Olympus 60mm f/4 ISO 200 (Image courtesy: Eugene Kitsios)
——
Eugene Kitsios sent me that great article about macro photography. All 43rumors reader are welcome to send me full articles at 43rumors@gmail.com. Thanks!
——
Micro four thirds and macro photography (by Eugene Kitsios)
This article is purely based on user knowledge and experiences. If there are any mistakes or whatsoever, please do correct me. I am definitely not a camera/lens expert and to be honest this is my first ‘review’ ever. I am just an (amateur) photographer who loves to spend time taking pictures and I wanted to share my experiences with the people that are interested in doing macro photography with the micro four thirds system.
Olympus 60mm f/4 ISO 200 (Image courtesy: Eugene Kitsios)
Introduction and why I love the micro four thirds system for macro photography
Before I dove into the micro four thirds world I was a happy owner of an Olympus E-5. When I switched systems I did not sell all of my native four thirds lenses, but kept three. This included one special lens, the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro.
I think micro four thirds is a wonderful system for macro photography. One ‘con’ that is often given to this system is the fact that you can’t get the same shallow depth of field (DoF) as with a full frame camera. However to me, especially for macro photography, this is a real benefit and I will explain why. For macro photography working distance is usually really close so this will automatically result in a shallow depth of field. When using an aperture of f2.8 with a micro four thirds camera you will get the equivalent depth of field as an f5.6 lens on a full frame camera, but the speed stays the same (f2.8). Since you already have quite a shallow depth of field (because of the close working distance), I find it to be really handy to have the speed of an f2.8 lens but less shallow DoF as compared to a full frame camera. For example, this means that in addition to the eyes of that particular dragonfly or that particular ant, also the mouth will be (partly) in focus, depending of course on the focus distance you are using.
Furthermore, since micro four thirds cameras have a crop factor of 2x you can get your subject quite largely into the frame or you don’t have to approach it too closely (e.g. butterflies that might fly away).
Olympus 60mm f/4 ISO 200 (Image courtesy: Eugene Kitsios)
The lenses
There are currently three native micro four thirds lenses that are designed for macro use. Also there are macro lenses from the four thirds system, which can be used on a micro four thirds camera via an adapter. The downside of using a four thirds lens on a micro four thirds camera is slower autofocus. However, for macro photography I tend to use manual focus a lot so for me this is not a problem at all and with the upcoming EM-1 autofocus should be working great again.
For people looking for a macro lens for their micro four thirds camera I thought it would be handy to have a small list of the available choices. Of course there are more options if you count in all the lenses of other brands that can be used via an adapter, but this list includes only native (micro) four thirds lenses.
Micro four thirds:
– Olympus 60mm f2.8 (Store links: [shopcountry 33616])
– Panasonic Leica 45mm f2.8 (Store links: [shopcountry 14794])
– Yasuhara Nanoha X5 (Store links: [shopcountry 41837])
Four thirds:
– Olympus 35mm f3.5 (Store links: [shopcountry 41838])
– Olympus 50mm f2.0 (Store links: [shopcountry 41841])
– Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (Store links: [shopcountry 41839])
– Sigma 105mm f2.8 (Store links: [shopcountry 41840])
– Sigma 150mm f2.8 (Store links: [shopcountry 41842])
I personally own the Olympus 60mm f2.8 and the Sigma 150mm f2.8. Both of these lenses have great image quality. The Olympus I use mainly for small insects which can be approached from a close distance and the Sigma I use mainly for larger insects which might fly away (like butterflies or dragonflies).
Sigma 150mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (Image courtesy: Eugene Kitsios)
Olympus OM-D EM-5
The Olympus OM-D EM-5 is the first OM-D camera from Olympus, released in 2012. In this part I will discuss its handy features and give some general tips when using this camera for macro work.
