devildiver

Here is the Google translation of the Olympus Jap website, it specifies a adapter that can be used for older 4/3 ports but no mention of the newer PEN housing ports. http://www.olympus.co.jp/jp/info/2012a/if120326ptep08j.cfm Olympus Imaging Corporation is April 6, 2012 (Friday), the protector "PT-EP08" genuine dedicated waterproof camera "OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5" micro-SLR that conforms to the "Micro Four Thirds System" The celebration reference exhibit 8 (Sun), will be held at Sunshine City in Ikebukuro, Tokyo, the world's oceans and resort to "Marine Diving Fair 20 th.""PT-EP08", announced simultaneously with the "OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5", is dedicated waterproof case and genuine aircraft. Underwater photography, yet full-fledged system of water depth breakdown voltage specification of 45m, utilizing the advantage of size and weight of the camera body, and has realized comfortable operability in water. "PT-EP08", a bayonet, you can replace the waterproof lens ports. Lens port "PPO-EP01" waterproof standard, "M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-42mm F3.5-5.6II", "M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 14-42mm F3.5-5.6IIR", "M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED corresponds to the 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 "※. By using the port adapter "PAD-EP08" waterproof (sold separately), you can wear waterproof lens ports that conform to the "Four Thirds System." Lens of the three "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 8mm F3.5 Fisheye" "ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 50mm F2.0 Macro" "35mm F3.5 Macro ZUIKO DIGITAL" is the ※ available.

I am not sure if this is correct. According to the housing map (http://www.olympus.co.jp/jp/support/cs/pen...stem_ptep08.pdf) the PPO-EP01 port being offered is the same port used on the PT-EP01 (E-PL1) housing, it is just removed from the housing ( ) like they would not admit too. There is an adapter being offered that allows 4/3 ports to be used as well. Hopefully Alex might be able to shed some light on this....

Thanks for the reply. I avoid any chemical cleaners for my glass but I would guess that vinegar should be safe, don't know why I didn't think of this. Just out of curiosity why would you avoid vinegar on plastic? Would it damage any coating applied or the plastic itself?

Suggestions? I noticed some small spots on my flat port upon return from a recent trip, I can only see them when the light reflects off of the port like a mirror. I believe these must be from dried saltwater drops that I missed after the usual rinsing and drying with a micro fiber towel. They are small and do not appear to show up in photos once the port is in the water but I would like to remove them if possible. Are there any suggestions for dealing with this issue? -SR

(Please) let me know what you think about these pics. Both were taken with the Oly Pen E-PL1 & the Panasonic 14-45mm lens, Oly EP-01 housing with stock flat port and duel S&S YS-01 strobes. 1st time with this set-up so I was just trying to work through the controls and settings. Not really focusing on composition so much but any and all critique is welcome. Thank you (Photos were shot in RAW, imported into Lightroom 3, converted to DNG for basic preset correction and then to JPEG for export) Camera Olympus E-PL1 Exposure 0.006 sec (1/160) Aperture f/8.0 Camera Olympus E-PL1 Exposure 0.006 sec (1/160) Aperture f/8.0

Jim, I spoke to the Sola rep at the dive show today. He says they can and would be happy to upgrade the older model 600 but there will be a charge for it. He did not give a specific price but he led me to believe that it would be reasonable considering it would involve replacing pretty much the main components of the light. Give them a shout and see what happens. -Shawn

I will see the Sola rep today at the Texas Dive Show, thier booth is just a few down from ours. I will try to ask him and report back.

I was in pretty much the same situation, I had already purchased the camera body, the 14-45mm, the 20mm and the 8mm Fisheye Panasonic lenses also. I would have much rather gone with the Inon X-2 housing and ports because I suspect it is a great quality housing and I really like the port concept, after making the initial investment my thought was that the port system and lenses would transfer to future Inon M4/3 housings justifying the the upfront cost of the system, and this might still be the case. Truthfully I still prefer the GF-1 as a camera and I believe the Panasonic lenses are better overall, I prefer the control layout of the Panasonic over Olympus as well. One of the main reasons for my decision the switch to the Oly EPL-2 for my U/W set-up I was becoming concerned if Inon would continue to support the Panasonic M4/3 line in the future if the sales were not there. As far as I know they have not indicated any intention of producing a housing for the GF-2 but I know this does not indicate they would not produce housings for future cameras. Like I posted above though I spoke with the two big U/W photo stores here in the US and they said that they had basically no sales of the Inon GF-1 X-2 housing. So I became concerned that if Inon decided not to stick with this system down the road I would not have the option of reusing the port system in future set-up's. Usually camera bodies and housings are a small investment compared to the lenses and ports. The other issue I struggled with was the fact that I could change to a Olympus set-up (still not my favorite compared to the Panasonic side by side) including the EPL-2 camera body, the 14-42mm lens, the Oly PT-EP03 housing, the Athena grip/base and the ZEN 8mm Fisheye dome and still get use of some of the lenses that I have invested in (Yea!! Micro 4/3's standard) for what I would have paid for just the Inon housing by itself without any ports or gears. This will make it easier to move forward and purchase either the Pany 45mm macro or the Oly 50mm macro plus either the Zen or Athena port and still be well under what I would have been with the Inon X-2 (or the Recsea) system. I do believe the Inon X-2 is the best quality option for the GF-1 (with the Recsea a very close second) and I know a quality housing is not cheap to design and make and also a company has to make a profit so we will see how this develops for them down the road. Either way I really look forward to seeing pics from your set-up and reading your post on the system. Deep down I wish the Inon system would have worked out for me...

