Olympus OM-D E-M5

[Kenr 2]

Great topic. I spent a couple of hours reading through all of the posts in this topic. BTW the photos presented here are great, I especially enjoyed Connie's photos, fantastic lighting and hdr. I'm off today to check out OMD before I buy it. I would be upgrading from a LX5, the OMD looks like a lighter and less expensive alternative to a SLR without giving up too much.

 

I have a trip scheduled for this coming April and don't know if I want to get the 12-50 and get the 60mm and a fisheye (or wide lens) or just get the 12-50 with the super deluxe port. Ultimately it would be nice to get a dedicated macro and wide lens, however it might be too much overload to get familiar with 3 lenses on a single 36 dive trip.

 

I am interested in some super macro. I don't think there are problems with the 12-50 and a step down adapter to my inon 67mm diopter (ucl 165), I'm not positive. I also have the UWL-100 wide conversion lens type 2. Do you think I would get any benefit from using it? I would have to step down from 77mm to 67mm and I read here that there is already a little vignetiting with the 77mm port. Maybe I could zoom to 14mm and still get a wider field of view? Am a little ignorant on these matters..

 

lastly Girelle, we might have meet in Bohal, June 2011. I was diving with an LX5 and diving with Seaquest. If that's you hi .

 

thanks

 

Ken

Edited January 10, 2013 by Kenr

[troporobo 252]

I'm using a 77 --> 67 step down ring on my 12-50 port and it works fine. If you're using it for a macro diopter it doesn't matter as the lens will be at 43 anyway so no danger of vignetting. I have not tried it with a wide angle conversion

Edited January 10, 2013 by troporobo

[Kenr 2]

I'm using a 77 --> 67 step down ring on my 12-15 port and it works fine. If you're using it for a macro diopter it doesn't matter as the lens will be at 43 anyway so no danger of vignetting. I have not tried it with a wide angle conversion

 

I thought the 67 diopter would be ok, thanks for the confirmation. i just sold my LX5 housing and don't know if i should sell my 67 WA, it may be of little use with the OM-D

[guyharrisonphoto 21]

I would start with the 12-50 and deluxe port/gear. This gives you very good macro right from the start, and semi-wide through longer capability.. It is an incredibly versatile set-up and probably would be all you need for your first trip. You can use the diopter to get even higher magnification at low cost. You can see from my posts just how much "true macro" this lens will give you even without a diopter.

 

With that in hand, rather than buy the 60mm, spend a little more for a wide set-up like the 9-18 or 7-14 in their respective domes. You then have covered 90% of shooting.

 

Later, if you decide that you are addicted to super macro, you can then add the 60mm which fits in the 12-50 port perfectly, gives double the magnification and even more with the diopter.

[deepbluemd 9]

Just to play devils advocate, or at least offer an alternative view, I think the 12-50 one-size-fits-all solution needs a little deeper consideration. In all honesty, I'm a little puzzled by the support it has received on this forum. It may be a great option for some, but may not be what others are looking for. At the very least, I think potential buyers should do their homework, and consider their own underwater photography background and interests. After reading all the reviews I could find about the 12-50, I wasn't even sure I wanted to buy it but it was offered with the camera body at a decent price and I thought it would be nice to have topside and I was curious about it for UWP. Here was my hesitation: the professional photographers and review sites that have carefully addressed the lens properties have been largely unimpressed with the 12-50 (see reviews by Thom Hogan, Ming Thein, Lenstip, pekkapotka, etc). The lens has been described as having "average image quality, awful distortion, and lacking in microcontrast". Its been called the "jack of all trades master of none", and described as a "swiss army knife- handy, but ultimately does not distinguish itself at any one task". Potka and Hogan have both said that the lens is better suited to video than still photography. While there have been other reviews of the "oh its not that bad" variety (Steve Huffington etc), its still not a lens that has garnered lavish praise from the professional MFT community, say the way the Olympus 60mm Macro has. My own impressions, from my own shots and the ones I've seen posted, are that the the prime lenses (8mm, 60mm, 45mm) offer better image quality. So while the 12-50 probably offers the greatest zoom flexibility, and the Nauticam port probably enables the lens the best, it still won't be my first choice if I'm aiming for top image quality from the EM5 system. Buyers should also recognize that the Nauticam port is one of the most expensive non-dome ports available and is also the only port/gear I know of that requires a detailed set of instructions on the mechanism assembly which involves the installation of 12 tiny screws to complete. This may prove cumbersome if you decide to end diving for the day and shoot the 12-50 topside and removal and replacement of the mechanism becomes a non-trivial decision. Also, shooting at 12 mm wide in a flat port won't be ideal if your goal is true WA images, and 50 mm macro (even with 2x crop factor) doesn't really feel macro enough compared to what I've been used to shooting (nikon 105 +/ - a 10+diopter) . Having performed my own careful comparisons in the swimming pool (shooting a silly orange & green toy), as well as topside comparisons, I'm not totally disatisfied with the 12-50 performance on the EM5. In fact, given the reviews, it was better than I was expecting. But after pixel peeping in Lightroom and examining image quality comparison to my other two lenses, I still would rate the image quality higher from the 8mm fisheye and the 60 macro lenses.

