Second Thoughts !?!

[GoinDown 0]

Hi Gang,

 

OK, so I've been shooting with a Canon 20D in Ikelite for 3 years now and learning underwater photography all the way, I've had some good results too (IMO), I'm a hobbyist with aspirations.

 

But times have changed, tech has moved on and airline restrictions have started to play a major part. I've not been thrilled with the Ike housing, but it does the job. I intended to upgrade to a 5D Mk2, new body new lenses new housing etc, lots of expense. But with airline bagage limitations being placed on us travelling in the Euro zone (US baggage limits are great in comparison), it's getting more difficult to sort the kit packing to stay within weight limits and transporting to dive sites can also be a pain.

 

The 5D2 setup is going to weigh alot as will any full-size DSLR setup, so I think my priorities have changed to find a lighter setup (I don't think any compact camera will cut the same mustard, no pun intended Alex ), and hey presto Olympus produce the E-620 !

 

So the question is, what benefits will I lose or gain, from moving from a FF/cropped sensor flagship quality camera system to a perceived consumer system.

 

My research shows that the results from members using the Olympus cameras and lenses are equally as good as (and possibly better than) any other system, so what am I missing here?

 

I like the idea that Olympus provides lower weight, lower cost, reduced size, top lenses, glass ports, simpler setup, strobes that are lighter weight and fully TTL (individually adjustable, INON) if I want. Apart from lower noise/higher ISO and depth beyond 40m, why would I want to move to FF or even stay with cropped in a more expensive housing??

 

I usually like to shoot all types of UW scenery, landscape, close focus WA, wrecks, macro, pelagics, will the Olympus serve me well in these areas?

 

What about handling in the water, I find the Ike viewfinder awkward to use, I've heard lots about live view but no-one seems to like it because of focus and shutter lag, what is the Olympus viewfinder like on the PT series housings? Other manufacturers produce extended viewfinders that seem to do a good job.

 

Thanks for your thoughts?

 

Tim

Edited May 4, 2009 by GoinDown

[ce4jesus 1]

Hi Tim,

I think you just pop the top on a lively debate...haha. I'm an olympus user, here's my flickr photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/25230308@N07/ done with the Olympus E410.

 

I've never owned anything but Olympus DSLR's starting with the E500, E410, E510 and now the E520. I'm probably going to stick with the E520. I've enjoyed them all but none of those cameras were designed to compete with the 5D and neither would the E620. Don't get me wrong, they're nice cameras and are highly dependent on the great glass in front of them as well as the person behind them. I'm an enthusiast who enjoys both topside and underwater shooting and haven't found a reason to change from Olympus.

The cropped sensor, 2X, makes filling the frame a little easier on Macro with a 50mm lens. The 7-14mm is a professional piece of glass that gives excellent corner sharpness on WA shots. I think what you lose is dynamic range due to pixel density. This is also the reason that makes ISO 1600 with my E520 (not seen the results with the E620 but heard they're similar to the E30) impossible to shoot. However the cheap, well layed out housing and port system is nice. The compact nature, ultralight system makes packing and using very easy. The new 9-18 WA zoom has a 4" dome port...I'm still waiting to get the port so no photos yet. You also might email wetpixel's tropical1 as he is an expert on the Olympus system and has done several writes ups. Now, I'll sit back, open a bag of popcorn and read all the responses!

[james 0]

I don't think there is much difference either way frankly.

 

On the "size front" while the Oly setup will weigh less, I don't think the overall size and weight difference is a quantum different - either one will be big enough that they will be in the same league for travel. If you can get the Oly housing + dome + 2 strobes and arms/cables through the check-in agent, you can get the Canon setup through too.

 

With that said, I've gotten my whole Seacam MkIII setup into a carry-on backpack and through a few different airlines...

 

On the quality differences, for underwater use you won't really be able to distinguish between the results from either camera. The Canon will beat the Oly in the odd extreme conditions, but it's not that big a difference that you would call the Oly's images "unacceptable."

