Olympus OM-D E-M5
Posted 19 January 2013 - 07:49 PM
I pulled the trigger today. I ordered the OM-D 12-50, 8mm fe, 60mm and two others for topside. I also got the 45mm and couldn't resist the 40-150 for $99. The 45mm should be a nice portrait lens. Scott over at Bluewater is going to test out the UWL H100 type 2 with the 12-50 and see if it works with either the 60mm or 12-50 port. That maybe the deciding factor on which port I will get. I know there have been a few here asking if it works.
Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:07 AM
Does the 12-50 really do 1 to 1 as some are saying? I have read it doesn't its .36x and does .76 on the 4/3 sensor (I can't confirm if this is correct. You can't trust half of what you read on the internet). But isn't that half of what you get from a Canon crop SLR with a macro lens? Does the 60mm give you a 2 to 1 magnification with the 4/3 sensor? I don't have a clue what the magnification is on a LX5, I would be interested in knowing for comparison.
I'm still not sure how the macro capabilities on this lens compare to the 60mm, will the 60 give you more than 2.5 times the magnification? how does it compare to a 60mm canon on a crop. I just interested in magnification factor.
Mag factors are tricky because they change with the format. "1;1" is a generic term that refers to filling the frame with an object the same size as the sensor. So, in full frame 35mm terms, "1:1" means filling the frame with a subject 24 x 36mm. This is the max magnification of almost all macro lenses for 35mm format. In 4/3 terms, "1:1'" means filling the frame with an object roughly 12x16mm, the appox size of the 4/3 sensor. There is so much confusion over this that it is far better to just know the size of the object that will fill the frame to get an idea of the lens' relative capabilities.
So, here goes. The following is based on actual real-world shooting verified by other posts I have made. Forget about any internet speculation or references to the Oly published specs, which, as it turns out, are WRONG
The 12-50 lens in macro mode will fill the frame with an object 24x35mm in size (a standard SD card for example). Thus, the mag factor equals 1:1 in 35mm format, and 1:2 in 4/3 format. REgardless, it is extraordinary macro performance for a zoom lens with no need for diopters, adapters, converters, etc., plus instant switching back to semi-wide zoom mode in the dedicated port.
The 60mm lens will fill the frame with an object roughly 12x16mm. That is "2:1" in 35mm terms (true ultra-macro with no diopters needed), and 1:1 in 4.3 terms.
For either lens, you can add a diopter for even higher mag. You will quickly find, however, that no diopters are needed unless you are devoted to the semi-microscopic subject range.
As for getting the macro port 65 to "save" money, I have many posts on why this an illusion. The cost of the port and the Austrian zoom gear is only about 250 less than the dedicated Nauti port and gear. You have no access to the lens' excellent macro mode which is wasted, and you have to add the cost of an expensive diopter (200) to even equal the magnification of the macro mode, so you are spending the same money with a huge inconvenience factor in that you have to mess with installing/removing the diopter in order to get back into zoom mode. The Nauti and Oly combo offers the most versatile lens to ever grace UW photography, why waste it over 50 in savings on such an expensive system anyway?
Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:05 PM
you might want to read this:
http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=48650 see post #12, #50, #54 .
Thanks Jock for pointing me in to the post,very helpful
Posted 20 January 2013 - 12:20 PM
With regards to the cost savings, the macro port is $300 and i assume the Austrian gear would be about $150 shipped no vat. That's $350 less than 12-50 port. I already have a couple of diopters that I plan on keeping for use with the 60mm so for me its $450 vs $800. I know $350 is a small amount when I see how much I am paying for everything else, including a few topside lenses. I am curious if my wet wide lens will work with either port. If the wet lens works on either of the ports I will almost certainly get it. The other downside of the 12-50 nauticam zoom gear it almost dedicates the 12-50 for underwater
Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:17 AM
For land I use the 14-150 anyway much more versatile for travel. I will probably add another used 12-50 later this year for specialty use (digiscoping) if I want one, as I am sure I will be able to find them for around 200 or so.
I have been curious about the wide wet lens also, but no one here seems to have tested it.
Also, you still have to factor the cost of the diopter when comparing equivalency of the lens set-ups. I guess the diff comes to about $150. Its great that you own them because you can use your diopters to get into ultra-macro range with the 12-50, or ultra-ultra macro range with the 60.
Just a story about the 12-50. I was on a dive late last nite. Shooting beautiful flamingo tongues in macro mode. A hawksbill turtle swam into my lights. I made an instant switch to zoom mode without having to take my eyes off the turtle. Would have lost sight of it for sure if I had had to unscrew a diopter and put it away. In about three seconds I was zoomed to 12mm wide and getting great shots of a turtle at night, something I never had in my portfolio. This is a good example of the combo giving me shots that are not otherwise possible. My buddies shooting macro with diopters never had a chance. I have several other stories like this, and have only owned this lens set up for 2 months.
