Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Olympus OM-D E-M5


  • Please log in to reply
778 replies to this topic

#441 Markosixty6

Markosixty6

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Staying Alive

Posted 28 March 2013 - 02:52 AM

Hey Karl,

 

Good to here from you your getting some very nice results with this set up well done mate, i'll answer you on WAD. Don't want to hijack the thread.



#442 Nicool

Nicool

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antibes, France

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:57 AM

Does the Airlock system from backscatter work with OM-D in Nauticam housing ?

You can also use the custom fit leak sentinel from Vividhousing:

http://www.vividhous...ak-sentinel.php

 

I got good email exchanges with the maker, and it's a tiny smart system that provides LED feedback.

Also, he gave me shots of it attached to the Nauticam OM-D housing. All this for only 200 EUR (rated to 60m depth).

 

Question is: will the Nauticam solution bring something much better?



#443 Nicool

Nicool

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antibes, France

Posted 28 March 2013 - 05:18 AM

Extra question on the dome choices for the Panasonic 8mm fisheye. If I go for this lens it would be for its capability to focus super close (provided I manage to get close to my subjects! :mocking: ).

In the charts of nauticam.com, they mention 2 domes options:

1/ The 4.33 "

2/ The upcoming 3.5"

 

In this thread, I read Coroander saying that the 4.33" dome already allows reaching the lens' minimal focus distance underwater.

So what could be the advantages of the 3.5" dome?



#444 Markosixty6

Markosixty6

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Interests:Staying Alive

Posted 28 March 2013 - 08:23 AM

Hey Nicool

So is the 4.33 the only dome option for this lense. Wonder if anyone has the answer to yr question regarding the 3.5'. Thanks for your help

#445 nudibranco

nudibranco

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Coda Cavallo - Sardinia - ITALY
  • Interests:clear waters for WA and small critters ! Beach diving

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:16 AM

there is an extensive post by Alex Mustard on this forum with pics with 3.5" and 4.33".   The 3.5" is smaller so you can get closer for better magnification...

 

I have the 3.5 and I am happy with it.  You can focus so close almost to the dome surface...

However the 4.33 is more versatile.  The longer focusing distance allows it to use with other lenses (especially with extensions) and over under shots may be more easily achieved...


Edited by nudibranco, 30 March 2013 - 02:23 AM.


#446 Draq

Draq

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:42 PM

I do not have an OMD, but rather a Panasonic GX1 with several lenses and ports.  So please forgive me for a slight hijack.  I may upgrade to an OMD or its successor at some point but for now and the near future I will stick with the GX1.  My favorite UW lenses are the 8mm FE and the 7-14.

 

Because I sometimes end up diving under circumstances where I cannot predict what I will be shooting or even what dive sites I may go to (think Cozumel for example) I like the idea of being able to choose the 12-50 as a “jack of all trades” lens option on occasion.  

 

I have gone through this thread carefully and think I understand the options.  Since I already own the 45 macro port and the 4” wide angle port and have a Subsee, I was considering getting the D&D lens gear and the 20mm extension ring so I could use the lens in the 45 macro port.

 

I think that would allow me to add this lens somewhat inexpensively and also not have to add a new port to the bag.
 

An additional advantage that I could foresee to the above is that I could also use the 12-50 in the 4” port with the D&D zoom ring if I wanted to preserve the AOV on the wide end; an option that would not be available with the Nauticam port and gear.

 

If this plan is faulty I can go ahead and get the Nauticam port for the lens.  Many of you are so much more knowledgeable on these things than am I, so I seek your collective wisdom on the feasibility of this plan.



#447 Phil Rudin

Phil Rudin

    Great White

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA

Posted 02 April 2013 - 05:57 AM

Hi Draq,

 

I think that combo will work quite well for you. The 20mm extension will also work quite well with the 60mm macro if you ever want a longer macro, I use both. I am also using the 20mm extension with the ZEN Underwater 170mm glass dome port and the 7-14 zoom.