For macro photography generally a tripod is used. However, there are some times when you can’t use a tripod because for example an insect is positioned in an awkward way or you just don’t have time to set up the tripod. This is where the image stabilization system shines. Olympus has designed an amazing 5-axis image stabilization. I think this is the best feature of this camera, at least for macro work. Not only does it counter shaky hands but it has one more really handy feature. In the menu you can turn on something called halfway release image stabilisation. What this does is that it activates the image stabilisation when you press the shutter halfway and therefore stabilizes the camera before you take the image. This is really handy, since it makes focussing a lot easier. When you are done with focussing, just press the shutter fully and voila you end up with a sharp image.
Another feature that is great for macro photography is the ability to enlarge an area on the screen. Olympus gives the option to enlarge a particular part of the image to 5x, 7x, 10x or 14x. This makes manually focussing a lot easier since you can really nail down the focus. One feature however that would be handy to have is the ability to use focus peaking. There is a way of getting a suchlike mode on the OM-D which I would refer to Google to anybody interested in this. Again, the upcoming EM-1 will have focus peaking.
Olympus has put a 16 megapixel Sony sensor in the OM-D. In previous 12 megapixel sensors noise was a problem at higher ISO values. However things changed with the arrival of this sensor. Not only does it have more megapixels, but noise is also controlled better for. I would have no hesitation in using ISO 800. Even ISO 1600 looks really good and ISO 3200 is still pretty usable. Put this sensor in the weatherproof body of the OM-D, put on a weatherproof lens like the 60mm and you’re ready to go.
Not to forget is a feature all micro four thirds cameras share: size! I just wrote down that I think that the image stabilization is the best feature for macro work but this comes really, and then I mean really close. I remember doing macro photography with my E-5. When I did not use a tripod, after a while my hands really started shaking when trying to focus the image correctly. Now when I use my OM-D with the 60mm I don’t have this problem anymore, which is not strange considering that this combination is less than half the weight of the E-5 with a macro lens attached.
Sigma 150mm f/4 ISO 400 (Image courtesy: Eugene Kitsios)
Results
I attached some of my macro work to give an idea what the OM-D is capable of. These images have only had minor post processing. Mostly what I do is add a bit of contrast and apply a bit of sharpening when needed. When not using a tripod, I always have the image stabilisation turned on and use the magnify function to double check the focus.
Sigma 150mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (Image courtesy: Eugene Kitsios)
Conclusion
I love my OM-D. For me it performs wonderfully for macro photography. If somebody would give me the option to change my OM-D macro gear to full frame macro gear for free, I would not do it. That is how much I love it. The small size and weight, the image stabilisation, the weatherproof body, the sensor, it’s just the whole package.
I hope this article will help anyone thinking of doing macro photography with the OM-D or even people that are thinking of joining the micro four thirds system. I am sure I will enjoy lots and lots of more time using my OM-D in the insect world and I hope you will do too.
—
43rumors note: Many Thanks to Eugene for that very well written article!
75 Responses
NOT ENOUGH BOKEH!!!!
So. No distraction.
Here is an area where MFT excels with its increased DOF at a given lens perspective. …because mo DOF is usually a plus when you get this close!
I was kidding. 😛
They are wonderful pics! A smaller sensor is actually better/easier for macro.
“But its not full frame!” ; ) lol!
To be honest those pics are brill and I wouldn’t be able to tell what they came from, but the pics are what counts! Lovely little article! Great pics!
Hm.. My E-pm2 has an extreme shutter shock, so under 1/250 its impossible to shoot in normal conditions, and when shooting macro, I need at least 1/1000 to get sharp pictures. So no, the m43 system is not good for macro.
Try using a 1/8 sec shutter delay (anti-shock) or a little longer if needs be & that should solve those issues.
This can help: http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.de/2012/09/micro-43-shutter-shock-revisited-omd-em.html
Or – as controversally it may sound – turn off Image stabilisator.
Second generation IS system (E-620 and all PENs before the last one) is
really poor in stabilising the image at exp times around 1/60, 1/250.
