Main difference in macro between compact and dslr?

[macok]

Hi,

Now i have a g11+canon housing+2*ys-01+inon ucl165/deeproof steel mounting.
I think about stepping further to have wide angle also, but it is a hard decision for me.
- if i buy s95+wet lenses i will spend a lot to have wide angle, and i don't know what will be about macro (better or worse)
( with my g11 + inon ucl165 i found very difficult to make supermacro, sometimes only 1 shot is sharp from 5 pics. I use spot focus, I adjust the place of focus point if needed, but often when everything seems to be ok, because of the small working distance, the subject goes away, or changes position...)
- in micro 4/3 there is good macro lens, but i did not found a good wide angle zoom
- if i buy dslr i will spend twice as much, will have a 2*heavier, and bigger stuff, and should always decide before diving: macro or WA
(i think about the cheapest: t3i+sea&sea rdx600d+tokina 10-17+60mm macro+maybe later a 100mm macro)
I think i can accept the higher price+weight+size but only if the new stuff is significantly better. For wide angle I can imagine that the t3i+tokina makes better/sharper images than the s95 + inon WA, but I don't know how macro goes on dslr.
Compairing to my stuff, what are the main differences with 60mm and 100mm with
- working distance
- depth of field (I know, dslr goes above f/8 = more DOF)
- autofocus speed
- ease of use
...

Thanks for advance

 

[bvanant]

That's a lot of questions. First, I think in micro 4/3 there are indeed good wide angle considerations, there are both fisheye and the 7-14 lenses but they are pricey.

In terms of DSLR, the image quality is better on most DSLR current cameras than on most current micro 4/3 cameras, bigger sensors are typically much better than smaller ones. Look at the data on DXOmark.com to compare IQ. DOF can be bigger with DSLR but just as important is DOF control IMHO. Small sensors have inherently larger DOF than larger ones but getting large enough apertures to effectively control DOF is tough on smaller sensors. There is also the issue of responsiveness and here I think DSLRs are still much better than the micro 4/3 systems. as for ease of use, that is more a function of your housing and its ergonomics. Sometimes you get what you pay for, there is no free lunch.

Bill

 

[macok]

No, I didn't asked about picture quality, I wanted to know how much easier can i make (compose,focus) makro/supermacro with a dslr.

 

[mjh]

First comparing the S95 to a DSLR is no contest. But with many of the new 4/3 cameras we are getting into the realm of the photographer really being the deciding factor. More and more lenses will come out for the 4/3 cameras, Panasonic has/will have one that will have electronic zoom, video shooters dream. More 4/3 systems are coming out with Macro lenses and many housings have systems for adding +diopters. That said there are for now just more lens options for the DSLR shooters. So you have to be honest about your abilities and what do you plan on doing with the photos/video? If your goal is to make documentaries than a DSLR is the way to go. If you are going to post stuff on the web, enter the occasional contest and make poster sized prints many of the 4/3 systems will work great! "Sweeping Generalization" the 4/3 cameras autofocus has gotten better and is 90% that of some DSLR/Lens combos, but still not quite there. Is there, currently, a 4/3 system that is a DSLR Killer? Not yet IMHO, but we are getting close.

 

[macok]

Thanks for the answers.
If I decide stepping further from compact, it means i will choose lens first, and then the rest. That is the reason for me of thinking about dslr and not micro 4/3. Now there is no direct alternative to e.g.tokina 10-17 in micro 4/3, only two different, pricy lens with different ports.

 

[PatW]

I shoot with a G11. The problem with the G11 in macro is that in order to use Macro, you have to zoom the lens out to wide angle. In wide angle, the camera has great depth of field which is limited in macro. The downside is the fact that in order to get a good size on your subject, you have to get right on top of them. You can get a wet lens, Inon makes some. The wet lens allows you to use macro zoomed at a long focal length. That way you can stand off a bit, like 6", and get photos of some of the more wary critters. There is a problem with focus in the point and shoot. I have found that it is terribly hard to get a focus on jawfish. The camera wants to auto focus on rough objects and it is very hard to lock onto the smooth jawfish. Another problem you have is sensor size. With a small sensor, you have to shoot at a very low f stop to prevent loss of detail because of diffraction. That limits your depth of field.


A DX DSLR with its much larger sensor allows for a much larger F stop. Also, you are dealing with a prime lens in a 60 mm macro or 105 macro. These lenses are very high quality even in the secondary manufacturers and will give you better optical quality than anything a point and shoot can give. That being said, I have seen some very nice macro shots using the G11 and G12.

The G11 does better on the macro then it does on wide angle. Unless you get a wide angle set up which only comes with pretty expensive housings, your widest lens is 35 mm. That width is just not good enough to get reasonably close to large critters like turtles, grouper, sharks, rays and divers to get the sharpest photos possible.


Now the point and shoots can take very good photos. They are simpler. Also they are far smaller than the DSLR systems.

Now for best results, I would suggest the FX DSLRs which, of course, are more expensive. The full frame sensors will give you better results underwater where you are looking to maximize wide angle performance anyway. The downside is the expense of the systems.

 

[Larry C]

Believe me, you can still have trouble focusing, even with a DSLR. The P & S has a large advantage in depth of field. The DSLR can give you an artistically blurred background at larger apertures.
If you want to black out the background, you can put open water behind your subject with the DSLR and go to minimum aperture at up to f32, and you gain DOF and get a black background. At F8 with a P & S, it can be difficult to black out a picture and still get adequate light on the subject.

 

[doctormike]

Believe me, you can still have trouble focusing, even with a DSLR. The P & S has a large advantage in depth of field. The DSLR can give you an artistically blurred background at larger apertures.

I don't know if I would use the word "artistic"... for macro shots, a small DOF is usually preferable because it highlights the main subject. Most macro shots with P&S and large DOF have the problem of a sharp background, which can be very distracting, and less professional looking.

 

[bvanant]

I guess I am confused. You ask about macro and super macro then say the reason that you want dslr over micro 4/3 is that you can't get the equivalent of a tokina 10-17 lens. For macro and super macro, I think the lenses for the micro 4/3 particularly the leica macro lens are better than the dedicated macro lenses from Canikon but getting the picture with them is not quite as easy. Getting the shot is about more than pushing the button and hoping that the part you want in focus is in fact in focus. If you go the DSLR route, start with the 60 mm lenses, they will be much more forgiving than the 100 (in spite of the exact same magnification) at the expense of smaller working distance. If you are after super macro, I would recommend the 60 mm lens with a 1.4 teleconverter to get you 40% more magnification and a bit more working distance at the expense of 1 stop in brightness.

Bill

 

[john9]

Sound like you are off to a good start..!..Congrats...Good luck..