What Olympus DSLR set-up would you recommend for me?

[RogerC 4]

Here's a video, with sound, of the E410. By listening to the shutter, you can get a better idea of what the lag is in various shooting modes.

 

http://www.rogercarlsonphotography.com/gal..._speed.mov.html

[fltekdiver 0]

Man, this has turned out to be a great thread !!

 

Thanks Roger C, I love your website, and man, you gave some awsome comparisons all the way from using the Oly C-5050, E-1, E-330, E-410 !!

 

Roger C, Phil, and all the others have really gave people all around the world some great opiouns about the comparisions between the E-330 , E-410, and E-510!!

 

I read every quote Roger, that must have took you over a hour to type, because it took me almost a half hour to read, lol

 

We should change this thread to a Olympus Thread, and Comparisons to the The E-Series camera's with Live view !

[dsbierman 0]

I think I'm the first person outside of Japan to receive the new INON-OLYMPUS ports for the 410. They were released on August 7th and Fed-Ex'd to me last night. However, don't expect an immediate review, as I'm leaving for Indoensia in about 12 hours.

 

Also, I d like to thank Phil Rudin publicly for all his help over the last few weeks. His 410 review was outstanding and he has been kind enough to answer all of my questions.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Phil Rudin 456]

Thanks David,

 

Hope the new Inon equipment works out well for you. The new Olympus equipment will appear on the Inonamerica.com site later this month and I told Mark Rupert at Inon I would post some info. after their U.S. release announcement.

 

Phil Rudin

Edited August 11, 2007 by tropical1

[RogerC 4]

Phil, I owe you an apology. I used the 410 live view in water today, it's faster than I thought, it's plenty usable once you get autofocus out of the way, at least in dark socal water. It is around 5050 class lag, perfectly usable.

[herbko 0]

We should change this thread to a Olympus Thread, ....

 

Agreed and done.

[fltekdiver 0]

I ran into my first problem yesturday. I was shooting on Apeature mode, with F/125 and white balance on cloudy, ISO 100.

 

I could not get the camera to " Click " in maco shotsd, or close up's with no light?

 

I turned on my focus lights on my Ds-125's, and still could not get the camera to take the shot.

 

One thing, I was using a 8" dome to shoot a close up, with a 14-45mm lens.

 

I did get the zoom clamps and gears installed, but couldn't fire the camera nor the strobes in dark places, like under ledges, etc, any ideas?

[Helge Suess 0]

Hi!

... I could not get the camera to " Click " in maco shotsd, or close up's with no light?

 

I turned on my focus lights on my Ds-125's, and still could not get the camera to take the shot.

 

One thing, I was using a 8" dome to shoot a close up, with a 14-45mm lens.

 

I did get the zoom clamps and gears installed, but couldn't fire the camera nor the strobes in dark places, like under ledges, etc, any ideas?

The 14-45mm zoom isn't the fastest lens available. That may cause problems to the AF in low light conditions. The camera seems to be set to focus priority meaning that the shutter will only release when the AF locked. To get a proper AF lock you need a certain diameter brightly lit and with high contrast. Else the AF won'T have a chance. Some objects (e.g. some kond of nudibranch tend to fool the AF even under good light conditions). Another possibillity is that you were to close to get a proper focus.

 

A dome alters the focus range of a lens. Infinite is, depending on the dome diameter at a distance of about 400 to 500 mm away. That means that the close focus ability of the lens is almost "used up" by focusing to infinity. You'd need a lens that is able to focus down to 120 or 140 mm to be able to do a decent close-up.

 

You should go for the 8mm FE lens which will perform absolutely great behind the 8" dome. It'll also be great for WA close-up shots and WA-macros. For "real" macro I recommend the 50mm macro lens (together with a matching flat port). Okay, it's a bit more expensive but it's definitely worth the money.

