it fail to provide vs using a lens that does not need an adapter?
...

This particular adapter is for mounting 4/3 lenses on Micro 4/3 bodies. It provides all auto functionality, but 4/3 lenses in general are known to autofocus slowly on Micro 4/3 bodies with this type of adapter. Some 4/3 lenses may need a firmware update to work on Micro 4/3 bodies, and some may autofocus faster after update.

Micro 4/3 was developed as an extension and modification of 4/3 rather than as a completely new standard, and the 4/3 lens adapter was planned from the start as part of the system, to use the old lenses on newer cameras.

Except for a third-party adapter that allows Canon lenses (don't remember which type) to autofocus on Micro 4/3 bodies, all other adapters are manual (i.e. no diaphragm transmission and no autofocus).

[DQE]

After the zillionth search, I finally got Amazon to come up with this Olympus extension tube, which *seems* to provide autofocus and auto exposure on the new Olympus D-E5 camera body. At least I *think* it does.

http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-EX-25mm-E ... roduct_top

Curiously enough, this extension tube weights about 5 ounces, more than half the weight of their 50mm f2.0 macro lens (8 ounces)!

Here's what Amazon says about this macro lens:

"AF shooting using Live View is possible with lenses featuring contrast AF compatibility. When a contrast AF incompatible lens is used, the AF assist function engages."
---------------------------------

I've really not mastered most of the differences between Micro 4/3 components and 4/3 components other than to accept that having full-fledged Micro 4/3 components is best for a Micro 4/3 camera body like the new "Olympus OM-D E-M5".

At the moment, I'm tentatively leaning towards recommending that my partner consider the OM-D E-M5 camera body with the currently available 50mm f2 macro lens. I'm not sure she would really need the extension tube, and in any event it could be added later.

Some reviewers complain about slow autofocus with the Olympus 50 mm macro lens, and that's an issue I am simply not clear on with respect to my partner's needs.

Maybe some day we'll all have active-tracking macro laser focus tracker(s) built into our cameras and we can simply aim a bug-eyes-insensitive IR laser beam at the human-selected focus target! Heck, the military has done this and more with their laser target designators for years!

[enricosavazzi]

The EX-25 extension tube is designed to work with the 50 mm f/2 lens. With the extension tube, the 50 mm focuses between 1:2 and 1:1 (0.5x to 1x). Without the tube it focuses between infinity and 1:2. I believe the extension tube provides full automatic transmissions.

In practice, your system with the tube would consist of the following pieces:

OM-D -> 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter -> EX-25 -> 50 mm f/2

The EX-25 cannot be used with Micro 4/3 lenses.

[DQE]

The EX-25 extension tube is designed to work with the 50 mm f/2 lens. With the extension tube, the 50 mm focuses between 1:2 and 1:1 (0.5x to 1x). Without the tube it focuses between infinity and 1:2. I believe the extension tube provides full automatic transmissions.

In practice, your system with the tube would consist of the following pieces:

OM-D -> 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter -> EX-25 -> 50 mm f/2

The EX-25 cannot be used with Micro 4/3 lenses.

Thanks for the clarifications - I don't think I could have necessarily pulled all this info from the Olympus site or my normal review sites, at least not with adequate certainty.

I now believe there are enough fully functional macro components (ie usable with auto exposure and auto focus if needed). This conclusion is only relevant to my partner's specific needs and preferences for a (mostly) natural light macro rig that is lightweight. The larger sensor size and review-reported improved high ISO performance should make a large improvement over her current small P&S camera. The very small sensor of the P&S camera just doesn't work well enough above an ISO of about 200.

When an even newer macro lens is for sale by Olympus, she can reassess her needs and we can figure out if it offers enough extra performance or features to be of interest as an upgrade.

Hopefully there is a camera shop in our town that has one of these cameras so she can try it out for comfort, weight, and size, etc. Since she most wants to use it for bug macro photography, most of the other features aren't too relevant. I think she shares my opinion that the retro styling is actually a plus vs the current hyper-smooth DSLR bodies.

