Head to head with the 60mm vs 90mm on the OM-1

[dianna912]

I wanted to share head to head shots of my favorite South Florida subject: Janolus flavoanulatus.

I am including the edits and the originals for apples to apples comparison. Also, feedback and critiques is always welcome. We are both partially color blind, so if anything appears to be overdone, please let me know. It is hard for us to tell with color due to our limited color spectrum.

Mine was shot with OM-1 with 90mm lens, in AOI housing using Backscatter Mini Flash Strobes. Shot at f5.0.

This photo required very little editing. I wanted to keep the essence of the original photo, just help reveal it a little since it was hazy straight from the camera. While it is hazy, you can still tell the colors are vibrant, and the "glow" of the cerata is evident even with the haziness.

I continue to be astounded by just how well the 90mm captures vivid color, and luminance. My depth of field is quite a bit narrower on the 90mm and I find it much more challenging to shoot at the tighter apertures with it, but it is absolutely astounding on Bokeh.

My husband's shot:

60mm, cmc-1, Inon s2000 strobes.

The composition on this one is ideal, but it required a lot more editing. For some reason, the 60mm with the cmc-1 had more muted colors, but also more detail. (More detail is likely due to being shot at f16.) Some of that detail, I actually didn't love, like the one cerata that just looks "messy" in the original.

 

[gummybun]

Interesting. I am unable to download the originals, but on my monitor the 60mm w/ cmc-1 is far less detailed than the 90mm. To me not surprising as the wet lens will always change the optics. The color balance is surprisingly different. I would be more interested in a straight lens to lens compaired with no wet lens attachment and shot raw.

I am looking at the Oly lenses as I might move over from Sony and rather like the 60mm as I will spend less time searching for my subject (or so is my hope) and it is so small and cute!

Please consider doing more comparisons like this one!

 

[rmorgan]

About the 90…if you have enough light, it can utilize a much smaller aperture than the 60, at least f/16. The 60 is pretty much maxed out, depth-of-field wise, at f/8.

 

[BoltSnap]

About the 90…if you have enough light, it can utilize a much smaller aperture than the 60, at least f/16. The 60 is pretty much maxed out, depth-of-field wise, at f/8.

Not I understand you, I use the 60mm at f/22 without issues and maximum DoF.

 

[Ardy]

In looking around the net for some great shots with the 90mm I watched this review . I think it will be great if you are an excellent operator but I will stick with my 60 so I can grab the occasional fish shot.

 

[rmorgan]

Not I understand you, I use the 60mm at f/22 without issues and maximum DoF.

Boltsnap, I'm sorry for the slow response--and also for my statement regarding "maxxed out at f/8"--I was wrong. While there seems to be consensus that the 60 loses sharpness at the edges when stopped down much below f/8, that doesn't mean that, in terms of depth of field, it doesn't increase throughout the aperture range.

By way of context, I pestered the brain trust on WetPixel last year regarding use of big strobes with a small sensor. One of the old hands said, "If you consider a dome port a smaller sensor will have more depth of field at the same f/number. Imagine full frame at f/16 you are looking at f/8 for MFT." Another said, "the m43 cameras don't need to be stopped down so much so need less strobe power. How much less depends on your starting point and what you are shooting. On the example of the fisheye many people shoot them at f11-13 on full frame while on m43 I shoot at f8 mostly, but expect I could use f 5.6in a lot of cases."

But the thread's about macro DOF, not dome ports, so I dug around a little. What I found was several folks saying that "in using the [Olympus] 60 be aware that much past f/8 you'll start to lose sharpness to diffraction." This statement makes sense to me in considering the sharp DOF available from the 90--i.e., that the design and optical quality of the 90 maintains sharpness at smaller f/stops than the 60.

I then tried it out on Chat GPT, asking: "Is depth of field at a given f/stop the same on a full-frame camera as on a micro 4/3 camera?" The collective wisdom of the universe responded: "In general, all other factors being equal, a larger sensor (such as that of a full-frame camera) will produce shallower depth of field compared to a smaller sensor (such as that of a Micro Four Thirds camera) when using the same aperture, focal length, and focusing distance."

I next asked, "is edge sharpness in a macro image related to f/stop?" and the universe responded "using a smaller aperture such as f/11 or f/16, will increase the depth of field, allowing more of the subject to be in focus, including the edges. However, using very small apertures like f/22 or higher may lead to diffraction, which can slightly reduce overall sharpness in the image."

So--please forgive my off-the-cuff statement.

 

[gummybun]

True story... the other day I thought I would try this newfangled Chat GPT to supplement my intelligence, I asked it 'how do I draw a square' ... it responded with precise instructions that would lead me to draw a triangle. Tax owing on my land was cut in half !!! I was happy with this new reality.

When I noted that the 'universal mind' may have made an error - it did correct itself but suggested that - I - may have misunderstood - IT - ... nice. I was no longer happy.

My conclusion is that you can't cut corners to enlightenment. BTW can supply screenshots.

 

[tursiops]

Not I understand you, I use the 60mm at f/22 without issues and maximum DoF.

At f/22 I see loss of sharpness from diffraction, so I stay at f/8 or sometimes f/11.

 

[BoltSnap]

At f/22 I see loss of sharpness from diffraction, so I stay at f/8 or sometimes f/11.

Have you compared side by side with all variables the same except f stop??

 

[tursiops]

Have you compared side by side with all variables the same except f stop??

I have not, but others have. Diffraction is physics, not opinion.