 

So get the cheaper one I guess :-)

 

Cheers

James

[stever 0]

underwater, is the Oly really going to have any better image quality than the 20D (which is what i'm using)

 

topside the 5D2 is in a completely different league

[gobiodon 62]

Why don't you just stay with your canon 20D? I don't see any quality benefit from switching to olympus. You won't gain much on the size either.

 

I'm waiting for the u4/3 offer of olympus. It could be a considerable change regarding size without much compromise on quality.

[GoinDown 0]

Thanks for your contributions, it may seem I was having a moment of gear lust and that I should sit and wait for developments whilst still using my 20D.

 

The micro 4/3 format is developing with some nice features, but it's early days and even earlier days for someone to produce a housing for the G1/GH1, I wonder what Oly will produce later this year. Real time focusing in live view will be a top feature for sure, I'm really beginning to not like my Ikelite viewfinder now!

[onewolf 2]

Thanks for your contributions, it may seem I was having a moment of gear lust and that I should sit and wait for developments whilst still using my 20D.

 

The micro 4/3 format is developing with some nice features, but it's early days and even earlier days for someone to produce a housing for the G1/GH1, I wonder what Oly will produce later this year. Real time focusing in live view will be a top feature for sure, I'm really beginning to not like my Ikelite viewfinder now!

 

I'm currently trying to decide which SLR system I want to go with for UW photography. I had my option list down to using my current Canon 50D for UW as well as above water or going with the Olympus E620/PT-E06 system. The Olympus E620/PT-E06 system was looking VERY promising however I will probably be shooting macro 80% of the time and the PT-E0X housings do not support the 45 degree viewfinder so I scratched it off my list.

 

I recently added the new Canon 500D/RDX450D to my list of potential options, however it will also be dropped if the Sea&Sea RDX housing does not support the 45 degree viewfinder. I find the new 500D body interesting because it _should_ fit in 450D housings and it adds support for video (1080P 20fps, 720P 30fps).

[GoinDown 0]

I recently added the new Canon 500D/RDX450D to my list of potential options, however it will also be dropped if the Sea&Sea RDX housing does not support the 45 degree viewfinder. I find the new 500D body interesting because it _should_ fit in 450D housings and it adds support for video (1080P 20fps, 720P 30fps).

 

It's a good point about the viewfinder - as well as macro, I like to make WA close-focus shots from a low aspect, in 80% of cases I find it impossible to get low enough to look through a straight viewfinder so use the shoot and view technique which is mostly hit and miss. It would be nice to compose these kinds of shots using an angled viewfinder (back to expensive, heavy housings and optics again)

 

A consideration with the 500D - does it have realtime autofocus in video mode ? I know that the 5D2 has issues with this, the AF is very slow, there are also rolling shutter artefacts with the 5D2 in 1080p mode (not sure about 720p) and no manual aperture control unless lenses are fiddled with. But there are rumours that the 5D2 will get a feature update for full manual video later this year (but it's only a rumour)

 

The Panasonic u4/3 GH1 has real time (and fast) AF in video mode and runs 1080p (24fps) and 720p (60fps) so more like a HD digicam in 720p, also outputs AVHCD files that are easier to handle in software than the Canon .mov files !

 

Choices just don't get any easier

 

I thought about the 5D2 because of the video aspect, topside many people have produced quality video shoots, but underwater I'm not sure how this would work with fast moving animals and AF, I think it just won't work! I've only seen one UW video from the 5D2 so far and that was of Red Sea reef scenes, so hardly a challenge for the AF once set. As a stills camera it's quality is in no doubt, but the 500D is sure to be a stills hit also (and a lot cheaper). Does anyone have any 5D2 UW video showing AF in action? Or any UW video at all ???

Edited May 5, 2009 by GoinDown

[ce4jesus 1]

The Olympus E620/PT-E06 system was looking VERY promising however I will probably be shooting macro 80% of the time and the PT-E0X housings do not support the 45 degree viewfinder so I scratched it off my list.

Ikelite also usually makes housings for Oly cameras...don't know if they support what you're looking for. All of the micro 4/3 stuff will probably have zero shutter delay due to no mirror and an EVF instead of an OVF.

[Phil Rudin 462]

I think the issue here is your price range. To compare housing an E-620 in an Olympus housing v. the Canon 5D or even the 450D in a Sea & Sea housing is not apples to apples.

