Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BlueDevil

  • Rank
    Sea Nettle

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Canon S95, Olympus E-PL5
  • Camera Housing
    Canon housing, no housing yet for the E-Pl5
  1. Yes, I am using the Zen dome specifically intended for the Olympus 9-18 lens.
  2. Thanks for the further feedback. For some reason the distortion isn't as evident when I posted the photos directly on here. It is more evident in the original link I gave as you can flick quickly between the two images and it becomes more obvious. Alex said he couldn't see the images so I'm not sure why the link doesn't work for him, but here it is again in case others can see it: https://picasaweb.google.com/118038872344502304872/LensDistortion?authkey=Gv1sRgCKemycSdo8LQBQ#
  3. The photo above is JPEG. And the one below is RAW. Hopefully the distortion of the diver will be visible in the JPEG compared to the RAW. (Not my best photos by the way but it illustrates the point I'm making)
  4. Thanks Alex. Following on from your reply I am wondering if the dome port is maybe already correcting for the inherent distortion of the lens and then the JPG software is applying a correction that isn't necessary and thereby actually creating distortion. Or maybe the dome in combination with the 9-18mm lens is creating a distortion that is just inherently different to what would be normal above water and so the software 'mis-corrects' it. This leaves me wondering if this may also be an explanation for the mixed reports I have heard about the Zen dome. Some say it is great and others complain about soft edges. Maybe those that are using RAW only are getting distortion free images while someone else using JPEGs only would be getting distorted images.
  5. Since getting the Zen dome for my Olympus 9-18mm lens I have been disappointed with softness/distortion mainly towards the edges. I have just realised something though that I am surprised I hadn't picked up on sooner. It is the JPEG images that show this distortion and it is much less evident (maybe non-existent) in the RAW images. Here is a link to an example. If you flick backwards and forwards between the two images quickly the distortion of the diver in the left corner becomes quite obvious. https://picasaweb.google.com/118038872344502304872/LensDistortion?authkey=Gv1sRgCKemycSdo8LQBQ# I am a bit puzzled by this as it seems to be the opposite of what happens above water. My understanding is that the Olympus cameras correct for any barrel distortion in the JPEG. I have seen this in my photos where for example an horizon may be straight in the JPEG photo but curved in the RAW equivalent. This leaves me wondering if somehow the dome is 'tricking' the sytem and the camera is causing distortion rather than correcting it????? Have others noticed this issue and any thoughts on why it is just the JPEG where this is happening? Looks like I am going to have to improve my Photoshop skills so I can stick with using the distortion free RAW images!
  6. I am about to get a Zen dome for my E-PL5 in the Oly housing so I can use the 9-18mm lens. I am wondering if anyone can give practical advice as to whether I may encounter edge softness when using this dome? This article seems to imply that edge softness may be an issue with mini-domes: http://www.amustard.com/?page=pro&ext=pp_minidomes I am thinking it may not be such a big deal with MFT due to the smaller sensor size giving greater depth of field compared to full frame cameras. Would it still be advisable to use a smaller aperture for greater DOF if possible? Has anyone found unacceptable degrees of edge softness with this dome and lens? I also believe that this dome port will accomodate the 12-50 and 60mm macro lens. Any issue with image quality when using these lenses with the Zen dome?
  7. Thanks Phil. It seems like a fairly versatile option. Just not sure that the budget can stretch to a Nauticam housing right now! (Plus at this stage I just have the 14 - 42mm lens). I can't help wondering if a wide angle wet lens would also be feasible with this setup? I am thinking of dives where you have no idea what you will encounter and would like to be able to shoot macro and wide angle and everything in between.
  8. I am wondering if this lens and port setup would work equally well with the E-PL5 in a Nauticam housing? Anyone tried it? Any thoughts on why it may not work? Thanks.
  9. This thread is of interest to me. I have an E-PL5 and would like to get a housing for it that would allow the use of wet lenses if possible. The Olmpus housing for the E-Pl5 doesn't come with a 67mm thread but I have the option to buy the flat post from the E-Pl5 housing (the one with the built in lights) and I believe this does have a 67mm thread. At present I just have a 14-42 lens. Will this work (ie using the E-Pl3 port on the E-PL5 housing)? Will it be feasible to get good results with both close up and wide angle wet lenses?
  10. I have also been considering the RX100. I own an Olympus E-PL5 but don't have a housing. I would like to have the versatility of being able to use wet lenses and there don't seem to be many options for doing this with the E-PL5. On the other hand the RX100 would give me this versatility. However that would also mean the expense of a new camera when I already own the Olympus. Not sure which way to go as yet.
  • Create New...