I compared the camera + lens weight of a Canon T4i body and a 50 or 100 mm macro lens, and the Olympus rig is lighter by quite a nice percentage.

[_sem_]

AFAIK there are also Kenko auto extension tubes for the Micro 4/3 system. They might work with the kit zoom for the start.

The small sensors of compact cameras should be an advantage regarding handheld macro exclusively in ambient light (allowing shorter exposures than a comparable large-sensor setup which needs to stop down the aperture and bump ISO in order to become comparable).

At the super-short working distances also the little flashes of compacts are quite useful for macro, provided that one learns to use a paper tissue or sth similar as a diffuser near the end of the lens, and mostly one needs to set flash power manually. Unfortunately, many compacts disable flash in their "super-macro" modes.

The working distance is roughly related to the focal length. There are two other important things related to the FL in such macro:
- handholdability (the shorter the FL the better)
- background blur (the shorter the FL the less background blur).
The macro modes of the compacts typically work at short FLs, while DSLR macros are typically medium to long. Notice that the step from compact macro to DSLR macro was not perceived as an upgrade by everybody that has made it.

It is possible to try medium macro on a compact or mFT camera by using the tele range of the zoom lens (100-200mm equiv) with a close-up diopter like the Raynox DCR-250. A rather beefy compact camera with long enough zoom that has enough aperture in this range is preferred for this, otherwise there is noticeable diffraction-softening already wide-open.
Some compacts have filter threads or accessory rings for close-up etc filters. Lensmate offers adapters for some compacts that lack them.
http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/jjc ... enscap.php
There is a lot of useful info on their site.

I think the quality of the user interface for manual focusing is hugely important here, especially for not-so-technical folks. I mean, my old Canon S60 is capable of producing quite reasonable close-ups. But... It has MF but implemented clumsily... the screen resolution is not good enough for sharp focus; it does have enlargement feature, but it is useless... So it is more likely miss than hit.
I've handled a Panny GH2 once briefly; the screen and EVF are nowhere near as sharp for precise focus as a good DSLR OVF. It compensates the lack of sharpness by zooming-in automatically upon moving the MF ring; but this is only good if you're focusing on something in the centre of the image. I guess touch-screen zooming could work better.

[DQE]

AFAIK there are also Kenko auto extension tubes for the Micro 4/3 system. They might work with the kit zoom for the start.

The small sensors of compact cameras should be an advantage regarding handheld macro exclusively in ambient light (allowing shorter exposures than a comparable large-sensor setup which needs to stop down the aperture and bump ISO in order to become comparable).

At the super-short working distances also the little flashes of compacts are quite useful for macro, provided that one learns to use a paper tissue or sth similar as a diffuser near the end of the lens, and mostly one needs to set flash power manually. Unfortunately, many compacts disable flash in their "super-macro" modes.

The working distance is roughly related to the focal length. There are two other important things related to the FL in such macro:
- handholdability (the shorter the FL the better)
- background blur (the shorter the FL the less background blur).
The macro modes of the compacts typically work at short FLs, while DSLR macros are typically medium to long. Notice that the step from compact macro to DSLR macro was not perceived as an upgrade by everybody that has made it.

It is possible to try medium macro on a compact or mFT camera by using the tele range of the zoom lens (100-200mm equiv) with a close-up diopter like the Raynox DCR-250. A rather beefy compact camera with long enough zoom that has enough aperture in this range is preferred for this, otherwise there is noticeable diffraction-softening already wide-open.
Some compacts have filter threads or accessory rings for close-up etc filters. Lensmate offers adapters for some compacts that lack them.
http://www.lensmateonline.com/store/jjc ... enscap.php
There is a lot of useful info on their site.

I think the quality of the user interface for manual focusing is hugely important here, especially for not-so-technical folks. I mean, my old Canon S60 is capable of producing quite reasonable close-ups. But... It has MF but implemented clumsily... the screen resolution is not good enough for sharp focus; it does have enlargement feature, but it is useless... So it is more likely miss than hit.
I've handled a Panny GH2 once briefly; the screen and EVF are nowhere near as sharp for precise focus as a good DSLR OVF. It compensates the lack of sharpness by zooming-in automatically upon moving the MF ring; but this is only good if you're focusing on something in the centre of the image. I guess touch-screen zooming could work better.