 

Adding an after market modified Inon 45 degree finder cost is about $1000.00. I don't think that most venders are going to have a lot of requests for a $1000. finder for a $1000.00 housing. The Iklite modification for the Inon 45 finder clamps to the pickup finder, the same could be done for the Olympus finder if the market was large enough but the cost would still be in the $1000.00 range.

 

Image quality wise I don't think most divers ( the ones doing 50 or less photo dives a year) will see a big difference in any of these cameras ( including the 20D) unless they are making very large prints.

 

Phil Rudin

 

http://www.sfups.org/Galleries/PhilRudin/index.html

[ardy01 0]

There are some fundamental issues here that are being glossed over a bit.

 

One point Phil has mentioned and that is $$'s and the other is weight. I have recently moved from an Aquatica housing with Nikon F4, 105&60 macro and 20mm lenses, to an Olympus in Oly housing and I can tell you the weight issue is significant maybe half or less. The money compared to buying an almost obsolete D80 and a housing was 40% less and would have still weighed 50% more. The weight is not just about travelling, although that was my prime reason, it is about carrying it all day and being on a dive boat getting knocked around in a reasonable sea.

 

The results so far have been outstanding. I do a lot of macro work as does Gary (above) and I have never found it a huge issue. Sure a 45 viewfinder would be nice but there are many award winning macro shots that have been taken without one.

 

From my POV I am very happy with my decision and even if the money wasnt an issue I think I would still buy the same.

 

If I could get top results from a point and shoot I would use that but that aint going to happen. If you are in, or have ambitions to be in, the top 10% of UW photographers WW then the small issues make a difference but for the other 90% of us there is zero impact.

 

Have a look at Garys site his shots are in my POV as good as most here. It is really about the output and any top flight professional is going to make better shots with a point and shoot than we could with a FF and all the toys.

[GoinDown 0]

There are some fundamental issues here that are being glossed over a bit.

 

One point Phil has mentioned and that is s and the other is weight. I have recently moved from an Aquatica housing with Nikon F4, 105&60 macro and 20mm lenses, to an Olympus in Oly housing and I can tell you the weight issue is significant maybe half or less. The money compared to buying an almost obsolete D80 and a housing was 40% less and would have still weighed 50% more. The weight is not just about travelling, although that was my prime reason, it is about carrying it all day and being on a dive boat getting knocked around in a reasonable sea.

 

The results so far have been outstanding. I do a lot of macro work as does Gary (above) and I have never found it a huge issue. Sure a 45 viewfinder would be nice but there are many award winning macro shots that have been taken without one.

 

From my POV I am very happy with my decision and even if the money wasnt an issue I think I would still buy the same.

 

If I could get top results from a point and shoot I would use that but that aint going to happen. If you are in, or have ambitions to be in, the top 10% of UW photographers WW then the small issues make a difference but for the other 90% of us there is zero impact.

 

Have a look at Garys site his shots are in my POV as good as most here. It is really about the output and any top flight professional is going to make better shots with a point and shoot than we could with a FF and all the toys.

 

I agree with the above observation that spending $£$£$£ will not necessarily equate to better images for 90% of us non-pro photographers. If you don't have the money then the choice is more limited anyway. It's usually the unmeasurable things that matter (aside from the image results) such as handling, servicing, storage on a bouncing rib, use in temperate waters with thick gloves, robustness, repairing in the field, packing, viewfinder, controls, port selection, upgradeability, strobe choice, TTL etc etc (I'm not sure if some of these are small considerations!)

 

From my observations so far with the Oly setup, I have seen fantastic macro work from almost everyone that owns one, the question of quality of lenses and strobes and handling for macro work is not in doubt. I would like to see more WA work, close-focus and landscape/wrecks to get a feel for the quality here, especially ambient light work, does anyone have any links ??

 

There is a universal 45 degree viewfinder available for around EUR600, which would seem to be a reasonably priced accessory for the lower cost housings (it looks like an INON copy), it's a universal fit so therefore could be used on future housings making better use of the investment.

[AndyK 0]

the other is weight.

