Any Panasonic Lumix 7-14 Users?

[kris 0]

Hello All,

 

I am using an AG-AF100 and new to underwater video. Given

the fact that I have to use Lumix lenses to take advantage of

the automatic focus, zoom and iris, I am thinking about the

Panasonic Lumix 7-14 lens. In going over other posts, it seems

that a 7-14 is the most recommended for underwater shooting.

 

Any thoughts on this subject and/or stories from Lumix 7-14 users?

 

Thank you,

Kris

[EspenB 15]

You should opted for the DMC-GH2:

 

 

Lots of different lenses demoed by this you tube user.

[kris 0]

Thanks Espen,

 

It actually still is an option. I needed the AF100 for terrestrial shooting,

but I'm seeing that the GH2 is a great option for the underwater work.

 

I watched the youtube video you sent and it looks great. I do have 2

questions for you:

 

1. Would the shot be less shaky with a larger housing? (Specifically one made for an AF100)

2. Were you using a Lumix 7-14? If not, what lens and how do you run with full mechanical controls?

 

All the Best,

Kris

 

 

 

 

 

You should opted for the DMC-GH2:

 

 

Lots of different lenses demoed by this you tube user.

[Davide DB 494]

1. Would the shot be less shaky with a larger housing? (Specifically one made for an AF100)

2. Were you using a Lumix 7-14? If not, what lens and how do you run with full mechanical controls?

 

Hi Kris,

 

There are only two housings available for the GH2:

 

10Bar

 

Diveross

 

Nauticam

 

 

The latter, probably is the best: full alu body and depth rated to 100m. The Nauticam uses just Lumix lenses with different port. I emailed Nauticam and it's not possible at the moment to use mechanical lenses as the samyang or other cheap ones. Each port is specifically designed for a given lens. Maybe they are able to build some custom gear and port on request.

 

There is also the seatool housing but except the sheet on their web site I never saw a working housing or a shot online.

 

 

Bye

[JackConnick 76]

I shot the 7-14 in the Nauticam housing and I think it suffers for the same problem as many rectilinear lenses do; unsharp corners, particularly for CF/WA. It still shot pretty well for other types of shots, but you have to stop down to f/11 at least.

 

Personally, I think the 8mm FE is much better and sharper.

 

This was taken with the 7-14.

 

Jack

Edited October 13, 2011 by JackConnick

[Mamel 3]

I use 7-14mm with EPL-1 in 10bar w/ semidome port - indeed unsharp and soft edge at 7- 8 mm

here is example shot in good viz. 13-15m depth.

[vimeohd]29965696[/vimeohd]

[peterbucknell 3]

There's a bit of a conversation starting over at DVX user about the AF100 and its lenses for underwater:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?290462-Under-Water-Housings-for-the-AF100&highlight=equinox

 

I have one on order, so I'll let you all know how it behaves when Equinox finishes building the HD10 housing for us.

 

Pete Bucknell

http://www.how2scuba.com

[peterbucknell 3]

14-140 with a f4 stop will need some lighting eh? Good lighting.

What does everyone think of this lens for UW filming:

1. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/05/21/Panasonic-12-35mm-F2-8-fast-standard-zoom-for-micro-four-thirds
   

[HDVdiver 16]

I shot the 7-14 in the Nauticam housing and I think it suffers for the same problem as many rectilinear lenses do; unsharp corners, particularly for CF/WA. It still shot pretty well for other types of shots, but you have to stop down to f/11 at least.

 

Personally, I think the 8mm FE is much better and sharper.

 

This was taken with the 7-14.

 

Jack

 

I've used the 7-14mm for about two years underwater (first with hacked GH1 now with hacked GH2) for all my wide work and absolutely love this lens.

 

I was puzzled to recently read comments about it not being sharp since I've been very happy with my results. After a few comparative tests (converted Subal F4 housing+ Subal glass dome vs Nauticam GH2 + Nauticam dome port) I'm starting to think that it's uw optical performance depends considerably on the dome port used. It's MUCH better with a larger diameter dome port.

 

In fact now that I've become aware of the different performance I've delegated the Nauticam to macro work only.

[Davide DB 494]

I've used the 7-14mm for about two years underwater (first with hacked GH1 now with hacked GH2) for all my wide work and absolutely love this lens.

 

I was puzzled to recently read comments about it not being sharp since I've been very happy with my results. After a few comparative tests (converted Subal F4 housing+ Subal glass dome vs Nauticam GH2 + Nauticam dome port) I'm starting to think that it's uw optical performance depends considerably on the dome port used. It's MUCH better with a larger diameter dome port.

 

In fact now that I've become aware of the different performance I've delegated the Nauticam to macro work only.

 

Hi George,

 

On SB there is a thread in which they complain about being soft in a nauticam setup (gx1 + 6" dome). A user says that the lens is misplaced inside the port...

