507 replies to this topic

[girelle]

Great new , our OMD is a winner !!

http://www.dpreview....of-2012-results

[Conny3479]

A happy new year to all of you :-).

Thx a lot for ure compliments. It was very hard to take these pics. Next stop is Palau in April - so stay tuned...

[Phil Rudin]

Some other options regarding ports for the Olympus 60mm macro and 8mm fisheye. For those like me who have been using the Panasonic 45mm macro for some time now with the Nauticam 45 macro port a new 20mm extension ring which fits between the housing and the 45 macro port allows the port to be used with the new Olympus 60mm macro lens. The extension ring has a "push" lock which locks the port to the ring and then the ring mounts to the housing with the same solid locking system used with all Nauticam ports. The extension ring is $180.00 US and is a very cost effective and space saving choice for owners of the 45 macro port. I still use both lenses and find this extension ring to be my best alternative for a compact macro port system. A 30mm extension is also in stock for the 35mm macro port.

Also from ZEN Underwater is a mounting ring for ZEN/Subal type III optical glass dome ports. This mounting ring allows me to mount the ZEN DP-100-S3 port for use with the Panasonic 8mm fisheye lens. The port has the same 100mm coated optical glass used in many of the ZEN DSLR ports for fisheye lenses. The port mount is $100.00 US and can be used in place of the Nauticam 4.33 inch or 3.5 inch acrylic Mini dome ports if you prefer optical glass to acrylic. The adapter could also be used with the 200mm ZEN port for things like split (over/under) images as well.

Images at this link, http://www.scubaboar...s-nauticam.html

Phil Rudin

Edited by Phil Rudin, 03 January 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[FranzoMCK]

Yesterday I went diving for the first time with my new OM-D and I would like to share with you some photos. My Rig :om-d + nauticam housing + Oly 12-50 zoom and macro port, Sea & Sea YS-D1 dual strobes + Sola 800 focus light.
Dive Location: Chichiriviche de la Costa, State: Vargas, Venezuela

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[glee719]

No skipping on mine, but the thumb (rear) dial came off on mine. From various threads, I see that this is a pretty common problem and the solution is to glue it on with crazy glue or something solid. From the factory, it is only stuck on with a piece of double-stick tape or something similarly flimsy. I think the pressure of the housing operating wheel pushes up on the dial and causes it to come loose, not somthing that would happen in normal use on land.

The skipping might be the dlal just beginning to come loose. I would check that. If that is not then issue, then contact the dealer who sold you the housing.

Thanks Guy. I did talk to them and they replaced it with a slightly larger wheel. It's working now

[glee719]

I want to share some photos taken with the 12-50mm lens too. It's quite capable and can "get the shot". I am not in a place where visibility is good for wide-angle shots, but the macro side definitely does its trick.

Green algae shrimp. This was about 1cm only so this shot was cropped to 100% of pixel.



Sponge shrimp. This was slightly larger so I was able to fill 2/3 of the frame with it.


This mantis shrimp was about 10" long, I shot it on macro mode.


Wide-angle at 12mm.


Another wide-angle shot at 12mm. As you can see the visibility wasn't good and I probably should had turned off the strobe on the left.



From what I could tell, this lens with a flat port isn't sharp at corners and especially in wide-angle mode (understandably so). However, I think this would be a great travel lens when I don't know what I am going to encounter.

Edited by glee719, 06 January 2013 - 07:53 PM.

[jlyle]

The tiny shrimps are really cool. How the heck did you find them? Nice pic of the mantis shrimp.

Where are you? Visibility in the last shot looks good enough for WA to me.

[glee719]

I am in Taiwan, mostly shore diving from sites around Kenting National Park. The visibility is around 10-15m when better, and down to to 5m when worse. 1m when really bad To find those shrimps, just stare at every moving ball of weed on the bottom and look for one that don't move like the rest.

In the last shot, there are a lot of particles lit up by the strobe in the water. It's not terrible, but definitely not a magazine photo. Visibility was about 15m that day. Taiwan has a lot of cool macro things to see. To be honest I'd say if you enjoy both land and underwater beauty, Taiwan is the place to visit. There are other places that are really good for diving, but nothing much else to see on land. I'd probably get bored easily.

Edited by glee719, 07 January 2013 - 07:10 AM.

[jlyle]

Interesting. Taiwan wasn't on my life list of places to dive, I need to reconsider.

[guyharrisonphoto]

Those are some great shots!