That's a really big deal for me. I don't like checking my camera gear (or laptop), so a polycarbonate housing is a big part of my not (too blatantly) exceeding my 5kg carry-on allowance (I've got an Oly E-520 now).

 

Another factor in the whole £$ thing is the market life of the camera - which may now be less than a year after the housing becomes available.

I'm sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but I see myself as having committed to the lenses and ports, rather than the camera body. So when the camera dies (as my E-410 did last year), the lenses will hopefully find a new "home" (which will hopefully be compatible with the ports, strobes, ironmongery etc.) - but I know that I may not be able to find a new camera to fit the old housing (I'm trying to buy a spare body or two before the E-520's discontinued).

But, when the time comes, replacing an £800 housing will be less painful than replacing one that cost twice the price.

 

Cheers,

Edited May 17, 2009 by AndyK

[craig 0]

One point Phil has mentioned and that is $$'s and the other is weight. I have recently moved from an Aquatica housing with Nikon F4, 105&60 macro and 20mm lenses, to an Olympus in Oly housing and I can tell you the weight issue is significant maybe half or less.

So? What does an Aquatica F4 setup have to do with anything?

 

The money compared to buying an almost obsolete D80 and a housing was 40% less and would have still weighed 50% more. The weight is not just about travelling, although that was my prime reason, it is about carrying it all day and being on a dive boat getting knocked around in a reasonable sea.

I'd like to see proof of that. There's no way that the travel weight of an entire D80 setup would be 50% more than an entire Oly setup.

 

Since when does anyone carry a camera rig all day? Since when does weight have any effect on a camera getting "knocked around in a reasonable sea"?

 

The results so far have been outstanding. I do a lot of macro work as does Gary (above) and I have never found it a huge issue. Sure a 45 viewfinder would be nice but there are many award winning macro shots that have been taken without one.

Again, so...?

 

If I could get top results from a point and shoot I would use that but that aint going to happen. If you are in, or have ambitions to be in, the top 10% of UW photographers WW then the small issues make a difference but for the other 90% of us there is zero impact.

It is nonsense to suggest that you have to be among the elite UW photographers to appreciate the difference in camera gear. If that were the case, who decided that the 4/3 system was the right threshold?

 

Have a look at Garys site his shots are in my POV as good as most here. It is really about the output and any top flight professional is going to make better shots with a point and shoot than we could with a FF and all the toys.

Again, so? Should all but "top flight professionals" just give up?

[TheRealDrew 0]

I'd like to see proof of that. There's no way that the travel weight of an entire D80 setup would be 50% more than an entire Oly setup.

 

 

 

The Oly 620 weighs 16.8 ounces, while the D80 was 20.8 ounces. The Oly housing for the 620 is said to be 5 lbs, while the Aquatica is 6 lbs. for the D80. So the Oly comes in a tad over 6 lbs, while the the D80/Aquatica is just over 7 lbs. (Excluding, lens, handles, ports, figure strobes will work at to be a wash ) (The Ikes for the Oly dSLRs was spec at 7 lbs with handles) Not sure of the relative footprints, but the newer Aquatica housings, such as for the D90, are fairly small. Coupled with a 6 inch dome and looks pretty portable to me. Ultimately it comes down (at least to me) a bit more of cost when looking at these things, and I prefer the aluminum housings myself.

 

The one housing combo that really was cool in terms of size/weight was the first SeaTool, the weight and size (coupled with the lower weight of the Rebel compared to 30D) did seem to be a good drop and it also had fiber optic connection.

 

Figure I will just get a MacBook Air at some point and drop two pounds there on the laptop side of things

[ce4jesus 1]

(ardy01 @ May 7 2009, 05:48 PM)

One point Phil has mentioned and that is $$'s and the other is weight. I have recently moved from an Aquatica housing with Nikon F4, 105&60 macro and 20mm lenses, to an Olympus in Oly housing and I can tell you the weight issue is significant maybe half or less.

So? What does an Aquatica F4 setup have to do with anything?

 

I believe he was using the F4 as a reference for weight.

