Jump to content

JayceeB

Member
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by JayceeB

  1. Yes, the 12-40 had no trouble focusing on the tiger and the sharpness of the photo is better. I have the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R. I checked with Nauticam and asked if they recommended one of the 14-42's over the others. They mentioned it was 'splitting hairs' between the different offerings. Since I already had the Oly, I just used that. @Intercepter121 mentioned that Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS is the best he has used. How much better than the Oly? I don't know. Reflections in the last two shots are actually a submerged fish pen (attracts the Oceanics). I do have the 7" acrylic dome. Picked it up used. Perhaps I should reconsider the Zen dome. I'm wondering if the Sony 28-60 kit lens is better quality than the Oly 14-42 kit lens, and would perform better behind the WWL-1.
  2. Here are a few more examples of the 14-42 + WWL zoomed in at 42mm on a sunny day offshore. f5.6 1/250 ISO 400. Not quite sharp enough.
  3. Hi Chris, I typically shoot in the mornings in clear water, so not nearly night conditions, but there can be issues with early morning contrast between animals and the dark blue horizontal backdrop. Here are two photos I took this weekend one day apart at the same dive site fully zoomed in at f6.3 and 1/160. I lightly white balanced these in LR, otherwise they’re pure in all their rough glory. Day 1: The group of 7 dolphins were taken with the 14-42 at 42mm with the WWL at 8:30AM f6.3 1/160th ISO 640 (auto-iso) Day 2: The tiger was taken with the 12-40 PRO zoomed to 40mm at noon, so more light. f6.3 1/160th ISO 160 (auto-iso) Also on day 2, some playful dolphins made very close runs. I had the 12-40, so can’t compare to the 14-42 close up, but this illustrates how well the 12-40 performs at ISO 640. Fast moving dolphins, and the bulk of my shots were sharp. Zoomed to 22mm. Slight crop in LR. f6.3 1/250 ISO 640
  4. I moved from a Sony RX100 IV to an Olympus OM-D E-M1 II several years ago. I found the move to be a medium jump in quality, a significant jump in auto-focus performance, but also a significant jump in cost and size My gear has grown over time to consist of 3 domes and 3 flat ports to accommodate. Oly 12-40 PRO Pan 7-14 Pan 8mm Oly 30mm macro Oly 60mm macro Oly 14-42 IIR My photography consists of: 10% big animals close range (close dolphins, oceanic white tips, turtles) 30% big animals from 10’ to 40’ away (dolphins, sharks, pilot whales) 40% fish portraits 20% macro 80% of my dives these days are shore dives, so lugging big gear around is a chore. My go-to kit is the Oly 12-40 PRO, which works great for big animals (which are not too close) and fish portraits, but less than adequate for macro, or close in big animals. If I don’t know what I’m going to get into on a dive, I bring this lens. Auto focus is excellent. A great lens, but requires a large dome, which is very floaty. I had to secure a 1lb weight to the underside of the dome just to keep the nose down. The Panasonic 7-14 is nice quality, but I’m often disappointed with lack of range. I only bring this lens if I’m absolutely sure the subjects will be very close (turtles). I don’t seem to use the Panasonic 8mm fisheye. I rarely use the Oly 30mm macro since purchasing the Oly 12-40 PRO. The Oly 60mm is a joy for macro, but you are 100% dedicated to macro for the entire dive. I would like to improve my low light image quality, reduce the need for a large dome port and reduce the amount of gear I need. Since I already owned the 14-42 kit lens, I thought I would try it in the flat port + Nauticam WWL. For close focus and fish portraits, the combination works great and would replace my 12-40 PRO, 7-14, 8mm fisheye and 30mm macro. Unfortunately, I was disappointed when zoomed in all the way for big animals in lower light conditions where the animal’s background is dark blue water. Focus is slow, and hunts. A big percentage of the photos I’ve taken are out of focus, or even when in focus, they’re soft. Definitely not a replacement for my 12-40 PRO when zoomed all the way in. I assume that's a product of the quality of the 14-42 kit lens, and not the WWL The Sony A7C + 28-60 kit lens + WWL is the same size as my Olympus OM-D E-M1 II + 14-42 + WWL. My questions to the community are: 1. Will the Sony A7C (or A7 III) + 28-60 kit lens + WWL give better low light auto-focus and picture quality than the E-M1 II +14-42 + WWL when zoomed all the way in? 2. Will the Sony A7C (or A7 III) + 28-60 kit lens + WWL give comparable auto-focus and picture sharpness to the E-M1 II + 12-40 PRO in a Dome when zoomed all the way in low light conditions? 3. Would I see a significant jump in overall quality and auto-focus moving from the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (with multiple lenses, domes and ports )to the Sony A7C with a single lens, one port and WWL + CMC? Thanks for any guidance or experience anyone can lend. I’m trying to avoid buyers remorse