[Kenr]

Great topic. I spent a couple of hours reading through all of the posts in this topic. BTW the photos presented here are great, I especially enjoyed Connie's photos, fantastic lighting and hdr. I'm off today to check out OMD before I buy it. I would be upgrading from a LX5, the OMD looks like a lighter and less expensive alternative to a SLR without giving up too much.

I have a trip scheduled for this coming April and don't know if I want to get the 12-50 and get the 60mm and a fisheye (or wide lens) or just get the 12-50 with the super deluxe port. Ultimately it would be nice to get a dedicated macro and wide lens, however it might be too much overload to get familiar with 3 lenses on a single 36 dive trip.

I am interested in some super macro. I don't think there are problems with the 12-50 and a step down adapter to my inon 67mm diopter (ucl 165), I'm not positive. I also have the UWL-100 wide conversion lens type 2. Do you think I would get any benefit from using it? I would have to step down from 77mm to 67mm and I read here that there is already a little vignetiting with the 77mm port. Maybe I could zoom to 14mm and still get a wider field of view? Am a little ignorant on these matters..

lastly Girelle, we might have meet in Bohal, June 2011. I was diving with an LX5 and diving with Seaquest. If that's you hi .

thanks

Ken

Edited by Kenr, 09 January 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[troporobo]

I'm using a 77 --> 67 step down ring on my 12-50 port and it works fine. If you're using it for a macro diopter it doesn't matter as the lens will be at 43 anyway so no danger of vignetting. I have not tried it with a wide angle conversion

Edited by troporobo, 10 January 2013 - 04:21 AM.

[Kenr]

I'm using a 77 --> 67 step down ring on my 12-15 port and it works fine. If you're using it for a macro diopter it doesn't matter as the lens will be at 43 anyway so no danger of vignetting. I have not tried it with a wide angle conversion

I thought the 67 diopter would be ok, thanks for the confirmation. i just sold my LX5 housing and don't know if i should sell my 67 WA, it may be of little use with the OM-D

[guyharrisonphoto]

I would start with the 12-50 and deluxe port/gear. This gives you very good macro right from the start, and semi-wide through longer capability.. It is an incredibly versatile set-up and probably would be all you need for your first trip. You can use the diopter to get even higher magnification at low cost. You can see from my posts just how much "true macro" this lens will give you even without a diopter.

With that in hand, rather than buy the 60mm, spend a little more for a wide set-up like the 9-18 or 7-14 in their respective domes. You then have covered 90% of shooting.

Later, if you decide that you are addicted to super macro, you can then add the 60mm which fits in the 12-50 port perfectly, gives double the magnification and even more with the diopter.

[deepbluemd]

Just to play devils advocate, or at least offer an alternative view, I think the 12-50 one-size-fits-all solution needs a little deeper consideration. In all honesty, I'm a little puzzled by the support it has received on this forum. It may be a great option for some, but may not be what others are looking for. At the very least, I think potential buyers should do their homework, and consider their own underwater photography background and interests. After reading all the reviews I could find about the 12-50, I wasn't even sure I wanted to buy it but it was offered with the camera body at a decent price and I thought it would be nice to have topside and I was curious about it for UWP. Here was my hesitation: the professional photographers and review sites that have carefully addressed the lens properties have been largely unimpressed with the 12-50 (see reviews by Thom Hogan, Ming Thein, Lenstip, pekkapotka, etc). The lens has been described as having "average image quality, awful distortion, and lacking in microcontrast". Its been called the "jack of all trades master of none", and described as a "swiss army knife- handy, but ultimately does not distinguish itself at any one task". Potka and Hogan have both said that the lens is better suited to video than still photography. While there have been other reviews of the "oh its not that bad" variety (Steve Huffington etc), its still not a lens that has garnered lavish praise from the professional MFT community, say the way the Olympus 60mm Macro has. My own impressions, from my own shots and the ones I've seen posted, are that the the prime lenses (8mm, 60mm, 45mm) offer better image quality. So while the 12-50 probably offers the greatest zoom flexibility, and the Nauticam port probably enables the lens the best, it still won't be my first choice if I'm aiming for top image quality from the EM5 system. Buyers should also recognize that the Nauticam port is one of the most expensive non-dome ports available and is also the only port/gear I know of that requires a detailed set of instructions on the mechanism assembly which involves the installation of 12 tiny screws to complete. This may prove cumbersome if you decide to end diving for the day and shoot the 12-50 topside and removal and replacement of the mechanism becomes a non-trivial decision. Also, shooting at 12 mm wide in a flat port won't be ideal if your goal is true WA images, and 50 mm macro (even with 2x crop factor) doesn't really feel macro enough compared to what I've been used to shooting (nikon 105 +/ - a 10+diopter) . Having performed my own careful comparisons in the swimming pool (shooting a silly orange & green toy), as well as topside comparisons, I'm not totally disatisfied with the 12-50 performance on the EM5. In fact, given the reviews, it was better than I was expecting. But after pixel peeping in Lightroom and examining image quality comparison to my other two lenses, I still would rate the image quality higher from the 8mm fisheye and the 60 macro lenses.