 

Helge ;-)=)

[Phil Rudin 456]

Hello,

 

In the attached review you will see a number of images taken with the Olympus 14-42 mm zoom behind a flat port. I think in the case of this lens the flat port is the better choice for getting close. Further if you are going to use a focusing light for dark areas you will likely need one with more power than the lights on your strobes which are designed more to aim the beam than to aid auto focus.

 

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/olympus-e-4...rwater-housing/

 

Phil Rudin

Edited August 13, 2007 by tropical1

[fltekdiver 0]

RTSKI had just asked how I been making out with my set up. Here's a update !!

 

I shot last weekend in A - Aprioty mode, and this weekend I went back to P - mode, with a shutter speed of 1/125 sec, F stop 5.6 , and white balance on cloudy.

 

We had about 40' vis, and my friend just emailed pics he took with a Olympus SP350, with a single strobe, and I sent him back my pics with my set up. He still cannot not belive the difference. He's Ebaying his UW water camera set up this week, and moving up, lol

 

All I can say is, I'm VERY HAPPY with this set up !!

 

The pic's look like right out of a magazine, they are un belivable, even with no editing, I can't belive how good they come out !!

 

I never thought shooting a DSLR really would be this easy, all though I have a ton to learn yet, I'm not even shooting in manual yet, but for the first 3 weeks using my set up, I could easlley post them, and you would think I was shooting UW pics for years!!

 

Learning the strobes is alittle tough, I tend to over exposure alittle, so I have to learn moving the dual strobes around for the best lighting.

 

I'm very happy with the " Live view " on the LCD, it has very little lag, nothing compared to the Olympus C-5050 and C-5060, or even the C-8080 for that matter, this camera shoots on the fly

 

Battery life is great, I have the live view set to 1 min, then it shuts off, and I just click a button, and it tunrs the camera right back on.

 

I'll have to post some pics, If I can figure out in Photoshop how to shrink the pixel's to fit them on the forms.

 

Thanks for asking, I could not be happier, It was a great choice, and I'm very happy with the set up !!

[fltekdiver 0]

Hi!

 

The 14-45mm zoom isn't the fastest lens available. That may cause problems to the AF in low light conditions. The camera seems to be set to focus priority meaning that the shutter will only release when the AF locked. To get a proper AF lock you need a certain diameter brightly lit and with high contrast. Else the AF won'T have a chance. Some objects (e.g. some kond of nudibranch tend to fool the AF even under good light conditions). Another possibillity is that you were to close to get a proper focus.

 

A dome alters the focus range of a lens. Infinite is, depending on the dome diameter at a distance of about 400 to 500 mm away. That means that the close focus ability of the lens is almost "used up" by focusing to infinity. You'd need a lens that is able to focus down to 120 or 140 mm to be able to do a decent close-up.

 

You should go for the 8mm FE lens which will perform absolutely great behind the 8" dome. It'll also be great for WA close-up shots and WA-macros. For "real" macro I recommend the 50mm macro lens (together with a matching flat port). Okay, it's a bit more expensive but it's definitely worth the money.

 

Helge ;-)=)

 

 

Thanks for the info!

 

You should go for the 8mm FE lens ?? Whicjh lens is that ?

 

The camera seems to be set to focus priority meaning that the shutter will only release when the AF locked.

 

You are correct, I read the whole manual this weekend, and Is there any reason why i wouldn't want to shut off the focus Priority?

 

Also, should in have the zoom set to Infinity like you said?

 

I use a 8" dome port right now, for all my pics, After spending 5k on a set up, I need to take a break for a few months before my wife kills, me, lol.

 

Thanks for your help!

 

 

Hello,

 

In the attached review you will see a number of images taken with the Olympus 14-42 mm zoom behind a flat port. I think in the case of this lens the flat port is the better choice for getting close. Further if you are going to use a focusing light for dark areas you will likely need one with more power than the lights on your strobes which are designed more to aim the beam than to aid auto focus.