 

Phil Rudin



#448 Nicool

Nicool

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antibes, France

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:51 AM

there is an extensive post by Alex Mustard on this forum with pics with 3.5" and 4.33".   The 3.5" is smaller so you can get closer for better magnification...

 

I have the 3.5 and I am happy with it.  You can focus so close almost to the dome surface...

However the 4.33 is more versatile.  The longer focusing distance allows it to use with other lenses (especially with extensions) and over under shots may be more easily achieved...

Hi Nudibranco,

 

I must say I forgot that post: at the time I read it I wasn't thinking about dome options then...

For those who want the answer, it's earlier in this thread, see posts 297 (http://wetpixel.com/...=15#entry322488) to 310 basically.



#449 Draq

Draq

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

Thank you for the feedback, Phil

 

I'm wondering if anyone has had any experience using this lens in the 4" semi-dome port...



#450 Doversole

Doversole

    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:16 PM

Has anyone tried the 14mm Panasonic f2.5 lens?

I saw the images from Alex with a 17mm in the 4‘‘ dome in Grand Cayman which were impressive but saw nothing in this thread about the 14mm lens.

Nauticam seems to advise the 3.5 wide angle port for the 14mm.



#451 Glasseye Snapper

Glasseye Snapper

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Canada
  • Interests:Fish ID & behaviour and photos thereof

Posted 03 April 2013 - 02:43 PM

Has anyone used the cold shoe YS stem adapter to mount a video light directly on top of the Nauticam OMD housing. I'm considering putting an iTorch Pro 4 in that spot for easy access and independence of orientation from repositioning strobes. I just have to know if this is too close to the lens and will give backscatter problems. I mostly dive in good visibility tropical waters and I have seen similar setups (for instance here: http://wetpixel.com/...310#entry321711) so hope this is acceptable.

 

In case anyone has tried, what is the minimum distance of a gopro from a video light like the iTorch. With a larger fraction of ambient light I don't know if backscatter is more/less problematic than for stills.

 

Cheers,  Bart


Olympus OM-D EM5/Nauticam, 12-50mm & 60mm macro
Sea&Sea 110a, iTorch, GoPro3 BE

#452 barilhu

barilhu

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2013 - 04:49 PM

You can also use the custom fit leak sentinel from Vividhousing:
http://www.vividhous...ak-sentinel.php
 
I got good email exchanges with the maker, and it's a tiny smart system that provides LED feedback.
Also, he gave me shots of it attached to the Nauticam OM-D housing. All this for only 200 EUR (rated to 60m depth).
 
Question is: will the Nauticam solution bring something much better?


I got the Leak sentinel. The pictures you got from Vividhousing are probably from my rig.

I just love seing that little blinking green led. Knowing that my OMD is safe:). Hearing the seal pop when you open the rear door of the housing is also reasuring.

I'm going to the olympic stadium pool in Montreal (60' deep) next friday to test everything out. But so far so good.

#453 Nicool

Nicool

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Antibes, France

Posted 03 April 2013 - 10:16 PM

I got the Leak sentinel. The pictures you got from Vividhousing are probably from my rig.

I just love seing that little blinking green led. Knowing that my OMD is safe:). Hearing the seal pop when you open the rear door of the housing is also reasuring.

I'm going to the olympic stadium pool in Montreal (60' deep) next friday to test everything out. But so far so good.

errrr... the o-ring of your housing pops when you open it?

Don't you release the pressure before opening the housing?



#454 EspenB

EspenB

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 47 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:44 AM

Has anyone tried the 14mm Panasonic f2.5 lens?

I saw the images from Alex with a 17mm in the 4‘‘ dome in Grand Cayman which were impressive but saw nothing in this thread about the 14mm lens.

Nauticam seems to advise the 3.5 wide angle port for the 14mm.

 

The 4.33" dome also fits a Olympus 12mm/f2.0 which gives a wider angle (84 vs 75 degrees).



#455 EspenB

EspenB

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 47 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 04:03 AM

there is an extensive post by Alex Mustard on this forum with pics with 3.5" and 4.33".   The 3.5" is smaller so you can get closer for better magnification...