An UW photographer's setup is a deeply personal choice, and should reflect one's diving interests, photography knowledge and skill, and at least for most people, financial considerations. (I've yet to read a post where somebody said, "money is no object, what should I buy?") For me when starting out in UWP, I shot digital compact cameras (G9&11) so I understand the appeal of zoom capability on a single dive. But as time has gone on, and I've taken on DSLR gear, I find myself diving more frequently in locations that favor a single type of UW photography. For example, I spent a month in Indonesia last year, 3 weeks of which was in Lembeh. Consequently, my 60 and 105mm lenses were the only lenses on my d7000 while muck diving. Once I tried shooting WA but the visibility made this a pointless exercise. Conversely, if you are going to Socorro or some other pelagic destination, you may never take off your 10-17, 8mm fisheye, or whatever WA option you have available. Therefore, if you are the kind of diver that typically dives places with a predominant underwater focus, getting optimal image quality from deadicated primes, as opposed to flexibility, may be the best route. So when I considered getting an EM5, my own goal was not to seek a single lens/port solution to all my diving photography needs, but rather to purse the best image quality I could find. I went with 8mm Pan as a surrogate for my tokina 10-17, and the oly 60 mm macro in lieu of my nikon macro glass.

But I also have the 12-50 for the same reasons articulated by its supporters, so please note that this is NOT an anti-12-50 post....this lens offers something unique, I get it. Those that argue that the zoom capabilities of a 12-50 allow you to shoot every subject in a single dive are right..... you can, or at least you can shoot a wider range of subjects than with primes. And thats a good thing. But for me, I enjoy the idea of checking out a diving location, looking at water visibility, the amount of sunlight, the color of the water, and learning about the potential macrolife, and then making a decision of whether to shoot macro, WA, or something in between. This way, when I dive, I'm in the mindset of looking for creative image opportunities for the equipment I'm carrying, and I'll happily watch a beautiful spotted eagle ray cruise by and then resume hunting for tiny critters with a macro lens on my camera. I don't feel shattered that I missed a picture of the ray. For me, I've become more interested in creating interesting images than in documenting what I see underwater. And I know somebody will write back and say they can do that better with a zoom lens, fine, to each his own. As I said at the outset, this is an alternative view to that being repeatedly recommended in previous posts.

So the best advice is to do your research, read the reviews and opinions of those in the know, and assess your own diving and UW photography needs, and get the lens and port options you feel best align with your interests. You can improve your diving skills, learn to do better creative lighting and composition, and learn to adjust the feature set of the camera, all to improve the quality of the images-- but the image quality of an individual lens is a fixed property of that lens.

just my 2 cents.

(Leaving for a liveaboard on the GBR tomorrow....can't wait!)

Edited by deepbluemd, 10 January 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[glee719]

I can argue the other way around that if the original poster didn't mention it, you wouldn't had guessed right each time which lens took which photo. I used to read all the reviews and believe in specifications, until I realized real artists don't need to tell you the equipment they used.

[deepbluemd]

I can argue the other way around that if the original poster didn't mention it, you wouldn't had guessed right each time which lens took which photo. I used to read all the reviews and believe in specifications, until I realized real artists don't need to tell you the equipment they used.

I don't understand this sentiment. If not lens specifications and image quality analysis, on what basis would you suggest photographers select their lenses? Are we to believe none of the careful and increasingly quantitative photography equipment reviews from respected sources?

I believe the moderators on this site have requested that posted images include lens and basic EXIF data so that readers may view, compare, and make informed judgements of what they see.

I read a quote the other day that said 'Great photographers are both technical expert AND artist'. I took this to mean that they must possess mastery of the technical aspects of their equipment combined with creative imagination and the ability to recognize inspirational images. This is what I believe but, as I said above, to each his own.

[glee719]

Well, I am not putting down people's lens selections. I have the Panny 45mm, Panny 7-14mm, and Oly 12-50mm underwater, and all the fast primes for on land. I do appreciate the unique things a good lens can do. Reviews get people to spend money, I get it.