 

http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/olympus-e-4...rwater-housing/

 

Phil Rudin

 

 

Thanks for your help Phil.

 

I'm looking into the flat port now, it looks like it's only $150.00 bucks, not that bad, and I'm looking up the Olympus 14-42 lens as well.

 

I'll probley Ebay my 14-45mm lens, and go with the 14-42mm lens, seems to be a good lens choice amoungest everyone.

 

I love your artical, great reading. I'm wondering if I shouldn't have went with the E-410, or E-510 , to get the 10mp, and newer camera, but I'm in my set up now !!

[Helge Suess 0]

Hi!

 

The 8mm FE I was referring to is the ZUIKO f3.5 8mm Fisheye that is an absolutely great lens for UW-Shooting. It has 180° field of view (diagonally) which means barrel distortion which lead to a quite natural look of the image in UW use (you wouldn't use the lens much for architectural imaging).

 

Shutting off focus priority only makes sense if you prefere an out-of-focus image to none (which could make sense under certain circumstances, like night shots, action, extreme macro situations where the AF wouldn't find a target to lock on, ...). In every-day use it doesn't make sense to switch it off.

 

I think you misunderstood what I said about infinity. A dome port under water is actually a lens. This, because there's a curved surface and three materials (water, glass, air) with a different refraction index. The optical system of the dome (depending on the spheric diameter of the glass) changes the behaviour of the whole lens. The main effect is, that it "moves" infinity towards you, depending on the dome diameter as close as about 300 to 500 mm. That means, that the lens has to be set to focus at a distance of 500 mm to be able to focus infinity. It has to be set even closer to focus on an object between you and optical infinity. In short, the range the lens got to foxus is squeezed. The nearest point to be able to focus on will therefore also "move". Some lens - dome combinations require a diopter to allow the lens to focus. This usually happens when the dome has a small diameter and the lens doesn't allow a close focus distance below 300 mm.

In your case the object you wanted to put the focus on could have been simply too close for the lens.

The 8" dome is a good choice (you wouldn't get a much larger dome for reasonable money). You should spend a bit more on the lens to get more out of the rig. That said, I'm not married ...

 

Helge ;-)=)

[Phil Rudin 456]

I agree with Helge, the Zuiko 8 mm F-3.5 fisheye lens gives a quite natural look when mated with the proper dome port. The image below is the 8 mm with a 220 mm optical glass dome at about 25 to 30 CM from the subject at F/6.3. It also costs about half as much as the superb Olympus Zuiko 7 to 14 mm zoom lens. The 8 mm lens can also be used with the 1.4X teleconverter it you need to add a little distance between the dome and subjuct. The 8 mm will focus from the front of the 220 mm glass dome to infinity without the teleconverter.

 

Phil Rudin

[fltekdiver 0]

Thank you both for the good information.

 

Every day is a learning process I see, and more and more to learn.

 

I print everyones responces, and save them, and go over them all to make good choices, at the time when needing the information.

 

I'm going to go with the 14-42mm lens for now, with a flat port also, and try that lens out, and use the flat port for close up's, and probley go with a focus light.

 

By next year, my goals are to by the 8mm lens, and the famous 7-14mm lens, so I'll have the glass, and as long as I stay in the Oly family, I should be ok, thanks again!!

[fltekdiver 0]

I'm about to buy the 14-42mm Olympus lens, but before I do, I was on Ikelites website, and it looks like when i bought the 8" dome port for the 14-45mm, it has a different part number then if I was to buy the 8" dome port for the 14-42mm.

 

I bought the dome part # 5510.45 and the #5510.24 Extended body

 

Will the 14-42mm Olympus lens fit in the port I have now?

 

I don't know why they sold me the 5510.24 extended body for the 14-45, looks like I could have went 1-2 sizes smaller.

