Frederik0711
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #20 · Micro Four-Thirds Macro and Semimacro Image Thread | |
I know this comment is not super relevant in this thread, but I got inspired by some of your discussions about the gear.
The OM-1 II and OM 90 Macro Pro setup is without the doubt the best I have used for macro. The speed for focus brackets, size and weight, price and of course the 4x effective magnification. I have never had this much fun when it comes to macro photography, and I do brackets whenever possible and desired. I was so impressed and satisfied with this setup, that I decided to try the system for wildlife as well. Here, I went for the 300 Pro, which also is the best lens I have used within this price range for wildlife. It also accepts the 2x teleconverter very well. Ultimately, I made a complete switch, and added the 20, 8-25 and 40-150 f/4 Pro lenses. All of these lenses are so impressive, and they are quite unique for their size, weight, price and performance compared to full-frame. The stabilisation is out of this world, and I have got very consistent results down to 1/15s with the 300 Pro and 2x teleconverter, and 1 s with the 8-25 and 40-150. Could probably go even a bit lower. Currently, I am saving up for my dream lens for wildlife, which is the 150-400 Pro.
I have not used many combinations for macro, and I am not super experienced within this genre of photography, but this setup is a game changer for me. Previously, I used Sony FE (a7R IV and V) for everything, including macro, with various Laowa "Ultra Macro" lenses (25mm 2.5-5x, 85mm 2x and 90mm 2x). I also used the Sony 90 Macro for a period, but needed more magnification. While these lenses are great optically, close to the OM 90, autofocus is much more convenient for focus brackets. Loved the image quality, but not so much the available lenses and slow bracketing. The Sony setup above is too slow for focus brackets, so is the a1 II, which I considered upgrading to for a while, but the a9 III and the new a7R VI are great with the Sony 100 Macro.
With the a7R VI and 100 Macro cropped to 20 MP, the magnification is about 2.4x, but I often need more and prefer to get the image "right" in the field either way. One could add a teleconverter, but I doubt the results would compare, and it would also be considerably more heavy. The OM System allows that more often in camera, and it is easy to hold in one hand, which I often do when holding a leaf, et cetera, with my other hand. The same is true with the 150-400 Pro compared to the 100-400 f/4.5 GM. I did reevaluate my switch, when Sony released the a7R VI and 100-400 out of nowhere, but OM System makes more sense for me overall. As for resolution, I do not care that much anymore, if the final image is 10, 20 or 60+ MP, as long as it is sharp and not pixelated. Now I would always as much as possible, but size, weight, convenience and price matter more to me. I do not print often, 20 MP is enough for the sizes I would consider, and upscaling also works nicely when needed or desired.
Admitly, I use artificial intelligence more often than before. It is not so much due to more noise and less dynamic range, as I do not find a big difference between the OM-1 II and a7R V, especially when exposing optimally. It is more due it coming a long way or often "enhances" the images a little. For most images, I do apply some noise reduction, if it does not make the final image look too artificial. If so, I either leave some noise be, or add masks for either just the background or the subject and background. Occasionally, I upscale images, but that is more for architecture with servere cropping for unusual formats and after perspective correction, as well as wildlife, especially birds, where I simply can not get any closer. Sometimes it works, and I usually only upscale when the resolution is 5 MP or less.
|