 

I have the 3.5 and I am happy with it.  You can focus so close almost to the dome surface...

However the 4.33 is more versatile.  The longer focusing distance allows it to use with other lenses (especially with extensions) and over under shots may be more easily achieved...

 

How much shorter is the 3,5" dome?

 

The versatility is about the same as far as I can tell;

 

The 4,33" dome fits both the Pana 8 mm fisheye and Olympus 12 mm f2.0 as is.

 

The 3,5 can be used with er 14 mm pancake (which you probaly dont need if you have the Olympus 12 mm f2.0...) and 8 mm fisheye as is and the Olympus 12 mm with a 20 mm extension ring.

 

There is also the issue of buoyancy, I would guess the larger dome is slighly more positive?


Edited by EspenB, 04 April 2013 - 06:22 AM.


#456 tarjan

tarjan

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:39 AM

I've been looking at the photo differences, and trying to figure out which dome to get.  From my understanding the 4.33 can better handle above/below photos and gets a wider overall view, 3.5 is better for closer views and is tiny.  The picture quality looked pretty similar.

 

I'm leaning towards the 3.5, because I like getting close to things.  Anyone want to sell me on that decision or tell me I'm crazy and should go 4.33?

 

(my lenses are panny 14, 8mm, 14-42, 45-150.  Only expecting to use the 8mm while diving.)   



#457 Kenr

Kenr

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alamo, California
  • Interests:Diving,
    Yoga,
    Photography
    Running
    Cars
    Travel
    Good food

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

Has anyone used the cold shoe YS stem adapter to mount a video light directly on top of the Nauticam OMD housing. I'm considering putting an iTorch Pro 4 in that spot for easy access and independence of orientation from repositioning strobes. I just have to know if this is too close to the lens and will give backscatter problems. I mostly dive in good visibility tropical waters and I have seen similar setups (for instance here: http://wetpixel.com/...310#entry321711) so hope this is acceptable.
 
In case anyone has tried, what is the minimum distance of a gopro from a video light like the iTorch. With a larger fraction of ambient light I don't know if backscatter is more/less problematic than for stills.
 
Cheers,  Bart


My Nauticam housing for my LX5 was made of plastic. Mine cracked on one of its first dives. I wouldn't recommend using the cold shoe unless Nauticam is now making them out of metal. The M10 mounting base is a better option.

what are the port options for the 7-14mm?

#458 Phil Rudin

Phil Rudin

    Great White

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:50 AM

Did not know that Nauticam made a plastic housing for the LX5 or any other camera for that matter.

Nauticam makes a 6 inch port for the Panasonic 7-14 zoom.

#459 pmooney

pmooney

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1232 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cairns Australia
  • Interests:Growing Grapes

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:00 AM

My Nauticam housing for my LX5 was made of plastic. Mine cracked on one of its first dives. I wouldn't recommend using the cold shoe unless Nauticam is now making them out of metal. The M10 mounting base is a better option.

what are the port options for the 7-14mm?

Sorry to be pedantic.

 

I think what you meant to say is :

 

The cold shoe mount on my housing was made of plastic  rather than the housing is made of plastic.



#460 Kenr

Kenr

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alamo, California
  • Interests:Diving,
    Yoga,
    Photography
    Running
    Cars
    Travel
    Good food

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:01 AM

Sorry to be pedantic.
 
I think what you meant to say is :
 
The cold shoe mount on my housing was made of plastic  rather than the housing is made of plastic.


Yes, sorry I meant to say the cold shoe mount was made of plastic. I don't think its suitable for mounting a larger light and certainly not if you have an arm or two extending the light. They are very easy to crack. When mine broke Nauticam asked me to wait because they were planning to switch the cold shoe mount to metal. I waited almost a year and finally asked them the status of my replacement and I was sent another plastic mount. I suppose they decided to keep the plastic mounts. It wasn't a big deal because the M10 mount is very sturdy.