 

Please help! Thanks

Edited August 21, 2007 by fltekdiver

[rtrski 20]

I'm about to buy the 14-42mm Olympus lens, but before I do, I was on Ikelites website, and it looks like when i bought the 8" dome port for the 14-45mm, it has a different part number then if I was to buy the 8" dome port for the 14-42mm.

 

I bought the dome part # 5510.45 and the #5510.24 Extended body

 

Will the 14-42mm Olympus lens fit in the port I have now?

 

I don't know why they sold me the 5510.24 extended body for the 14-45, looks like I could have went 1-2 sizes smaller.

 

Please help! Thanks

 

If you're spending money to replace the kit lens, I'm wondering why not go with the 14-54 to replace the 14-45, rather than the 14-42. The 42 is reportedly 'better' than the 45, but the 54 gets much better overall reviews (faster AF, wider aperture possible, sharper image, etc.) and gives you a bit more close-up range. It will also fit behind the same 8" port and extension as the 45 did (and presumably the 42 will also). Expert opinions please?

 

I bought the 14-54 - found one used on ebay for $315, vs. list of about $460, and found it to be in perfect condition (near as I can tell). I've been thinking about ebaying the 14-45 but then everyone and their brother seems to do that and I wouldn't get more than $120 or so - probably worth it to keep as a backup "just in case".

 

I too want the 7-14, but willl have to consider the 8mm as a cheaper alternative too.

[fltekdiver 0]

If you're spending money to replace the kit lens, I'm wondering why not go with theto replace the 14-45, rather than the 14-42. The 42 is reportedly 'better' than the 45, but the 54 gets much better overall reviews (faster AF, wider aperture possible, sharper image, etc.) and gives you a bit more close-up range. It will also fit behind the same 8" port and extension as the 45 did (and presumably the 42 will also). Expert opinions please?

 

I bought the 14-54 - found one used on ebay for $315, vs. list of about $460, and found it to be in perfect condition (near as I can tell). I've been thinking about ebaying the 14-45 but then everyone and their brother seems to do that and I wouldn't get more than $120 or so - probably worth it to keep as a backup "just in case".

 

I too want the 7-14, but willl have to consider the 8mm as a cheaper alternative too.

 

 

Ha, thanks buddy, I was just about to hit the " buy it now " on Ebay for the 14-42mm lens, theres one brand new for $135.00 bucks on there right now!!

 

Now you confused me more, lol, I didn't even know about the 14-54mm lens, I did see it , but nobody ever mentioned it, so I skiped over it.

 

Well, Now I'm looking up the 14-54 lens and see what the comparisions are.

 

Man, I should start a thread lisiting the best lens for Oly's are,, lol

 

 

Ok, So knowing my configuration, so i don't have to spend more money on adapters for the Dome port,

 

I'm thinking the 14-54mm lens 1st, the 14-42mm 2nd, and the 50mm macro somehwere in there also ?

 

keeping in mind and staying under $400.00 bucks for my first lens upgrade

 

Thanks rtrski, I think you brought up a valid point, the 14-54mm may be a better lens, for just alittle bit more

[fltekdiver 0]

It looks like to me, the lenght is close, dia is alittle larger, but

 

f2.8/3.5 aperture is a concern. The

14-42mm has a aperture of 5.6, for more general shooting ?

[Helge Suess 0]

Hi!

 

The 14-42 is the newer design. It has better optical quality than the 14-45 but hte 14-54 beats them both. The 14-42 is the optimal choice if you want a small setup. It's lightweight and has quite a good performance for a "set" lens. You should never forget that one of the design golas for a set lens is to make it as cheap as possible to allow a competitive price for the set. Optical quality usually is the second important factor in this calculation. Olympus did a good job in achieving lots of both requirements.

 

The 7-14mm is a great lens topside. The rectilinear projection is great for architecture and objects where straight lines should stay straight in the image. A side effect of rectilinear projection is that angles are projected unchanged while areas are distorted. The fisheye to the contrary projects angles distorted and areas unchanged. For UW usage, fisheye projection yields a more natural look. There are few straight lines UW and you wouldn't mind them being bent. Stretched areas look weird though. I've got both lenses, the 7-14mm and the 8mm FE and in my experience the 8mm FE is the better for UW usage.