 

An UW photographer's setup is a deeply personal choice, and should reflect one's diving interests, photography knowledge and skill, and at least for most people, financial considerations. (I've yet to read a post where somebody said, "money is no object, what should I buy?") For me when starting out in UWP, I shot digital compact cameras (G9&11) so I understand the appeal of zoom capability on a single dive. But as time has gone on, and I've taken on DSLR gear, I find myself diving more frequently in locations that favor a single type of UW photography. For example, I spent a month in Indonesia last year, 3 weeks of which was in Lembeh. Consequently, my 60 and 105mm lenses were the only lenses on my d7000 while muck diving. Once I tried shooting WA but the visibility made this a pointless exercise. Conversely, if you are going to Socorro or some other pelagic destination, you may never take off your 10-17, 8mm fisheye, or whatever WA option you have available. Therefore, if you are the kind of diver that typically dives places with a predominant underwater focus, getting optimal image quality from deadicated primes, as opposed to flexibility, may be the best route. So when I considered getting an EM5, my own goal was not to seek a single lens/port solution to all my diving photography needs, but rather to purse the best image quality I could find. I went with 8mm Pan as a surrogate for my tokina 10-17, and the oly 60 mm macro in lieu of my nikon macro glass.

 

But I also have the 12-50 for the same reasons articulated by its supporters, so please note that this is NOT an anti-12-50 post....this lens offers something unique, I get it. Those that argue that the zoom capabilities of a 12-50 allow you to shoot every subject in a single dive are right..... you can, or at least you can shoot a wider range of subjects than with primes. And thats a good thing. But for me, I enjoy the idea of checking out a diving location, looking at water visibility, the amount of sunlight, the color of the water, and learning about the potential macrolife, and then making a decision of whether to shoot macro, WA, or something in between. This way, when I dive, I'm in the mindset of looking for creative image opportunities for the equipment I'm carrying, and I'll happily watch a beautiful spotted eagle ray cruise by and then resume hunting for tiny critters with a macro lens on my camera. I don't feel shattered that I missed a picture of the ray. For me, I've become more interested in creating interesting images than in documenting what I see underwater. And I know somebody will write back and say they can do that better with a zoom lens, fine, to each his own. As I said at the outset, this is an alternative view to that being repeatedly recommended in previous posts.

 

So the best advice is to do your research, read the reviews and opinions of those in the know, and assess your own diving and UW photography needs, and get the lens and port options you feel best align with your interests. You can improve your diving skills, learn to do better creative lighting and composition, and learn to adjust the feature set of the camera, all to improve the quality of the images-- but the image quality of an individual lens is a fixed property of that lens.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

(Leaving for a liveaboard on the GBR tomorrow....can't wait!)

Edited January 11, 2013 by deepbluemd

[glee719 6]

I can argue the other way around that if the original poster didn't mention it, you wouldn't had guessed right each time which lens took which photo. I used to read all the reviews and believe in specifications, until I realized real artists don't need to tell you the equipment they used.