Well, I decided after much consideration to scrap my plans for housing the Pany GF-1. I have purchased the Oly EPL-2 with the 14-42mm kit lens and the Oly housing with the Zen Panasonic 8mm Fisheye dome port. If this works out the next purchase will be either the Zen 45mm macro port or the Athena 45mm macro port (they are claiming that the Oly 14-42mm lens can be used with the Athena port as well). I really like my GF-1 and I will keep it for a topside camera but I just could not justify sinking that kind of cash into this system. The Inon housing with ports and gears would have run about $4k+ USD and the Recsea would have come in about $3.5-4k USD, so far with the Oly EPL-2 set-up I have right under $2k invested (camera, 14-42mm lens, housing, Zen 8mm Dome Port) and the only additional piece that I will need would be a 45mm macro port that should cost around $400-450 USD (plus the Pany 45mm lens that I would have bought anyway). So for $2.5K I got a complete system for almost what the Inon housing cost. The other concern that I could not shake was if I invested in the Inon I was hoping that the ports/gears would transfer to future housings. My understanding from speaking to two of the suppliers here in the USA was that they had not sold hardly any of the Inon GF-1 housings and personally if that is the case I am suspicious if Inon will invest in future housings for this camera line. With the Oly product there are more manufactures producing housings and componets to support it and at a reasonable market price leading me to believe there should be a future for my lens investments which was one of the reasons for going M4/3 in the first place. I still like the GF-1 and believe Panasonic has produced better lenses for the M4/3 standard, I just wish the GF-1 housing manufactures had a better marketing plan to support it.

Ryan, Thanks for the info! Altsaint, Thanks for the photos. It appears there are still some soft edges but much better than the 10 Bar examples. I decided to go with the 8mm fisheye over the 7-14mm, I am hoping that this lens will have better results with the Inon Dome II or the Recsea 8mm dome. I am leaning for the Inon system but still undecided over all. I have found the Recsea priced down to $1,800 US vs. the Inon still up around $2,200, If the pricing was even I feel I would go with the Inon. We have a Dive show in town next month (Dallas, Tx) where I hope to get to see the Inon housing in person.

Got it! Thank you for the quick replies.

Thanks Adam! That was basically the question. I wasn't sure how much the color space that you selected for the camera would effect what you had to work with when you got to processing. I would guess then that the only reason to change the Color Space on export would depend on how the file was intended to be used. What would be the best choice for prints from the local lab?

In the past I have shot SRGB, I have read up on ARGB and was weighing the option of switching my camera to ARGB. I know that ARGB has more color information vs. SRGB but in the test photos that I have done I really can't tell a big difference in quality. In fact SRGB seems to have richer colors, is this even an issue or by the time you download and convert to TIF or DNG in LR does it really matter? Is this getting to the point of just splitting hairs? What is the preferred color space?

Thank you for the reply... Some photos would be great, my gut feeling would be the Inon and Recsea ports would out preform the 10 Bar (they better for the price) overall but I have not been able to find photos to compare. As far as the Inon X-2 control wheel, I would prefer the ability to use the press (it is not a deal killer though) and believe that this could not have been that difficult to engineer into the wheel control. Overall I really like the Inon housing and believe the port system is great and should have the ability to move into future M4/3 housings using the same standard. This would be a big plus considering the investment in lenses. I have found very little information on the Recsea housing other than websites that sell the housing and then the info is little more than the usual basic features. Seems like the Recsea is a good option as well but if there were some reviews somewhere with more real world info and example photos it would be great. The plus I see with the Recsea would be the smaller size and weight (also the ability to use the press for the control wheel) vs. the Inon but I know Inon makes quality products and I really like the port system. Look forward to the photos!

Inon or Recsea? Does anyone have or have used the Inon or Resea housings for the GF1? I am trying to locate enough info to make the right decision between the two, so if anyone could give any +'s or -'s to help me compare them I would greatly appreciate it. Thoughts, complaints, praises and any photos of the systems or example u/w pics would be a huge help. I wish the 10 Bar (because of cost) had gotten some better reports but I just can't get comfortable with some of the control wheel/button issues talked about plus the few reports of O-ring and sealing problems. I have the GF1 with the 8mm fisheye, 20mm pancake and the 14-45mm. Comparing the Inon and Recsea systems, the cost is about the same, so it comes down to size, weight, overall quality of housing, available ports and handling.