Many times you get some sort of “double image”, thanks to the jerky
IS movement during the exposition.
It works reasonably OK at long shutter speeds tough.
First generation IS (E-5xx, E-30, E-3, E-5) are actually much better.
Not to mention the latest 5 axis IS (but I have no personal experience with
that one yet)
I can’t see that the is of the E-M5 ist better for photography then the is for the E-PL2, and that even after Olympus changed the sensor of my E-M5 and I tried another E-M5. And with the E-620 I tried never to make pics between 1/100 and 1/200…
Sound like a problem with the way you take photo, not the problem with the equipment. I always uses 43/m43 for macro. I never have any issue with sharpness.
Otherwise, maybe your camera is faulty and needs repair.
Those are some great pics & until today I never saw the appeal of macro (well I am being polite as actually I thought it was a load of s^*t). Thanks
Beautiful images, thanks Admin and congratulation Mr. Eugene (is there a Flickr link to your photos too?)
Beautifully composed, really.
I own 60mm macro, and I’m really happy with it. Now I’m curious about that Sigma 150mm..
As for bokeh being absent: JimD already wrote what’s. My thought. In these images above there’s no need of distraction, they’re really good, well composed, in focus. Congrats again. (Now I’m inspired to go out in my woods 🙂 )
The Sigma 150mm macro lens is a nice lens but on the E-M5 it won’t AF accurately however it will on the E-M1. When using it on the E-M5, as I close the aperture for a greater DoF, the aperture blades take longer to operate & causes some shutter delay (especially with flash) which doesn’t help when hand holding with any minute movements putting it out of focus. Using the lens on a monopod does help if it’s convenient to use that way. I would like the E-M1 to use with that lens for the occasions distance is required, but the 60mm is so light & convenient on the E-M5 as well as being weather proof, it makes a great little kit.
For macro I use the excellent OM Zuiko 50mm F3.5 and macro converter and the 50mm F2.0. It’s macro heaven.
How well does the old OM lens stand up to the FT one?
I have an OM F3.5 35mm macro – its good for an old lens… I have a couple of old lenses (nikkor, minolta, OM) that are good – but only ok by todays standards I would say. my kit 14-42 MK1 Oly is sharper than any of my best old glass.
My faves/best IQ… just about sharp enough! are:
Cosmica 25mm F1.4 – C-mount covers the frame with only little fading at corners.
35mm F2 OM
50mm F1,7 minolta
85mm F2 Nikkor
100mm F2.8 OM
135mm F1.8 Rasma
these are the only ones from a fairly large collection of mid range old glass I will use… the 35mm macro OM could go in the list (its sharp) but the kit lens 14-42 and the 12-50 do better…
Thank you Ross! Indeed my 60mm serves me well, and I love he fact that it’s weather sealed. I often use it in MF, it’s not a problem, but I wonder if the extra reach of a 150mm is worth the cost (for me). Probably not, considering the new gear coming out in these weeks.
Excellent images and nice reading!
I myself like doing macro work, too, and until now I’m mostly using my E-30 with the 50/2 Macro lens, sometimes including the 1.4x or 2x converter. And I’m already looking forward to upgrading to the E-M1 in the foreseeable future.
Just one correction – while there indeed isn’t a disadvantage for (M)FT compared to FF when more, not less depth of field is needed, there isn’t a real advantage either. With comparably efficient sensor technology, you can always up the ISO by two stops on the FF camera while still getting equally good image quality, stop down the lens by two stops, and get the same image with the same depth-of-field.
Ok, other advantages do exist: the lenses are smaller and (M)FT only needs 1:2 reproduction scale for the same area of field a FF camera would need 1:1 for.
Stopping down two more stops (to get the same DOF) will very often force you to a tripod, because of longer exposure times (or increase ISO, as you said – which negates the image quality advantages of FF over m4/3). With m4/3 you get the same dof at faster shutter speeds (or lower ISO) – for hand-held & available-light macro work this is a massive advantage.