I still meet people who think the only way to get good pictures is via a DSLR. I have defeated the myth on land with old $50 film cameras, and I believe it's being defeated for UWP since so many people here like the OM-D. All I am asking is, if I take a good picture and you ask me how I did it, how much of the answer depends on the photographer and how much depends on the equipment?

I believe my diving and subject-finding skills are not good enough to be a good underwater photographer. I depend on others to find me subjects to shoot, which is an area I want to improve. If I do find them, as you can see above I can shoot them decently even with the 12-50mm.

[deepbluemd]

I am not for a second suggesting that the equipment is more important than the photographer. Ansel Adams said " you don't take a great photograph, you make it". And no where is the dependency on the photographer more true than underwater photography, especially if you step back and consider what we do. We immerse ourselves in a foreign medium where a simple mistake can be deadly. We have to learn to dive and become certified before ever pulling a shutter. We ensconce our camera gear in clunky housings to protect it from the elements, but making it cumbersome and unwieldy. And we shoot in a world where the spectrum of available light is so skewed that unless you know how to add it back, your pictures look like crap. And we try to shoot subjects that may dart around so fast you barely have time to fire off a shot. So the UW photographer must overcome many obstacles not faced by our land based counterparts. But all these reasons also reinforce the notion that we can take all the help we can get from high quality equipment....

[Phil Rudin]

I would agree with deepbluemd that a one-size-fits-all lens solution for underwater photography or for any type of photography is only a starting point and the reason for calling these lenses “KIT” lenses in the first place. I would also agree that the image quality of the 12-50 is not as high as with other M43 lenses like the 60mm macro, 8mm fisheye and 7-14mm zoom, the three lenses I use most often. I have used the 12-50 zoom with the Nauticam port and gear long enough to make the following observations.

First I no of only two so called “kit” lenses that have image quality as good or better than the 12-50 zoom. These are the Sony 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 SAM DT and the outstanding Olympus Zuiko Digital 12-60 F/2.8-4 ED. Only the 12-50 and 12-60 reach the 84 degree AOV, all the 18-55 lenses on APS-C sensors are in the 76 degree AOV range. Of all of these KIT lenses the 12-50 is the only lens with a macro feature that goes all the way to 35mm on the long side of the image, the same as 1:1 on a 35mm “full frame” sensor camera. So the 12-50 is quite unique in its range. While the Nauticam 12-50 port/gear combo is expensive it is also very well designed and works quite well. Any 84 degree lens is going to suffer behind a flat port so this is a trade off for being able to use such a unique lens. On a trip to the Philippines last month I used the 12-50 a lot because subjects fitting into the zoom range were abundant and I was able to flip a SubSea +10 closeup lens on when I needed a little extra magnification. Bottom line is that image quality is well within the range for publication.

Regarding lens reviews in general, several things need to be taken into account. First is that the 12-50 has been tested in most cases on the 16MP Olympus E-M5 not on cameras in the 10-12MP range like many of the reviews you may have read for other kit lenses. If you think this does not make a difference you should go to photozone.de and look at the Sony 18-55 kit lens review for the Sony NEX-5. The same lens was later re-tested on the Sony NEX-7 a 14MP camera V. a 24MP camera the results tell you a lot about the quality of the lens.

Since deepbluemd also brought up his frequent use of the Tokina 10-17 on his APS-C cameras it may be worth noting that in the few reviews of the Tokina 10-17mm zoom it scored much worse than the Olympus 12-50 has. However it is still one of the most popular W/A, U/W zoom lenses, if not the most popular W/A around because it is so unique for U/W use. Very close focus, can be used with a very small dome and of course can be zoomed. The Panasonic 8mm fisheye can also focus to the port glass, uses the same small port and is much better image quality wise but does not zoom.

Many of the owners of new E-M5 systems are those coming from consumer compacts who are use to the idea of using only one lens with wet lens add-ons for macro and wide angle. For those who intend to only use the 12-50 with a macro and a W/A adapter I think that you have not only picked the wrong lens but also the wrong camera. A camera like the excellent Sony RX-100/Nauticam NA-RX100 system would be a better choice to me. For those who are “down sizing” from a DSLR or moving to mirrorless systems to expand their lens range the M43 system has the most extensive lens range from which to chose.

So again while I think the 12-50 will be an excellent starting point at F/6.3 on the long end compared to F/2.8 for the 60mm macro the 12-50 would hardly fall into the so called “pro” category where as the 7-14, 8 fisheye, 12, 45 & 45macro, 60 macro, steller 75mm and others would.

Phil Rudin

Edited by Phil Rudin, 11 January 2013 - 10:43 AM.