Basic questions from Oly5050 user

[nachoman 0]

I have a Oly5050+Epoque 150 DS + Epoque wide angle lens. I must say that after 3 years of using it, I've

been able to take quite decent pictures, despite de complexity of working everything in manual (specially

the strobe not being TTL).

 

I specially appreciate the flexibility of being able to take almost macro pictures, normal reef pictures,

as well as wide angle (fish banks etc) just by replacing the lense during the dive.

My main concern about my setup is the very long gap since you press the button and the picture is taken, and

that I would like to improve slightly the sharpness of my photos.

 

I've been looking to low end DSLRs (maonly olympus), and my doubts are the followings:

 

is there a single lense package like my current one that will work for most of the usage?

In case I need a new wide angle, does it mean that if you put it, you need to shoot in wide angle all the dive?

What do you "non professionals" do?

 

Thanks in advance.

[jlyle 8]

While Olympus has zoom lenses available for their dslrs that will allow you to do semi-wide and semi-macro on the same dive, if you want true WA or macro, you have to go into the water with a specific lens and you are limited to that lens.

 

I have to laugh, I, too, used a 5050 for years before buying an E-330 dslr. Shortly after my switch, I dropped into the water with a Sigma-105 macro lens on my camera and encountered a school of five Mola mola! All I could do was take a picture of an eye!

[RogerC 4]

The 14-54 is pretty flexible, Jim uses it well. But for real macro, you would want to go to the oly 50mm or sigma 105mm, and for real wide, you'd want to go to the 7-14mm or 8mm fisheye, and your banker.

 

Think about how often you really switch and what you normally shoot. Kind of a dumb thing to say, because you probably only switch for important shots that you'd really want.

 

Consider carrying your old 5050 in a BC pocket, too. You can do reasonable macro with the internal strobe.

[nachoman 0]

The 14-54 is pretty flexible, Jim uses it well. But for real macro, you would want to go to the oly 50mm or sigma 105mm, and for real wide, you'd want to go to the 7-14mm or 8mm fisheye, and your banker.

 

Think about how often you really switch and what you normally shoot. Kind of a dumb thing to say, because you probably only switch for important shots that you'd really want.

 

Consider carrying your old 5050 in a BC pocket, too. You can do reasonable macro with the internal strobe.

 

Thanks for both answers. I pretty much shoot reef pictures, half wide angle, half set of fishes, or portraits, but I don't typically shoot macro.

 

Do yo think I would have too much angle diferences between the 14-54 and my current DLC-20 lense ? (http://www.camerasunderwater.info/equipment/olympus/c5050/m67wa.html#dcl20)

 

Is it worth, in the case of upgrading to a new DSLR from Olympus to get a housing with TTL conection and a new strobe or shooting as today, with a light cable is a reasonable configuration?

[jlyle 8]

IMHO, you won't be happy with the 14-54 if you like to shoot wide; it's not wide enough. The 7-14mm lens would be my choice (with a crop factor of 2x, the equivalent of a 14-28mm film lens) but it's an expensive piece of glass.

 

I have found TTL to be very nice, but with WA shots, manual strobe control is preferred.

[nachoman 0]

Thaks for your answer. I must say that considering the angle lense, the upgrade means a significant amount of money...

I'll take a look to Nikon and Canon to see if the final configuration is in the same range for the full kit.

Any recomendation?

 

Regards,

[belizediversity 0]

Nachoman I was in the exact same situation last year. I had been using a 5050 for a few years (which is a great camera although a bit dated) and I upgraded to an E500 DSLR.

 

My reasoning was: Olympus offers a good 2 lens kit to get you started and I had recieved excellent service from them in the past so I stayed brand loyal.

 

Drawbacks are the 4/3 system is new and the lens choice is limited at the moment (although improving) and the reported noise at high ISO this is not a problem for me because I always shoot low ISO for fine detail (the new 510 reportedly gives less noise). I'm happy with the camera it is well built and does the job.

 

I have now added the 11-22 zoom (22-44 equivalent) and the 50 f2 macro (100mm equiv) both of which are superb and produce very sharp results.

 

On a recent dive one of our guests was shooting whalesharks using the 7-14 zoom whilst I was using the 11-22 and I felt his shots at extreme w/a end were "too wide" ie the shark was small object in a sea of blue even though we were almost side by side during the dive. Therefore for general w/a and action shooting the 11-22 is probably better but I do have occassions when I want to go "wider" and so I will eventually cough up the extra $$$ for the 7-14.

 

Finally once you go DSLR u/w you have to decide prior to diving if you are shooting macro or w/a (unlike the 5050) I suppose it is a drwaback but it focuses you mind on taking pics in that style rather swimming around aimlessly.

 

Also you may want to ask the dive operator what would be best to shoot on that day for example if the viz is "less than perfect" it is probably a good day to try macro but if the dive site of the is a scenic wonderland of swim throughs then obviously it's w/a.

