Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Olympus housings w/WWL and CMC?

olympus wwl cmc

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 akivisuals

akivisuals

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 01:02 AM

The black friday deal for the Oly OM-D EM-5 mkII with 14-42 and PT-EP13 housing for $1299 was too good to pass up.  I currently use an old Oly E-PM1 with the 60mm macro and the 14-42 and wanted to upgrade a bit.  I had purchased a used Nauticam WWL with the bayonet mount with the intention of getting a camera to pair up with it and the CMC to get a versatile kit that can shoot wides and macro on the same dive. I do realize that the Oly port isn't threaded.  What I was planning on doing is buying either the AOI FLP04 flat port to use with the 14-42EZ or the 12-50 with the FLP02 and the WWL and CMC. 

 

I was reading JackConnick's blog post about the Oly EPL-7 and the WWL and CMC is part of what has me thinking that I might be able to do this on a bit of a tighter budget than going out and dropping several thousand on a Nauticam housing.  Since the Oly bundle was only $1299. including the camera, 14-42 II, zoom gear, and housing, my cash outlay is a lot less since I already own the WWL and bayonet mounting system.  

 

So, I was wondering if there might be an advantage to using the 14-42EZ over the 12-50 with the vignetting issues it supposedly has with the WWL.  Is there much of a difference in image quality between the two optics or is it negligible?  Anyone try this or think it might work?  



#2 tursiops

tursiops

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2017 - 06:31 AM

The 12-50 vignetting issues with the WWL-1 are at 12mm. At 14 (so comparable to the 14-42EZ) it might be OK, at 15-16 it is fine. It really depends on the port, and since I use a Nauticam I can't comment specifically on your setup.

Sharpness difference? Some say the 14-42EZ is not as sharp as the 12-50. I don't see a difference. The BIG advantage of the 12-50 is the macro switch and associated port, which sadly you do not have available. The BIG advantage of the 14-42EZ is it is a smaller, more compact unit. Nicer to work with.



#3 akivisuals

akivisuals

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:18 PM

Ok.  So after speaking with someone at Optical Ocean Sales I was told that the WWL on the AOI port might not work out so great as it might vignette a bit.  While I was doing some research on the subject I ran across this custom port designed for the 14-42EZ and PEN housings.  It was specifically designed to be used with the WWL so I think this might do the trick.  Looks like I might have a decent option for a versatile little rig with the WWL and CMC!

 

https://www.uwcamera...-nauticam-wwl-1

 

Anyone try their ports before?



#4 tursiops

tursiops

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2017 - 09:18 PM

I used the 14-42EZ with WWL-1 and CMC-1 in Indonesia in October (Nauticam housing). Nice combo. Used the bayonet mounts on everything.

Had two docks on my arms so the lens (or lenses) not in use could be stowed. I found I could zoom through the WWL-1 very well, so it was only if I (rarely) needed all 42mm zoom that I had to take it off. At macro-only sites I did not carry the WWL-1. I have the buoyancy collar for it so it is not too bad to handle in the water.



#5 akivisuals

akivisuals

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 08 December 2017 - 12:30 AM

I have the buoyancy collar for it so it is not too bad to handle in the water.

 

I have the buoyancy collar for the WWL as well.  I was thinking of using float arms though since the collar makes the WWL a HUGE lens.  Does it get in the way when using the bayonet mount?



#6 tursiops

tursiops

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 December 2017 - 06:25 AM

 

I have the buoyancy collar for the WWL as well.  I was thinking of using float arms though since the collar makes the WWL a HUGE lens.  Does it get in the way when using the bayonet mount?

I got a 3-d printed bayonet dock that I put on a buoyancy arm. If rotated correctly, the WWL/collar fits fine.

There are two issues: overall system buoyancy, and WWL buoyancy. I choose to keep the collar on the lens, so it is not so difficult to manage on/off U/W. That still does not quite offset the lens weight. I've played with it so the rest of the system is tolerable whether or not I'm taking the WWL on the dive.

 

Oh (added): getting at the bayonet release when the collar is on and the lens is on the camera was nearly impossible until I got one of the little release extensions for the bayonet. I think those now come with the docks, or the lens, not sure.


Edited by tursiops, 08 December 2017 - 06:26 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: olympus, wwl, cmc