  5. Looking for Nauticam Port and Zoom Gear for Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R.Port #36136Gear #36143I am located in Hawaii.US Sellers only.Thank you.
  6. Thanks for the quick response, Mr. Ross. That's exactly what I needed on focal length. BTW Your posts have helped me immensely in my 4/3 journey
  7. Folks, I'm wondering what the equivalent focal length range would be with a Lumix G Vario 14-42 II + Nauticam WWL-1. What wide angle lens focal length would 14mm reduce to? What telephoto lens focal length would 42 reduce to?. Also, from the forums, it sounds like the Lumix G Vario 14-42 II is the best IQ of the Olympus and Panasonic choices (I'm shooting with the Oly E-M1 II). Do I have that correct? I already have an Olympus 14-42 IIR that came as a kit lens, and am wondering if an upgrade to the Panasonic 14-42 is worthwhile if moving to a 14-42 + WWL-1 option. Thanks for any responses you may have, -Jaycee
  8. I tested the 14-42 with the 6" dome in a test tank. No vignetting. I'll try this in the wild and see how it works. Thanks, Chris, for your suggestion.
  9. Thanks, Chris. I'll test out the 6" dome in my test tank. Also, I was so focused on the highly recommended 12-40 that I didn't consider the 12-35mm option. Will look further at that, since the 7-14 and 12-35 share a common port. If the tradeoffs in autofocus and image quality are acceptable, might be worth considering.
  10. Thanks for your reply, tursiops. I have a 30mm macro which I use for fish portraits and a 60mm macro which i use for nudis. This is why i have both the 45mm port and 20mm extension. 45mm port for the 30mm lens. 45mm+20mm extension for the 60mm lens. I don't plan on investing much in the 14-42 kit, but I already have the lens. Was trying to see if i could utilize my existing ports and extension. I actually tried this out in a tub today with the lens set at 14mm with the 45mm+20mm extension. Although the 65mm is longer than required, there was no vignetting at the wide end of this lens, so I think it will work if I just purchase the zoom gear. There may be other optics factors at play here, but it appears to work. The situation i'm trying to gear up for is a local dive with resident tigers. Sometimes the sharks approach very closely, but other times further away. This is why i would like a more flexible zoom range than my current wide angle 7-14 setup gives me. Eventually I would like to add the 12-40 and port, but this is a pricey option. Also, sounds like Olympus has an 8-25mm F4 Pro in their future roadmap (if that ever gets fullfilled), which would be a nice combination.
  11. Thanks for the feedback. I don't plan on purchasing a port for this lens, just wondering if i could use it with one of my existing port combinations temporarily, until I can afford a 12-40 + port. So all i would be purchasing is a zoom gear.
  12. Folks, I own a kit lens that I would like to use as a mid-range zoom, mainly for ambient light, big animal photography : Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R I would like to avoid purchasing a dedicated port for this lens. 36136 (macro port 56) Instead, I'm wondering if I could get by using one of the following Nauticam ports that I already own, and just purchasing the zoom gear: 36135 (macro port 45) + 36620 (mini extension ring 20) - Used for Oly 60mm macro. 36133 (6" dome) - Used for Panasonic 7-14. 36132 (4.33" dome) - Used for Panasonic 8mm. (** Could add the 36620 mini extension ring 20 if required). Does anyone have experience trying any of these combinations? Thanks.
  13. Thanks, Tim, Chris and Interceptor for your advice. One more related question i'd like to add to this thread. Recommendation between: Olympus 8mm fisheye + Zen 100mm dome + Mini Extension Ring 30= $2130 vs 30mm Macro + Nauticam MWL-1 = $2130 (assuming you already have the 30mm lens + port)
  14. I am putting together a parts list for a Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk II + Nauticam system, and was hoping to get some recommendations on the following lens choices.Fisheye:Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm f/3.5orOlympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PROThere isn't a big difference in price, but the Olympus is much larger. Is the quality of the Olympus noticeably superior to justify the size and extra $200? Also, I believe the Olympus lens must be removed to extract the camera from the housing, which is slightly inconvenient.Medium Macro:Panasonic Lumix G Macro 30mm f/2.8orOlympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30mm f/3.5 MacroSame price. Is one recommended over another for auto-focus and quality?
  15. Hello fellow UW Photographers. For me, spending time underwater is a gift most folks will never experience first hand. Underwater photography is a way to share that experience with others and raise awareness of the beauty and diversity of life found in our oceans. I enjoy the art and science of photography and hope to improve my skills with practice and learning from others. Looking forward to participating in the wetpixel forums
×
×
  • Create New...