A side effect of the FE projection is that it tolerates much more positioning errors in a dome. A WA lens is highly sensitive against a wrong position behind a dome and will show lack of corner sharpness and other image problems im that case.

 

Helge ;-)=)

[rtrski 20]

It looks like to me, the lenght is close, dia is alittle larger, but

 

f2.8/3.5 aperture is a concern. The

14-42mm has a aperture of 5.6, for more general shooting ?

 

The aperture listings above for the 14-54 are the MAXIMUM aperture: 2.8 at the 14 end (vs. 3.5 for the 14-42 at the 14 end) and 3.5 at the 54 end (vs. 5.6 at the 42 end of the 14-42). The lens minimum aperture is pretty small in both cases (like f22 or something?). So the 14-54 is a 'brighter' lens as it has a bigger maximum aperture it can open to....but don't worry, it can still do f5-8 just fine. In fact that's nearer the middle of it's range vs. at the 'very open end' where the lens performance would be falling off a bit due to the way they try to optimize the lens designs.

 

Granted you won't run it at maximum aperture that often due to depth-of-field reduction, and you'll be shooting with artificial light (strobes) so using a wider aperture to increase the shutter speed and maintain sharp focus isn't always a requirement. But since UW photo seems so much to be striking a balance between getting enough natural light at the longer ranges (unless you're after those black-background closeups) while the strobes assist you for the shorter ones, I have to believe it would be worth it to have the option, at least for wider angle shots.

 

And of course to complicate matters there's a 12-60 in the works, was supposed to be released 2007 but apparently they meant "before 2008". Once that comes out I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of 14-54's hit ebay as those who just "must" upgrade swap over.

 

Oh, and fltek: just to clarify, check Oly's site. The 14-42 (and older 14-45, no longer shown) and 40-150 are considered "standard" grade kit lenses, while the 14-54 is more toward their pro glass line (high grade, with 'super' high grade being lenses that cost way more than the camera body, instead of on par with...).

 

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/.../lens/index.asp

Edited August 21, 2007 by rtrski

[Phil Rudin 456]

If you decide on the 14 to 54 mm F/2.8-3.5, I have a like new (under a year old) one $385.00 plus shipping.

 

Phil Rudin

[fltekdiver 0]

If you decide on the 14 to 54 mm F/2.8-3.5, I have a like new (under a year old) one $385.00 plus shipping.

 

Phil Rudin

 

 

Thanks for everyones responces.

 

Phil, I think you sent me a link with the 14-54mm lens you had taken pics with UW ?

 

From your profesional background, out of the 14-42mm, or the 14-54mm, do you think it's worth the extra money for the 14-54mm , and is this a good choice for a all around lens, for shooting general pics UW?

 

I know it will be some time, to own the 14-54mm, 8mm fish eye, 50mm macro, etc, but I would like to invest now into a general lens, and in the future, picking lens that are made for the type of shooting I'd like to dio that day, like the 50mm for shooting marco all day, etc.

 

Or do you think I should go with the 14-42mm for now, and wait until the newer lens comes out like rtrski said.

 

 

The lens and cameras seem to change so fast, there like computers, you buy them and 6 months later, your system is worth 1/2 what you paid. I remeber last year we bought a $5,000 TV, 65" DLP projection, because the 60" Plasma's were $9,000.00 , and now you can get a good 60" Plasma TV for $4,000.00 !!

 

 

I hate to change the subject, but I'm hoping I made a good choice with the E-330.

 

I keep looking at the E410, and E-510, and wondering if i shouldn't have got the latest and greatest 10MP

[fltekdiver 0]

Hi!