 

(ardy01 @ May 7 2009, 05:48 PM)

The money compared to buying an almost obsolete D80 and a housing was 40% less and would have still weighed 50% more. The weight is not just about travelling, although that was my prime reason, it is about carrying it all day and being on a dive boat getting knocked around in a reasonable sea.

 

I'd like to see proof of that. There's no way that the travel weight of an entire D80 setup would be 50% more than an entire Oly setup.

 

Since when does anyone carry a camera rig all day? Since when does weight have any effect on a camera getting "knocked around in a reasonable sea"?

 

The camera body of the E620 alone weighs 1/3 less than the Nikon. 4/3 lenses are smaller and generally weigh less than Nikon. The Olympus housing is very light and is lighter than the ikelite. The new 9-18mm lens has a 100mm port from Athena which is considerably lighter and smaller than any WA Dome port made. Given all of this, 50% is a reasonable estimate when considering the entire rig. I suppose for the younger generation lugging a camera with dual strobes back and forth to the boat 3 times a day is no big deal but there are folks who have arthritis and other issues where a lighter rig is a distinct advantage.

 

If I could get top results from a point and shoot I would use that but that aint going to happen. If you are in, or have ambitions to be in, the top 10% of UW photographers WW then the small issues make a difference but for the other 90% of us there is zero impact.

 

It is nonsense to suggest that you have to be among the elite UW photographers to appreciate the difference in camera gear. If that were the case, who decided that the 4/3 system was the right threshold?

 

I suggest you read it again. He never stated you had to be a pro to enjoy differences in camera gear. He's merely stating a fact that some professionals on here need some of the more advanced options while the majority of the rest of us do not. The person asked if the E620 would be a viable option if weight were a consideration. The answer to that question is yes. When the 4/3 micro comes out it might obsolete the current 4/3 system as the lightest DSLR rig in the world.

 

Again, so? Should all but "top flight professionals" just give up?

Craig, Maybe you are in this group

If you are in, or have ambitions to be in, the top 10% of UW photographers WW then the small issues make a difference

 

Overall, I think you're being too hard on the post.

[Drew 0]

I do think research is paramount in making decisions.

The Ikelite housing size is averaged out as it's a single poly unit that fits certain size dslr with the only adjustment being the tray size to make sure the lens is centered. A complete Oly E30 housing without port weighs 3.24 kg or 7.15 lbs.

An equivalent aluminum housing like the Aquatica for the 5D2 is 2.9kg/6.4lbs.

The differences are not that significant and the 5-7kg limit on hand luggage will be breached significant with any complete DSLR kit (strobes, arms, ports, camera etc).

 

With regards to AF in liveview, the issue is a bit more complicated. Quick and responsive AF in liveview is good for stills, but in video, AF may jump when you least expect it to and ruin the clip. That's why pros don't use AF for video.

About rolling shutter effect on video, ALL CMOS sensors show these effects, it is part of the design of the sensor and it doesn't matter what brand or resolution. If it's CMOS, it'll show up. Obviously the processor can lessen the effects but DSLR video is not processed on a powerful dedicated video processor.

[ardy01 0]

Craig

 

I still have all my nikon lenses and was planning to use them. The 105macro weighs 590 grams and my Olympus 40-150 (largest lens) weighs 260 grams. Then there are weight of ports and the housing.

 

But I guess I didnt wander around weighing everything prior to making my decision. A mate has a D70 in a Ike housing that he wanted to sell and it weighed approx 50% more with my 105 in it than the Olympus does and I assumed the D80 might weigh a bit less but not enough to change the weight issue for me.

 

It is obvious from your post that you dont do day dives on small boats for 50 mins in 1.5m swells with nowhere to safely store your camera as I do, or you wouldnt pooh pooh this point. Maybe you are spoiled?

 

Also maybe you have enough money not to give 'a' how much it all costs?

 

The final result that I wanted was a digital SLR that was light, well made with excellent results and didnt break my, more meager than yours, bank.

 

This camera has delivered on all these fronts.

 

Your other more pedantic points I have answered to your agressive mail.

[ardy01 0]

So? What does an Aquatica F4 setup have to do with anything?

 

It weighs a lot and was a bugger to get on a plane. I suggest you use your imagination when replying to points.