Here the thread:

 

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/panasonic-planet/413982-panasonic-7-14-mm-4.html

 

I linked page 4 where discussion became hot

[Davide DB 494]

I use 7-14mm with EPL-1 in 10bar w/ semidome port - indeed unsharp and soft edge at 7- 8 mm

 

Hi Mamel,

Actually form that shot is impossible to evalute the lens. You never stop panning and at 24/30p at that speed you get alot of blur just for the quick movement.

 

Bye

[syam 0]

I am eyeing the GH2 + Nauticam combo and have been looking at the 7-14mm vs 8mm options. The 8mm is great for shooting WA but coming from video sometimes I want to zoom in to get closer shots of something large like a broadclub cuttlefish, grouper, shark etc.

 

Can the 7-14mm do that satisfactorily? Do you have a sample of a large subject zoomed in at 14mm? What about using magic filter on the 7-14mm, can it be stuck to the lens?

 

Thanks

[Davide DB 494]

What about using magic filter on the 7-14mm, can it be stuck to the lens?

 

The lens doesn' accept front filters nor have a rear filter holder like the 8mm.

 

If you want to use magic filter you should find some home made soluton...

 

Bye

[davephdv 0]

I shoot this lens in a Nauticam with a GX1.

 

Seems sharp to me.

 

Maybe camera distance placement has been improved with the GX1?

[Davide DB 494]

I think that user barked up the wrong tree. He has a GX1.

Other people in that thread are saying that this lens and dome port combination is like other rectilinear lens with such a wide angle of view.

[HDVdiver 16]

Hi George,

 

On SB there is a thread in which they complain about being soft in a nauticam setup (gx1 + 6" dome). A user says that the lens is misplaced inside the port...

Here the thread:

 

http://www.scubaboar...-7-14-mm-4.html

 

I linked page 4 where discussion became hot

 

Thanks for pointing that out Davide...certainly very interesting reading!

[kun1 10]

Magic filter can be fixed to the rear of the lens. I attached it with some cellatape in June and it's still there now. Easy.

 

[Ryan 50]

I was puzzled to recently read comments about it not being sharp since I've been very happy with my results. After a few comparative tests (converted Subal F4 housing+ Subal glass dome vs Nauticam GH2 + Nauticam dome port) I'm starting to think that it's uw optical performance depends considerably on the dome port used. It's MUCH better with a larger diameter dome port.

 

It is probably useful to differentiate between soft corners and other optical aberrations.

 

George, if this statement is related to corner sharpness it is a curious one. DP-FE (and 2, 3, 4) is thicker and has a smaller radius of curvature than the acrylic optic Nauticam uses for the 7-14 port. Assuming the same placement, these factors would result in softer corners.

 

I think 7-14 can perform quite well if you are careful to shoot an f-stop of around f11. I like the lens for blue water subjects, but would choose a fisheye for most close focus wide angle on a reef.

 

Keep in mind that there are few (or no?) 35mm equivalent 14mm lenses that have a good reputation for underwater photography (except possibly Sigma 8-16 on DX). Zooming to 8 or 9mm makes a big difference if shooting more open f-stops with subjects in the corners.

[Davide DB 494]

Keep in mind that there are few (or no?) 35mm equivalent 14mm lenses that have a good reputation for underwater photography (except possibly Sigma 8-16 on DX). Zooming to 8 or 9mm makes a big difference if shooting more open f-stops with subjects in the corners.

always speaking of video here...

 

I'm looking for a less extreme lens for deep wreck diving. 8mm fisheye is wonderful to catch the whole ship and the dramatic atmosphere but is a pita on details or inner spaces where, to cover the entire aov, you have to place your lights with surgical precision. We have only two viable options: lumix 7-14 or oly 9-18.

I never saw a uw video shot with the latter.

Going narrow (84 degrees) there is the wonderful Oly 12mm f2 but maybe it's too narrow.

[HDVdiver 16]

It is probably useful to differentiate between soft corners and other optical aberrations.

 

George, if this statement is related to corner sharpness it is a curious one. DP-FE (and 2, 3, 4) is thicker and has a smaller radius of curvature than the acrylic optic Nauticam uses for the 7-14 port. Assuming the same placement, these factors would result in softer corners.

 

I think 7-14 can perform quite well if you are careful to shoot an f-stop of around f11. I like the lens for blue water subjects, but would choose a fisheye for most close focus wide angle on a reef.

 

Keep in mind that there are few (or no?) 35mm equivalent 14mm lenses that have a good reputation for underwater photography (except possibly Sigma 8-16 on DX). Zooming to 8 or 9mm makes a big difference if shooting more open f-stops with subjects in the corners.

 

 

Not so. The 7-14mm Nauticam dome is 6 inches...the Subal FE3 is an 8 inch dome.

 

I do remember reading a good pool test done by another Wetpixel member of the IQ resulting from larger domes vs smaller, aggressive curvature domes. The larger domes gave what to me seemed a better optical result. I've found the same in my own tests of the several types of Subal domes that I have...including a new very aggressive "compact fisheye" port (FE100) that I bought to try with my favourite UW lens, the old Minolta 7.5mm MD.