Then also add 3-4 stops image stabilization from E-M5, and the low weight of the system (easily hand-holdable for extended time!).
Completely true, but FF losing its advantage still doesn’t result it an advantage for (M)FT. (M)FT only loses its general disadvantage when more depth of field is what you’re after, that’s all. And stabilization is no property of the sensor format and thus no (M)FT advantage either. By the way, decent stabilized macro lenses for FF exist, and in short time Sony will introduce FF cameras equipped with just the same 5-axis on-sensor stabilizer technology Olympus is using in the E-M5/1.
+1
A surprising amount of people don’t seem to know that smaller sized sensors are also affected by diffraction much earlier than their bigger sized counterparts. To get really large DOF images with decent sharpness you’ll have to start stacking exactly at the same time as someone with a bigger sensor does.
I forgot: the best you can do is this: dump you FF body, but keep your 1:1 Canon or Nikon macro lens and mount it on the e-m5. You are forced to Manual Focus, but there are massive advantages:
– you get free image stabilization! (particularly if your C/N macro lens was not stabilized, this is a terrific advantage)
– The focus distance stays same, but FOV is much narrower. Compared to FF the maximum magnification ratio of the same lens is doubled!
– additional DOF without stopping down
– more working distance, if you dont want maximum magnification.
There is almost no good reason to use a FF body for macro over an e-m5.
I don’t have a FF body except for a few film SLRs, I primarily shoot with FT DSLRs since 2005, and sometimes I use one of my old Minolta lenses including the excellent MD Macro 100/4 either on the Olympus or on a cheap NEX I bought for that purpose. Getting decent telephoto and macro capabilities in a rather compact package was one of the main reasons I chose FT and will be one the reasons why I expect to stay with the sensor format and most probably move to the E-M1 at some point of time. Still, there is no such thing as a depth-of-field advantage for smaller sensors over to larger ones.
Actually with Canon EF lenses, that’s not a good option. EF lensew require electronic aperture control, and no adapter to my knowledge supports that. You can only shoot wide open, which is not really good for macro work. Also if you have the excellent Canon EF 100mm 2.8L IS, you cannot use its excellent optical IS.
@Hubertus, thank you for pointing this out. You are right about stopping down on a FF camera and raising the ISO. But you are also right about m43 still having the small lenses 😉
I’ve done a macro test using my EM-5 with kit lens and I think results are quite remarkable. Check this for example: http://500px.com/photo/44170508
The 12-50 lens does do a nice job at 43mm macro that can get up 1:2 magnification (unofficially), but if you’re keen on macro then the 60mm macro lens does it even better & at up to 1:1 magnification.
Marco/Macro….Marco/Macro….Marco/Macro….Marco/Macro….Marco/Macro……yeah…say it FAST,
Propane Propane…
Panny g3 is better for macro…
with e-m5 only lose money.. (overpriced stupid retrofuck camera…)
How? Even if the G3 was better in some other aspects relevant for macro photography, which it isn’t, the missing on-sensor stabilizer is a major disadvantage to the point of being a real show-stopper for use with any non-stabilized lens, which is what most of the existing macro lenses suited for use with MFT cameras are.
Dammit; system put my comment in the wrong place; sorry.
This is intended for Olly; I click on Reply in his ridiculous post and it gets put into your post. Sorry for that!
e-m5 lack of one of “most” important features for macromicrosafari… the swing and tilt monitor… in vertical shots (on tripod)the basculant monitor is unusable…
This for retrofucklosofy… stupid “marketing” ruined a potentially great camera for macroshooters.
Also e-m1 is a great delusion…
(Sorry for my poor english..)
and sorry for your poor thinking
What is the purpose of a jerk like you making those comments. If you don’t like the camera why don’t you just go away?
What is the purpose of a jerk like you making those comments. If you don’t like the camera why don’t you just go away?