Thanks for your very helpful and informatively detailed thoughts and experiences on these topics.

I think I disagree about one aspect of your assessment of the capabilities of P&S cameras for hand-held, natural light bug macro. Specifically, my experience and understanding is that they begin to get into trouble at an ISO above about 200. Although they can and do shoot at 400 and above, one starts to lose a lot of shadow image quality due to excessive chroma noise and other types of noise. With lots of sun light, the camera switches to an ISO of about 100, and image quality returns with a large-scale reduction in shadow area noise, etc. Also, the camera then stops trying to smooth out so much of the image noise and detail returns too.

By comparison, my FF DSLR does well most of the time up to 800 or even higher. If one is only aiming at snapshot quality, ISO 2500 - 6400 is OK, with some visible image quality losses. I seldom shoot NL macro, so I usually just leave my 5DII camera's ISO at 200 and let the flash do the rest.

What I'm hoping and expecting is that the *much* larger Micro 4/3 sensor will allow my partner to shoot NL macro, typically with a 15-30 mm FOV, at ISO of 400 or lower, and with lighting levels other than full sunlight. For example, a cloudy day, or (hopefully) a bug in moderate shade, would be great if she can obtain snapshot quality photos at such conditions and with a usable exposure time. She's pretty good at holding the camera steady and the Olympus camera body has a new generation IS feature.

Since I suspect that the autofocus at a roughly 20mm FOV won't be too useful, I'm hoping that either the EVF or the LiveView LCD will let her manually focus in the style which DSLR-based macro shooters use. Namely, one moves the camera back and forth until good focus is achieved. I hope the new generation EVF of the newest Olympus M 4/3 camera is high enough resolution to focus sharply for better
"snapshot quality" macro photography.
The P&S camera simply doesn't work too well, especially when the lighting is less than direct sunlight or at least a lightly cloudy day.

I need to give more thought to a closely focusing zoom lens, presumably with a Raynox adapter, probably in addition to the dedicated macro lens. I wonder if that wouldn't work OK for her everyday macro needs? She would probably enjoy having the zoom lens for ordinary photography. I just don't have much personal experience with using anything other than a dedicated prime macro lens.

I'm sure the Kenko extension tubes would provide autofocus (to the extent it works with macro) as well as auto exposure control, but I'll check that too. For some reason I completely spaced out Kenko tubes as an option, being so used to my nearly 100% Canon-sourced DSLR rig.

[_sem_]

I used to believe a P&S could not compete with a DSLR for macro. Then I started to notice impressive macro work of some P&S users, and the short exposures used there compared to mine with the D90+Tamron60. Plus the odd perspectives. Then one guy on one forum made a fairly apples-to-apples comparison of a P&S macro shot and a FL&DoF equivalent with a full-frame, using a 28mm lens on short extension, with the aperture stopped down a lot. Same subject (frame size), not same magnification. Both the FL and the F-number require scaling by the crop factor to compare. The trick is the F-number is much higher on the FF camera, so one needs to bump ISO heavily to use ambient light, while the P&S is at base ISO or near it. I could roughly verify something like this myself.
Then I got the DCR-250 +8 diopter and found that at the tele end of the zoom of the S60 I could do closeups with a some more working distance and with much more relative background blur, almost DSLR-like. And that I needed to set the aperture open to avoid massive diffraction blur, and that I also needed to keep my hands more steady.
So I think the advantage of DSLR is mainly in better lenses (except if using kit zooms on extension or with diopters on DSLR), and its sensor shines in abundant light (flash or tripod). The Pentax Q might be interesting too.
DSLRs also provide better dynamic range for shooting in harsh light if you can use them at base ISO (I gather the EM-5 is better than previous mFT cameras in this regard) - if you shoot raw and process in DxO OP or LR4.
I think auto-focus might actually be useful on touch-screen cameras.
Regarding the EVF and LCD resolution, it is certainly not enough without smart electronic magnification. Notice they count EVF pixels for each colour channel separately, so you need to divide by 3 to get the actual resolution. As long as you see individual pixels, the EVF is not sharp enough for precise focus without magnification. A touch-screen display may work better (enlarge where you tap, not necessarily the centre). I don't find "moire focus" good enough.