 

There are many optical/physical factors that operate...indeed interact...in complex ways as the diameter of the dome glass changes; i.e nodal placement, virtual image(s) proximity, peripheral distortions, etc.

 

As far as I'm concerned the bigger the dome's diameter the better the optical performance.

 

The merits or otherwise of the Nauticam domes is all a bit irrelevant to me now...I've sold my Nauticam GH2 housing in anticipation of the new GH3 which should be announced in a few days time. What little information there is about the GH3 suggests it should be a superb camera...even without a hack (i.e. H.264 @ 70 mbps I-frame out of the box). It will be weather sealed and have a larger pro quality body...hence will not fit the current Nauticam GH2 housing.

Edited September 7, 2012 by HDVdiver

[Nick Hope 151]

Going narrow (84 degrees) there is the wonderful Oly 12mm f2 but maybe it's too narrow.

All my "wide" HDV was shot with the Light & Motion 80 degree port. So if the numbers are correct, then 84 degrees would suit me fine for most wide video shots. But how about the Lumix 12-35 f2.8 at the wide end? Is there a port that would work with that lens and give us the option for zooming in as well?

[Davide DB 494]

It's a nice M43 lens. Very sharp and fast. Unfortunately, the constant aperture is not obtained by mech but is a sort of firmware and electric feature. So the aperture will "click" while zooming during video.

While is a common behaviour of all Pana and Oly constant aperture lens (actually also other brand) a lot of owner are asking to Panny to correct this bug with a firmware update. The AF is istantaneous under all conditions.

 

For the port I don't know. A proper port whould need some gear to act on focus or zoom and currently Nauticam doesn't have this port. The Oly 12mm f2 works perfectly in the 4.33" dome originally made for the 8mm fisheye. Moreover this lens is 76mm at 12mm and nearly 96mm at 35mm whiel the Oly 12mm is 56mm only.

 

Maybe the upcoming GH3 will have power zoom lever on body and then... Some rumours reports that this lens could be the kit lens for the upcoming GH3 which is water sealed as this lens.

 

Going OT... I came across this video shoving how fast is AF with a 12-35mm.

 

[vimeo]42750473[/vimeo]

Edited September 9, 2012 by Davide DB

[Ryan 50]

Not so. The 7-14mm Nauticam dome is 6 inches...the Subal FE3 is an 8 inch dome.

 

Actually is so. You have to differentiate the dimensions of the segment used from the dimensions of the sphere it was cut from. Subal FE domes have an external ROC of 200mm, and internal of 186. From memory this is cut down a bit, but that doesn't directly influence corner sharpness. The Nauticam dome is in fact larger, but I don't have exact measurements. It is also thinner, but I'm confirming how much.

 

I do remember reading a good pool test done by another Wetpixel member of the IQ resulting from larger domes vs smaller, aggressive curvature domes. The larger domes gave what to me seemed a better optical result. I've found the same in my own tests of the several types of Subal domes that I have...including a new very aggressive "compact fisheye" port (FE100) that I bought to try with my favourite UW lens, the old Minolta 7.5mm MD.

 

With rectilinear lenses, my experience shows that the greatest contributor to sharp corners is the domes size, but thickness is important enough not to be ignored.

 

There are many optical/physical factors that operate...indeed interact...in complex ways as the diameter of the dome glass changes; i.e nodal placement, virtual image(s) proximity, peripheral distortions, etc.

 

As far as I'm concerned the bigger the dome's diameter the better the optical performance.

 

True if comparing the same thickness in every case I've ever tested.

 

The merits or otherwise of the Nauticam domes is all a bit irrelevant to me now...I've sold my Nauticam GH2 housing in anticipation of the new GH3 which should be announced in a few days time. What little information there is about the GH3 suggests it should be a superb camera...even without a hack (i.e. H.264 @ 70 mbps I-frame out of the box). It will be weather sealed and have a larger pro quality body...hence will not fit the current Nauticam GH2 housing.

 

I'm quite excited for this camera as well.

[HDVdiver 16]

Actually is so. You have to differentiate the dimensions of the segment used from the dimensions of the sphere it was cut from.

 

The optical charateristics of the virtual image(s) is directly influenced by a) the diameter of the dome; and b) the location of the dome relative to the nodal point of the lens.

 

There is only one optimal nodal location for any give lens and dome curvature/radius combination. What section of the dome is in the FOV is irrelevant to the optimal positioning, based on the nodal point procedure. A direct corollary of this that the optimal positioning of the 7-14mm will be different in the Subal vs Nauticam ports...optically the Subal, being of larger diameter, will give better IQ in the peripheral area of the virtual image.

 

I really don't think the thickness of the domes is of sufficient difference to have much influence either way. Nor are the different RI's of the two materials.

Edited September 19, 2012 by HDVdiver

[davephdv 0]

True about the domes, but why did the Nikonos. 15 mm have the best wide angle optics ever? That lens has at most a 4 inch dome.