Not enough bokeh??
I tought too much “bokeh” or super razor thin dof is the problem with full frame in macro photography. many have to resort to focus stacking.
But then again.. what do i know.. im not an expert.
I agree. I believe that shallow DOF and bokeh are both artefacts of photography. Can be nice, artistic, etc., but still an artefact. I was writing more about the physiology of it here:
https://medium.com/tech-blogging/7661b83666a
You don’t need 1:1 macro for butterflies or dragonflies. 1:4 macro like with the 14-150 will suffice. Of course, I wish Olympus would produce a native lens that is higher quality at 150mm.
http://www.mu-43.com/showpost.php?p=517670&postcount=63
It would have been interesting to read a little more about using (remote) flashes for macro photography. Robin Wong has his “special method”, which I personally find a little awkward (one-handed camera use, remote-controlled flash in the other hand).
Anyone has experience with the macro LED lights that oly sells for the “flash socket” ?? Are these bright enough? Light color?
Yes, I bought them & I wouldn’t recommend them as they don’t put out enough light to get photos at ISO 200. The FL36R flash with an after market diffuser (& maybe with a back reflector to bounce the light down) gives a much better result, if you have one or get it cheap enough used.
That is, yes I have them but NO they’re NOT bright enough.
Thanks for that quick answer!
Beautiful shots. But its not really macro is it. There is little detail. Most pictures are distant shots of insects. But i like the colours and dof.
Yeah, you prove many posters point. What d’ya know …
You can answer:
Ai knoow nussing eventhough aim not from Bacelôna.
I tried my Sigma macro on the new OM-D E-M1 yesterday in a shop.
It works! Focussing is as for the E5 which was never fast but still got there quickly (as opposed to the E-M5) so I am very happy as I too did not want to get rid of this lens even though it is very large on the OM-D. I also have the twin flash (FC-1) from early days with the E-1 that works well with OM-D. As resale value of a lot of this old stock is poor it is good to be able to continue using it.
Brilliant images, Eugene. Thanks for sharing.
There are also the Kenko automatic extension tubes which can hep to get closer with any MFT AF lens and retain all funtionality.
Anyone has experience with these Kenko extension tubes?
Look there for samples with 75/1.8 (comment section):
http://www.43rumors.com/new-kenko-extension-tubes/
I have used extension tubes in the past with film SLRs. Mostly work well but can be finicky with focus. A camera support is required when using the bigger rings and recommended anyway. I had some great results with static subjects.
they are very light (just a mount and electronics), fit perfectly fine, they’re metal, and simply work – working autofocus, aperture and lensinfo – and focus much closer. use one or both combined for even closer focusing. There’s no glass in there so no loss of image quality. I’ve had zero issues so far.
for some lenses they say they can’t be used -notably the PanaLeica 45/2.8 macro lens- but I tried it with one and both anyway – and it did work, producing even higher than 1:1 magnification. not extremely practical as you’re almost on top of the subject with the lens and are running into shadow problems real easy – but hey – it worked – for very small objects in plenty of light it can be useful.
I think getting these is a no-brainer, even if you have a dedicated macro lens – as they can be used on every m43 lens you have – how useful and practical it is depends on which lens / focal length.
And they’re so light and compact I always bring them along, mounted on the second lens in my bag. (PEN, 2 lenses, 3 batteries, 2 SD cards, Kenko tubes – that’s my bag)
Bottom line – everyone should have them. If Kenko wants to send me some money I wouldn’t mind.
Thank you Anonymous! Winter is coming where I live, all flowers and butterflies almost disappeared already, so I think I will come back to them toward Spring and in the meanwhile I’ll keep using my 60mm.
Hahaha! 😀 I have heard it before from my girlfriend and some friends, when I showed some macro pics!
