Olympus OM-D E-M5
Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:31 PM
Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:51 AM
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
Edited by Phil Rudin, 03 January 2013 - 08:54 AM.
Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:46 PM
Dive Location: Chichiriviche de la Costa, State: Vargas, Venezuela
Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:26 PM
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
Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:49 PM
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.
Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:01 AM
Where are you? Visibility in the last shot looks good enough for WA to me.
8mm, 12-50mm, 45mm lenses
My web page.
Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:08 AM
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.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:28 PM
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 .
Edited by Kenr, 09 January 2013 - 06:08 PM.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 02:03 PM
Edited by troporobo, 10 January 2013 - 04:21 AM.
Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:30 PM
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
Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:10 PM
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.
Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:41 PM
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.
Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:42 PM
Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:25 AM
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.
Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:44 AM
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.
Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:40 AM
Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:32 AM
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.
Edited by Phil Rudin, 11 January 2013 - 10:43 AM.