I’m conflicted whether I should buy an Olympus TG-6 or a Canon 60mm f2.8 macro for my R7. I might be going to the Solomons this year, and I can get just one of these. I want to do underwater and terrestrial inatting. I recently learned that the TG-6 isn’t too bad at macro, so I’d like y’all to help me here. Long-term, I doubt I’ll use the tg-6 often, but then, I don’t know.
1 Like
I used Olympus TGs for about 8 years before upgrading to a mirrorless with a 60mm macro lens. I rarely use the TGs now because the mirrorless quality (with the macro and a 12-100mm zoom) is much better.
However, the TG’s macro quality is definitely good enough for iNaturalist. Its real strength is the unique package: very compact, rugged, waterproof, and decent macro – great for fieldwork.
My take:
-
If you plan to use the R7 with other lenses anyway, get the R7 macro lens for better quality long-term (but remember you’d need underwater housing).
-
If your main focus right now is the Solomons trip (underwater) and terrestrial macro for iNat, the TG-6 might be the more practical choice due to its versatility and built-in water resistance.
5 Likes
I used to have an Olympus TG-6. In terms of macro quality, any (not even macro but a regular 70-300 lens) with a Raynox 250 macro lens is better than the Olympus. And with the 70-300, you can do not only macro, but also birds and other animals. Regarding underwater shooting with the Olympus TG-6, I did not like it, the autofocus worked very poorly and I could not achieve acceptable results.
Here is a comparison of Olympus and Raynox 250:
TG-6
70-300 + Raynox
1 Like
If you want to try underwater still photography without spending a lot, the TG 6 (7 is actually the latest model) is the way to go. It is by far the most popular low-cost camera for such purposes. If you went with the Canon macro lens the only way to do underwater photography would be to purchase a housing, which would also require other accessories such as lights that would easily be many times more expensive than the lens and TG 6 combined.
But if you’re regularly going to be going to any depth (say more than 7 m), you would also probably want to consider a housing for the TG 6. This would be to guard against the camera being flooded – which does sometimes happen.
Above water, as others have indicated, the TG 6 is okay for macro, but not great. So I’d also bring another camera as an option if you have it.
1 Like
I’m very thankful for all your replies. I think I will be spending much more time on land than in the water.
How expensive is a flash for the TG-6 for night macro?
Since you already have an R7 100% go for the macro lens the image quality of the tg series doesn’t have a bar on aps-c and full frame cameras.
2 Likes
Any chance you could buy a used TG-6 for the trip to take underwater photos, sell it again afterwards, and buy the macro lens then?
Of course, there’s a risk involved (TG breaking, or no one buying it from you, etc.), but it might be the best compromise between short and long term benefits… ^^
I’m gonna spend much more time taking photos of terrestrial stuff rather than marine stuff though.
TGs I would recomend for anyone getting into macro without the cost burden of getting deeper into things like bodies and lenses.
Since you already have a body, I would focus on gear which allows you to use that in different settings, rather than using different systems.
Of course, for something small and water based, the TG will do the job. I would more ask whats your focus in the long term, and what gear do you see helping the most for that.
I would personally lean on building around the body, keeping in mind that if you upgrade the body you can still likely keep using the lenses assuming you stay in the same ecosystem.
4 Likes
I will mostly be focusing on terrestrial for most of this year and probably next, so I guess the macro lens would be better.
1 Like
If you were just starting out, then I would say a TG-6. But since you already have an R7 (an amazing camera!), I would just get the lens. After all, mirrorless cameras deliver much higher quality photos.
2 Likes
Definitely EF60mm F2.8. Better image quality and better magnification (because you can crop enormously to match the TG’s magnification and it’s still much better), as I’ve told you before
@jimmoore @deniszp (sorry couldn’t reply to both of y’all’s comments simultaneously so I figured I’d just @ you) do either of you have any example underwater pics macro or otherwise with the TG-6? I’m strongly considering getting one for an upcoming summer camp but given the cost I’m almost considering just sticking it out with my gopro (hero 15) and just uploading screenshots to iNat
I’ve never used a gopro, but if you already have a decent underwater camera, I’m not sure one of the TGs would be that much of an upgrade. (I think you mean hero 13, by the way? The Internet says the 13 is the latest model.)
Here is a link to one of my Flickr albums – all the underwater photos are with a TG4 (image quality of subsequent models hasn’t really improved, so it’s still comparable) without lights except the Dascyllus, which was from above water: New Britain Album (You can find lots of other TG photos on Flickr by searching for the camera.)
After that trip, my next trip was a dedicated snorkeling tour, and I decided to upgrade to an Olympus EM-10 mark iv with AOI housing. That was a lot more $ but a big improvement. But underwater photography is always more challenging than above water, of course. If you want a low-cost upgrade from a go Pro, I’d probably look for a used housing/camera combo instead: Micro 4/3, compact camera with a one inch sensor, or Canon/Nikon/Sony.
Ah yes, 13 my bad. Thank you for the linked photos, they are quite nice. May I ask what lenses you used for them? As I recall the TG series has some compatible (and I presume waterproof) lenses but I’m not sure if they would be worth looking into or not.
OM TG-7 or the same but cheaper Olympus/OM TG-6 have a built-in lens behind a fixed plain glass. Zoom moves the lens sections within the camera body.
The feature I bought if for is focus stacking. It combines images taken at different focal lengths giving a real depth of field. See 254515083
I brought a spare battery and a light diffuser ring. I’ve seen recommendation to get a separate light source for underwater use.
It is very good at what it does but it does not do everything, it is best in a two camera setup - you already have another camera.