[rjlittlefield]

Then one guy on one forum made a fairly apples-to-apples comparison of a P&S macro shot and a FL&DoF equivalent with a full-frame, using a 28mm lens on short extension, with the aperture stopped down a lot. Same subject (frame size), not same magnification. Both the FL and the F-number require scaling by the crop factor to compare.

That sounds similar to comparisons that I've made also. One of those is HERE, in a thread that's probably worth re-reading because it's relevant to the current question.

The trick is the F-number is much higher on the FF camera, so one needs to bump ISO heavily to use ambient light, while the P&S is at base ISO or near it.

That's true, but the implications are easily misunderstood. Even though the P&S is at base ISO or close to it, the image noise levels will be similar to those of the larger sensor set on the higher ISO. There's no advantage or disadvantage either way in this comparison. It's just another case of "same light, same image".

The primary advantage of the smaller sensor is that it naturally comes with shorter lenses that can focus close in wide angle mode. This opens some possibilities for composition. The advantage of the larger sensor is more flexibility. This can translate into less noisy images (by using more light than the smaller sensor can tolerate), or into improved background bokeh and/or better low-light performance courtesy the larger hole in the lens, which lets in more light at the cost of proportionally less DOF.

--Rik

[_sem_]

That sounds similar to comparisons that I've made also. One of those is HERE, in a thread that's probably worth re-reading because it's relevant to the current question.

Well it was similar, but one'd have to be more persistent in achieving a similar frame (add an extension tube with the DSLR to get closer) and equivalence in FL and aperture, and use the same shutter time. Then compare the ISO needed for maxed highlights.

The primary advantage of the smaller sensor is that it naturally comes with shorter lenses that can focus close in wide angle mode. This opens some possibilities for composition.

Wide-angle DLSR lenses may be forced to focus as close with a little extension (handheld if no suitable ring around for a quick test). My impression both are somewhat limited in magnification, therefore most P&Ss only do close-ups, and there are no wide-angle 1:1 DSLR macro lenses. The difference is that P&S lenses are physically smaller so that they block ambient light less.

[DQE]

I just came across a reasonably useful review of the Olympus OM D-5 camera and lenses here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... view.shtml

I hadn't looked at this site in some time and found several of the reviewer's comments (pro and con) to be helpful as I continue to orient myself to this potential path for my partner's macro rig upgrade path from a P&S camera. At the moment I think the light weight of this camera, probably with the available Olympus 50mm macro lens, is a key factor vs most other current options.

Thanks again to everyone for their comments.
----------------------

I think that most of the reason DOF vs sensor size vs aperture size vs focal length etc comparisons continue to be stressful and somewhat unresolved in so many peoples' minds may be conceptually simple.

Specifically, the answer(s) depend so heavily on exactly what you hold constant in making your comparisons. In trying to wade through these issues once again on behalf of my partner's desire to upgrade from a P&S rig for macro, fixing the FOV (which is very much the right thing from her perspective and uses) is essential. With respect to my own FF DSLR efforts, I simply had not adequately realized how large a factor *only* being interested in FF macro photography is. Again, fixing this single parameter (sensor size) has large effects on many system comparisons and performance comparisons.

I wonder if there is some way to simplify such performance comparisons *without* making them obscure or non-intuitive? So many multi-dimensional system comparisons or nomograms end up being non-intuitive (partly because fixed parameters may be not so obvious), and they can simple be hard to interpret or use.

Rik's patient teachings as well as the many photographic demonstrations he's posted are invaluable.

[enricosavazzi]

Some information about the compatibility of 4/3 lenses on Micro 4/3 bodies:

http://m43photo.blogspot.se/2010/03/fou ... ility.html

Apparently there are autofocus incompatibility problems with Panasonic bodies, but not with Olympus bodies. Autofocus is almost certainly going to be slow also on Olympus bodies.