 

 

I'd like to see proof of that. There's no way that the travel weight of an entire D80 setup would be 50% more than an entire Oly setup.

 

See my other mail.

 

Since when does anyone carry a camera rig all day? Since when does weight have any effect on a camera getting "knocked around in a reasonable sea"?

 

See my other mail.

 

 

Again, so...?

 

 

It is nonsense to suggest that you have to be among the elite UW photographers to appreciate the difference in camera gear. If that were the case, who decided that the 4/3 system was the right threshold?

 

Nobody! and what has your statement got to do with anything? It is about results and what suits you not a bloody threshold for christ sake.

 

 

Again, so? Should all but "top flight professionals" just give up?

 

No, they should use what suits them and for me and many like me the Olympus suits my requirements, pocket and results I am looking for.

[ardy01 0]

Just one point I forgot to mention. I would not have bought an Ike set up as I dont like them, so the weight issue would go up buying an aluminium housing.

 

This and the results I saw on the web taken with the Olympus proved to me that it offered everything I needed.

[Drew 0]

Discarding price, image quality and the camera/lenses weight differences, the housings are not that much different in weight. The PTE06 is 5lbs without arms. The PTBK-E02 arms bracket is about 1kg... which brings it right back up to 7lbs again. Arms and strobes are the same for any setup (except one has to look for optical strobes only vs sync cord capable housings).

Looking at the dimensions of the housing : PT-E05= 212.5 x 170.5 x 147 mm vs the aquatica 5D2 230m x 195mm x 145mm. Again not much savings against a camera which is bigger and heavier. An aquatica D90 housing (which is closer in performance class) is 216 x x 171.5 x 133 mm and weighs 6.25lbs/2.85kg with grip. That's aluminum vs the "lighter" poly construct.

The weight savings is only significant on the camera and lenses. A few hundred grams on the camera and whatever lenses, I'd say you'd save about 2-2.5 lbs or about 1kg if you have a many lenses and 2 bodies. I absolutely agree every bit of weight counts in these times but there isn't such a significant savings in the magnitude of 30-50% overall.

I'm not advocating either systems as people have to choose what works for their budget/needs/whims. I just want to reiterate that research is crucial in making the right choice. I spent 2 mins in Google to find that info and 7 mins to write this down. That's more than I should've really

[ardy01 0]

Drew I think you are right in terms of the housings Oly v Ike and it seems to me the difference must be port, lenses, camera but my main thoughts wasnt about the Ike as I had discounted it fairly early on it was mainly v an aluminium housing. I also didnt include strobes.

 

I have just put my housing, camera +14-42 + PT-E03 port basically everything except the strobes on my bathroom scales 2.9kg or 6.4 lbs and I am sure that the Ike and D70 with port and 105 macro weighed over 4kgs.

 

There is nowhere to hide in terms of obsolecents in the digital market and that is one of the reasons I decided not to spend 5k on a system the other being my mean nature and my self funded retirement plan.

 

I also didnt want to drop down the quality slope as I have enjoyed my film years with a Nikon and Aquatica, the total $ with lenses cost me a fortune at the time. I didnt want to make that kind of investment again for what is essentially a hobby.

[GoinDown 0]

Discarding price, image quality and the camera/lenses weight differences, the housings are not that much different in weight. The PTE06 is 5lbs without arms. The PTBK-E02 arms bracket is about 1kg... which brings it right back up to 7lbs again. Arms and strobes are the same for any setup (except one has to look for optical strobes only vs sync cord capable housings).

Looking at the dimensions of the housing : PT-E05= 212.5 x 170.5 x 147 mm vs the aquatica 5D2 230m x 195mm x 145mm. Again not much savings against a camera which is bigger and heavier. An aquatica D90 housing (which is closer in performance class) is 216 x x 171.5 x 133 mm and weighs 6.25lbs/2.85kg with grip. That's aluminum vs the "lighter" poly construct.

The weight savings is only significant on the camera and lenses. A few hundred grams on the camera and whatever lenses, I'd say you'd save about 2-2.5 lbs or about 1kg if you have a many lenses and 2 bodies. I absolutely agree every bit of weight counts in these times but there isn't such a significant savings in the magnitude of 30-50% overall.