 

The 14-42 is the newer design. It has better optical quality than the 14-45 but hte 14-54 beats them both. The 14-42 is the optimal choice if you want a small setup. It's lightweight and has quite a good performance for a "set" lens. You should never forget that one of the design golas for a set lens is to make it as cheap as possible to allow a competitive price for the set. Optical quality usually is the second important factor in this calculation. Olympus did a good job in achieving lots of both requirements.

 

The 7-14mm is a great lens topside. The rectilinear projection is great for architecture and objects where straight lines should stay straight in the image. A side effect of rectilinear projection is that angles are projected unchanged while areas are distorted. The fisheye to the contrary projects angles distorted and areas unchanged. For UW usage, fisheye projection yields a more natural look. There are few straight lines UW and you wouldn't mind them being bent. Stretched areas look weird though. I've got both lenses, the 7-14mm and the 8mm FE and in my experience the 8mm FE is the better for UW usage.

A side effect of the FE projection is that it tolerates much more positioning errors in a dome. A WA lens is highly sensitive against a wrong position behind a dome and will show lack of corner sharpness and other image problems im that case.

 

Helge ;-)=)

 

 

I see your point for sure with the lens. Rtrski had posted the link to olympus, i never thought of going on their site to look up the lens. It sounds like you get what you pay for with the lens.

 

The 14-54mm looks like a great middle lens choice, and I can do some close up shooting as well as a all around lens for UW pics. I'm shooting alot of people, divers, fish from about 3' away , to close up's as close as 8" to the lens, which I think is the reason i can't get the lens to focus on, becauase Its to close for the 14-45mm lens with the dome on it.

 

I'd like to get a flat port and 50mm lens in about 3 months for those shots.

 

Right now, I was going to spend $135.00 bucks for the 14-42mm lens and Ebay my 14-45mm lens, and get the faster focusing lens, but the 14-54mm might be worth the upgrade for a good middle lens choice.

 

I'm leaving next weekend for the Keys, and would like to decide in the next day or two at the most, because i'll be in the Keys for 4 days shooting UW pics, and would really like to have the lens I'm going to use as my primary lens for now for praticing with for my vaction.

 

I'm also going down to the Keys for a week over Thanksgiving break, so again I will get a full week of shooting pics.

 

This experinace has been wonderfull with the camera set up. I dove every weekend for the past month since reciving my camera. It has really brought a whole new meaning into diving for me, and realizing you don't have to be a tech diver to have fun, all though deep down I miss it

[Phil Rudin 456]

To answer your question, the 14-42 mm (new kit lens) is better than the 14-45 mm zoom. It is smaller, lighter and has better image quality. I also like the new Olympus PPO-E05 port for the 14-42 better. I have attached a lens review that shows it to be the best "kit" zoom in the range made by anyone.

 

The 14-54 mm is a higher quality lens in both build and optical quality, it is weather sealed, faster at F/2.8 but uses a larger and more expensive port.

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4383/...5-56-ed-af.html

 

Phil Rudin

Edited August 22, 2007 by tropical1

[rtrski 20]

Yes, but to my understanding he already has the Ike 8" dome, with appropriate extension to use the 14-54, because it's the same as the one for his current 14-45. The 14-42 on the other hand, while cheaper, may require a different 8" dome extension per Ikelite's website (the 5510.22 vs. the 5510.24 he's already got).

 

(I don't really understand your 'larger more expensive port' comment since he's using Ikelite, and the port selections - in 6" dome integrated or 8" dome with extender, are identical for the 14-45 and 14-54, but not for the 14-42, in both cases....is this perhaps with the Oly housing and port options?)

 

So if the cheaper lens + extension is near the price of the more expensive lens...I know I'd personally go with the better lens. Either way you can probably recoup about $100 or so selling the 14-45 on ebay.

 

 

[*Caveat: admittedly I'm still just talking through my ***, since I haven't even been subsurface with mine yet! ]

Edited August 22, 2007 by rtrski