 

I hope I have been of help.

 

Regards

 

Martin

[RogerC 4]

The 14-54, 28-108mm film equivalent, is going to be almost exactly like your 5050 lens, if you put it behind a flat port. If you put it behind a dome, it will be a bit wider. If you use your wide angle wet add-on lens a lot, it won't be wide enough for you. I never took mine off, so I am rock-solid, 100% happy to swim around with my 7-14 on all the time, no question. But I am planning on using the 50mm macro lens in wakatobi & lembeh later this year, so I'll probably try that out to get used to it soon.

 

You might want to go with the 8mm fisheye, or wait for the affordable new wide angle lens they promise in 2008 and shoot the 14-54 and maybe the 50mm in the meantime. Or maybe the 11-22.

 

Personally, once I got the 7-14 or the new wide angle, I would probably not use the 11-22 much, but I would never outgrow the 50mm (it's a great macro lens) or the 8mm fisheye (fisheye is great for some stuff and I'd want it as a backup for the 7-14) or the 14-54 (just a great basic range). The 11-22 is not as wide as I would like, and it's not as long as I would like for what I would call a shark lens. I think the 14-54 is a better shark lens, it has the range to do full bodies and faces of shy subjects. Not sure the 11-22 gets you faces. But this is very much based on personal experience. The 11-22 is a great lens and I'm sure there are many who would never take it off. It's just a zoom range that I personally don't spend much time in.

 

Drawbacks are the 4/3 system is new and the lens choice is limited at the moment (although improving)

 

it improved a lot over the last year. Sigma has 5 (or more?) lenses out, the 105mm macro is probably the only one of interest to divers. Maybe the 150mm macro for power mad macro hounds.

 

Here's Oly's lens roadmap. The promise of a new lower cost wide angle zoom is nice:

 

http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/product.../zuiko_lens_eng

 

But up at the top end, that 7-14mm rectilinear zoom, that alone deserves note. It's a stellar lens.

 

They have really covered the whole range with a handful of zooms. The promised lenses will be welcome, they'll fill in the gaps and upgrade the most-used favorite lenses. All people are really crying for at this point are more great primes to match the 50mm's quality and maybe something long and affordable. The 100mm macro and 2.0 TC will be very welcome. and maybe that 70-300.

 

and the reported noise at high ISO this is not a problem for me because I always shoot low ISO for fine detail (the new 510 reportedly gives less noise).

 

Have you seen the full DPReview.com review on the E410? Noise was good. The whole camera was quite good.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/

 

But I agree, even in older cameras like my E1, noise was not a show stopper for me. But I do like using ambient light in the water and on land, so I do hope they continue to improve the noise, and continue to allow me to shoot at very high noisy ISOs when I want to. A noisy 3200 ISO shot is better than nothing sometimes.

 

On a recent dive one of our guests was shooting whalesharks using the 7-14 zoom whilst I was using the 11-22 and I felt his shots at extreme w/a end were "too wide" ie the shark was small object in a sea of blue even though we were almost side by side during the dive.

 

It's a tough lens. I agree, it's probably not a shark lens. When I used my E1 in truk, one time I took off my 7-14 and put on the 14-54 was on the shark dive, when the crew, all photogs, took their time to convince me that the sharks would not get that close and going longer would get me head shots vs tiny sharks with lots of blue. They were right.

 

I did use the 14-54 on one other dive after we found a baby clownfish smaller than a pea; that shot got me a best-in-show, so I guess it was worth the swap.

 

http://www.uwimages.org/2006/gallery/index.htm

 

Finally once you go DSLR u/w you have to decide prior to diving if you are shooting macro or w/a (unlike the 5050) I suppose it is a drwaback but it focuses you mind on taking pics in that style rather swimming around aimlessly.

 

I hate making that argument. Yeah, you do concentrate and get your mind right when you only have one lens, and yeah, even on land, it is interesting and educational to force yourself to shoot with only one lens for an afternoon, but deep down, (no pun intended), we all want to shoot the full range all the time. Even on land, we want it so bad we don't want primes, we want zooms.

 

Also you may want to ask the dive operator what would be best to shoot on that day for example if the viz is "less than perfect" it is probably a good day to try macro but if the dive site of the is a scenic wonderland of swim throughs then obviously it's w/a.

 

No way! low vis means you have to get closer! Go wider! ;-)

 

I hope I have been of help.

 

Martin, hope you haven't minded that I've picked your post apart. You wrote an intesting post, I couldn't resist replying to a lot of your points.

[belizediversity 0]

Roger, it was good to hear your views on the 7-14, it will almost certainly be my next addition my only problem is justifying $1500 to my other half

 

I totally agree about the 50mm macro, I've had mine a few weeks and I'm still getting used to it but it is a fantastic lens. I should have the Ikelite port for it soon and then I will see what I can do with it underwater.

 

Regards

 

Martin

 

ps I also pine for the 150mm f2 but have the same problem as the 7-14