I am very glad I did not save the $150.00.
Edited by guyharrisonphoto, 21 January 2013 - 07:20 AM.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:50 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:57 AM
yes thats what you do if you have the 12-50 port. What would you want to adjust?
Talking about saving money, has anyone tried to just stick the Olympus 60mm into the 12-50mm port? Obviously you can't adjust anything but I assume you can just shoot in the full focus range and AF (which is the same way I am shooting the Panny 45.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:06 AM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:16 AM
The 60 macro works quite well in the Nauticam 12-50 port both with and without closeup lenses. The focus limit can be set before you install the camera in the housing and shoot in AF. Nauticam also has a gear in the works for the 60 macro for manual focus using both ports. If you already own the Nauticam 45 port for the Panasonic 45 macro you can add the 20mm extension ring to it for use with the 60 macro.
I shoot a lot with the 60 macro set at the 1:1 to 0.4 meter setting both in both ports.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:24 AM
Is there any reason why you'd choose 60mm macro vs the 45mm macro? The focal length difference seems to be negligible. I was thinking I could use the 12-50mm port and carry one less dedicated macro port altogether. That would be the only reason for me to consider getting the 60mm.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:01 AM
let us know how the test of the wet wide lens goes.
That's good to know about the focus gear and that it will work in teh 12-50 port. I like manual focus for macro video.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:42 PM
Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:26 PM
Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:04 AM
Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:10 AM
Hello, I am new to underwater photography. I am going to buy the e-m5 and I have questions about the housing options. If I go for the olympus housing with ports it will cost about $1600 without a strobe. Most of you are recommending the Nauticam housing. About how much more would the nauticam be using the 12-50 and 60mm macro. I will be mostly snorkeling (maybe a little diving) on my upcoming trip to Grand Cayman. What strobe would you recommend? Thanks for all your help. (I am a semi pro and I shoot a 5d mark iii above land, but don't feel comfortable bringing it in the water.)
The Nauticam housing is $1,350 and I think the 60mm port runs another $350. The 12-50 port with gear is $800. You can use the 60mm port with your 12-50 but with some limitations. Read this entire thread http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=48650 it describes your options.
I am going to be using a pair of Inon S2000 strobes. They are very small and are fairly powerful. I think they are an excellent option for the OM-D. One of the reasons for me buying the OM-D instead of outfiting my 7d was to have a small light weight system that would be easy for me to travel with. I didn't want to spoil it with putting on a pair of giant strobes. I can fit a pair of S2000's and my 2 diopters in one medium size lens compartment in my camera bag. I shoot a lot of macro so the smaller strobes are fine for me. If you need more power than the S2000 offers you will need to get something much larger. Check out post # 236 on this tread to see what Dr. Alex Mustard's setup looks like with a pair of S2000's. I will put a tray on mine with a pair of arms instead of using the M10 mount on top of the housing. It will give me more strobe adjustment but its going to be less compact.
Edited by Kenr, 25 January 2013 - 08:39 AM.
Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:43 AM
So judging by this test, anyone thinking about using a diopter and macro mode on the 12-50mm at the same time (like me before) should stay away. The working distance is just too small. I am also a bit depressed that a +10 diopter can only do so little for this lens...
Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:41 AM
However it may make sense in the 12-50mm in its dedicated port to use the smaller sized MACRO wet lenses like the FIT ones which are supposed to be of high quality as the Subsee and give you various choices at +5, +8,+16 (air numbers). I do not have the FIT achromat lenses but the working distance with the MACRO setting on the lens may achieve a better working distance and similar magnification as the SubSee (making them a better choice). I also heard that the 50mm setting is a bit soft (and It does look a bit softer when I tried it vs. the 43mm setting).
It comes down to trying them in the water against the Subsee. I have personally used an EPOQUE DML-2 lens with the 12-50 port and have found it usable producing a much higher magnification than the 43mm MACRO setting with a reasonable working distance (I did not measure the minimum distance though). The EPOQUE is mach smaller than the SubSee but I believe it is not an Achromat lens and provides somewhat less quality than Subsee or FIT.
Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:13 AM
Besides, I don't go after magnification myself. I saw someone who made a custom port for the Canon 5x macro manual lens to take picture of eggs of half hatched clown fishes' eyes' surrounding hair. (No I am not kidding. I am impressed that someone can do it, but it was painful watching it done.)
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:36 PM
Not sure it's worth a new thread, bud did anyone try to do some nice sunball shots with the OM-D?
In his excellent review, Dr Mustard said he didn't have enough time to properly evaluate dynamic range, and I see DxOMark ranks it 1.6 Evs below D7000 (12.3 vs 13.9), hence my question.