A goal for this upcoming spring-summer season is to finally start getting some nicer macro focus stacks, something I haven't been too successful with as of yet. I generally shoot single frame images for my insect/spider shots. I currently shoot with an R5 and I have an RF 100/2.8 macro as well as the EF 180 macro and Laowa 85/5.6 2x macro. I have Godox flashes and diffusers for them (AK diffuser, Beetle Diffuser, etc). With the R5 II having in-camera focus stacking and also allowing the use of flash, upgrading my R5 to the R5 II sounds reasonable, as I would enjoy the better autofocus and other improvements with my other lenses. The upgrade would likely cost me 1.5K.
But I have heard that Olympus is king for macro stacking, and after some research another option might be to get a secondhand OM-1 + m.Zuiko 90/3.5 IS PRO macro (2x) plus Olympus compatible flash/diffuser. This has the benefit of (supposedly) being easier to execute, allowing for a bit more 'reach' and greater depth of field. All this Olympus gear would likely set me back 2K.
A third option might be to wait for a possible R7 II, which would have the 1.6x crop (similar to OM's 2x) and hopefully focus stacking would be improved a touch from the original R7 (likely adding use of flash). But this would be the most expensive route, but it would be nice to use my 100-500 and 600/4 on both a FF and crop body, so....
Any thoughts from anyone who loves shooting focus stacks?
I don't like in-camera stacking at least not Canon's. I use Helicon after processing. I have not used the flashes with stacking, but make sure the flashes can keep up at the power level you need. Ideally each flash should be set at the same power level if there is any subject movement. Perhaps rent the R5 II and EL-1 or EL-5.
EB-1 wrote:
................ I have not used the flashes with stacking, but make sure the flashes can keep up at the power level you need. Ideally each flash should be set at the same power level if there is any subject movement.
EBH
If you use Canon Speedlights, the R52 will wait until the flash is charged and ready before firing the next shot.
I have both R5 and R7 and both do stacking quite well. The R7 builds a JPEG internally but I just use that for preview. Generally I use Lightroom to review the individual RAWs and then send them to PS as a stack of layers. Then use PS' align and merge functions to build the stacked image. I've been happy with the results. I would suggest you try this with your R5 before you invest in new bodies.
I haven't tried using a flash for stacks. I use a constant video light which works well.
The R5m2 and the EL5 work great together. For macro the flash power is typically low (1/32 ish) so the flash recycles instantly for dozens of frames. Helicon Focus is by far the best option for compositing the RAWs.
jaredmizanin wrote:
But I have heard that Olympus is king for macro stacking, and after some research another option might be to get a secondhand OM-1 + m.Zuiko 90/3.5 IS PRO macro (2x) plus Olympus compatible flash/diffuser. This has the benefit of (supposedly) being easier to execute, allowing for a bit more 'reach' and greater depth of field. All this Olympus gear would likely set me back 2K.
You can do it for a lot less money. You don't need the latest body, you don't need the 90 f3.5, and you don't need flash.
I do a lot of macro focus stacking with my R5 mostly use a Sigma 150 non OS, it works really well
Just shoot a stack in Raw convert to Tiff with DXO and merge with Affinity photo
To be honest I would work with your R5, I don’t use flash just natural light, with live insects in the field you are always trying to take the series of frames as quickly as possible to minimise subject movement
Depending on the type of macro or close-up photos you wish to take, you can use OM/Olympus lenses that are not even macro lenses. Not only that, but you can also do focus-stacking IN-CAMERA & HANDHELD.
Browse through the Micro-Four Thirds Forum to see many examples. I don't see those using more expensive gear and time-consuming post-processing posting examples that look any better, IMO.