I'm not advocating either systems as people have to choose what works for their budget/needs/whims. I just want to reiterate that research is crucial in making the right choice. I spent 2 mins in Google to find that info and 7 mins to write this down. That's more than I should've really

 

Drew,

 

Thanks for putting in the effort

 

As for the OP, I was comparing the 5D2 with the E620, mainly looking for opinions on weight and size and quality. I did my own comparison of the weight of the bodies and standard set of 3 underwater lenses, the 5D2 came out 1.5Kg heavier, 5D2 was 5Kg overall, Oly 3.5Kg, this is excluding the housing and other bits. Depending on the housing the weight saving may be insignificant, eg the lightest housing I can find for the 5D2 is the UK-Germany at 2Kg (priced about the same as Aquatica and Hugyfot), then there are glass vs acrylic ports which will change the weight, plus strobe choice etc !!!

 

The E620 is appealing for its small size and relatively cheap to purchase setup, however if micro 2/3 takes off later this year, it's possible, but not definate, that it will be superceded, it really depends on what Oly decide to bring to market (with a housing ???). The one major downside to the Oly housings is that they are only rated to 40m (what is their true depth??) and I've been on a few 'recreational' dives that have briefly dropped below 40m before getting shallower.

 

I think the 5D2 has 3-5 years of life before seriously considering an upgrade, whereas the Oly cameras probably 'demand' a shorter upgrade cycle before being considered obsolete (e400,410,420,510,520 in the space of 3 years !!!!) would that be enough life out of a substantial investment for a non-pro?? Depends how you value your hobby suppose !

 

So the debate and research continues.

 

Tim.

[james 0]

What a great thread! I'm glad that there has been so much factual info posted as it clears up a lot of misconceptions. Thanks for doing the research Drew.

 

In my opinion, what I think it comes down to is that you can't just consider the weight and cost of the camera - as you are buying into a SYSTEM. Looking at the comparisons, an aluminum housed Nikon vs the Oly+Oly housing was only a one pound difference. That's just not significant really. The size of the camera and lenses isn't relevant either as you'll be interfacing w/ them through the housing.

 

Comparing the 5DII to the Oly there is a bit more difference, but in return there is a LOT more you get back in features from the Canon because it's a "pro" type camera w/ HD video capability and extremely good low light performance.

 

Cheers

James

[craig 0]

The camera body of the E620 alone weighs 1/3 less than the Nikon. 4/3 lenses are smaller and generally weigh less than Nikon. The Olympus housing is very light and is lighter than the ikelite. The new 9-18mm lens has a 100mm port from Athena which is considerably lighter and smaller than any WA Dome port made. Given all of this, 50% is a reasonable estimate when considering the entire rig. I suppose for the younger generation lugging a camera with dual strobes back and forth to the boat 3 times a day is no big deal but there are folks who have arthritis and other issues where a lighter rig is a distinct advantage.

No, it's not a reasonable estimate and there's no reason to pull something like that out of thin air. Moving a camera back and forth 3 times a day isn't the same as carrying it around all day and it's irrelevant when weight differences are made up anyway. If someone suffers from a disability that significantly limits their diving, should they be using a DLSR instead of something radically smaller?

 

I suggest you read it again. He never stated you had to be a pro to enjoy differences in camera gear. He's merely stating a fact that some professionals on here need some of the more advanced options while the majority of the rest of us do not. The person asked if the E620 would be a viable option if weight were a consideration. The answer to that question is yes. When the 4/3 micro comes out it might obsolete the current 4/3 system as the lightest DSLR rig in the world.

No, I got it right. He didn't talk about enjoyment, he said the differences would have zero impact.

 

Technically, micro 4/3 is not a DSLR. It is more of a conventional digicam with interchangable lenses.

 

Overall, I think you're being too hard on the post.

I don't think so. All these vague arguments could also be made on behalf of a Canon G9 being preferable to any DSLR rig. All you have to say is that the advantages of a DSLR are meaningless and the advantages of the G9 are important. If you make up some facts it gets even easier but no more compelling.