The comment above should have been a reply to the anonymous one writing Macro/Marco.. Macro/Marco 🙂
I did not know of their existence until yesterday as I just did an (I wonder? LOL!) Google search. Admin covered their release about a year ago, (guess I missed that), but no photo-example shots. I have the Panny Leica 45mm Macro. Great Lens….I am thinking…for $145 these tubes could be a great way to save some money and get more macro reach with my urber-sharp Oly 75mm…..hmmmmmmmm……..
see my comment above – just do it – they are great exactly for this – enabling to get that bit of extra reach with every lens you have.
…well, I am only going to get more macro reach over my 45mm with lenses with a longer focal length…not every lens that I have.
…for instance my fisheye!…LOL!…I will be able to get closer…but no more reach.
you are right – with certain lenses/focal lengths it’s not practical – as I said in the more detailed comment above.
The fisheye is a good example – with the extension tube you’ll pretty much squash the bug with the lens trying to get it into focus 🙂
But still I think the extension tubes are so handy to have around – if you’re doing a close-up and find you need to go a bit closer – pop them on. Without the image degradation of a close up filter – I’ve bought several of those – but was never quite satisfied.
sorry macro is 1:1… this is not macro this is close-up
Shoo Fly!
“True macro” in itself has stricly no meaning if you refer to the 1:1 ratio, because this is calculated relatively to the so called full frame, which is in turn derived from a long gone format from the age of film cameras.
So what is macro or is not macro on a 4/3rd sensor ? Or an APS-C ?
When I look on my computer screen, I think that I have bigger than life size images, don’t I ? but wait, if I get away from the screen, images get smaller ! So not macro anymore ?
Do you realise your argument is invalid ? 🙂
Boring.
Nice images, worthy to be aspired to!
Another four-thirds lenses which can do 0.5x magnification (equivalent to 1.0x full-frame) is the Olympus 70-300 mm. The closest focusing distance at 300mm is 0.96 metres, but auto-focus only works beyond 1.2 metres.
Great article Eugene.
I am in the same spot. Having used SLR’s for many years (with their obvious advantages), I have just flipped over to trying out an Olympus 4/3’s using my older macro lenses (Tamron 90mm / Sony 30mm/ Olympus 55mm) with the appropriate adapters. I manual focus most pif the time so losing AF was never an issue for me. I have been surprised by how many mores successful shots I am getting now as well. More DOF base captured more of what I love as well. I think you wrote this article perfectly and it is refreshing to hear from a “non-expert” even when your photography is “as expert” as anyone one else’s out there.
Keep up the excellent work and have the site post your web link so we can see more!
Chris
The sensor itself is macro is size. Why not just by a cheap compact instead? You won’t notice any difference.
“The sensor itself is macro is size”
Hu ? Wtf do you mean ? (I mean, apart from proving that you are a … Nikon owner…)
So you have a big camera which cost a lot of money. Nice for you.
But
you still have to learn ones mall thing: look at the pics above: the
thing is not about the camera, the lens, or the make. The thing is about
the result.
Comparing the OM-D to a compact is only proving one thing: you don’t know what you are talking about…
Your images are amazing! Do you ever use off camera fill flash? If so could you relate your experiences with flash.
Very nice picture’s but for al the the people that have there old Olympus
The best camera is the camera you have
http://www.olympusamerica.com/crm/oneoffpages/crm_e_macro.asp
Nice macros, but I can make such macros with the 12-50 or 40-150 and a Raynox 150 / 250 😉
I would suggest that you can make “similar”; not the “same”. Why? Because with 1:1 they will never be the same.
That is a lovely collection of very well exacuted images… top marks that man!
What a good lens, I would love a native m43 150mm F2.8 macro… never knew they did one for the 43 system… yes please – I always find I am having to get too close!
I feel bad that I am responding so late, but thank you all for the nice words and the comments! I really appreciate that and I also would like to thank the admin for posting this article online.
As for the people asking to see more work please check out my website: http://www.kitsios-photography.com 🙂