[deepbluemd 9]

I can argue the other way around that if the original poster didn't mention it, you wouldn't had guessed right each time which lens took which photo. I used to read all the reviews and believe in specifications, until I realized real artists don't need to tell you the equipment they used.

 

I don't understand this sentiment. If not lens specifications and image quality analysis, on what basis would you suggest photographers select their lenses? Are we to believe none of the careful and increasingly quantitative photography equipment reviews from respected sources?

 

I believe the moderators on this site have requested that posted images include lens and basic EXIF data so that readers may view, compare, and make informed judgements of what they see.

 

I read a quote the other day that said 'Great photographers are both technical expert AND artist'. I took this to mean that they must possess mastery of the technical aspects of their equipment combined with creative imagination and the ability to recognize inspirational images. This is what I believe but, as I said above, to each his own.

[glee719 6]

Well, I am not putting down people's lens selections. I have the Panny 45mm, Panny 7-14mm, and Oly 12-50mm underwater, and all the fast primes for on land. I do appreciate the unique things a good lens can do. Reviews get people to spend money, I get it.

 

I still meet people who think the only way to get good pictures is via a DSLR. I have defeated the myth on land with old $50 film cameras, and I believe it's being defeated for UWP since so many people here like the OM-D. All I am asking is, if I take a good picture and you ask me how I did it, how much of the answer depends on the photographer and how much depends on the equipment?

 

I believe my diving and subject-finding skills are not good enough to be a good underwater photographer. I depend on others to find me subjects to shoot, which is an area I want to improve. If I do find them, as you can see above I can shoot them decently even with the 12-50mm.

[deepbluemd 9]

I am not for a second suggesting that the equipment is more important than the photographer. Ansel Adams said " you don't take a great photograph, you make it". And no where is the dependency on the photographer more true than underwater photography, especially if you step back and consider what we do. We immerse ourselves in a foreign medium where a simple mistake can be deadly. We have to learn to dive and become certified before ever pulling a shutter. We ensconce our camera gear in clunky housings to protect it from the elements, but making it cumbersome and unwieldy. And we shoot in a world where the spectrum of available light is so skewed that unless you know how to add it back, your pictures look like crap. And we try to shoot subjects that may dart around so fast you barely have time to fire off a shot. So the UW photographer must overcome many obstacles not faced by our land based counterparts. But all these reasons also reinforce the notion that we can take all the help we can get from high quality equipment....

[Phil Rudin 485]

I would agree with deepbluemd that a one-size-fits-all lens solution for underwater photography or for any type of photography is only a starting point and the reason for calling these lenses “KIT” lenses in the first place. I would also agree that the image quality of the 12-50 is not as high as with other M43 lenses like the 60mm macro, 8mm fisheye and 7-14mm zoom, the three lenses I use most often. I have used the 12-50 zoom with the Nauticam port and gear long enough to make the following observations.

 

First I no of only two so called “kit” lenses that have image quality as good or better than the 12-50 zoom. These are the Sony 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 SAM DT and the outstanding Olympus Zuiko Digital 12-60 F/2.8-4 ED. Only the 12-50 and 12-60 reach the 84 degree AOV, all the 18-55 lenses on APS-C sensors are in the 76 degree AOV range. Of all of these KIT lenses the 12-50 is the only lens with a macro feature that goes all the way to 35mm on the long side of the image, the same as 1:1 on a 35mm “full frame” sensor camera. So the 12-50 is quite unique in its range. While the Nauticam 12-50 port/gear combo is expensive it is also very well designed and works quite well. Any 84 degree lens is going to suffer behind a flat port so this is a trade off for being able to use such a unique lens. On a trip to the Philippines last month I used the 12-50 a lot because subjects fitting into the zoom range were abundant and I was able to flip a SubSea +10 closeup lens on when I needed a little extra magnification. Bottom line is that image quality is well within the range for publication.

 

Regarding lens reviews in general, several things need to be taken into account. First is that the 12-50 has been tested in most cases on the 16MP Olympus E-M5 not on cameras in the 10-12MP range like many of the reviews you may have read for other kit lenses. If you think this does not make a difference you should go to photozone.de and look at the Sony 18-55 kit lens review for the Sony NEX-5. The same lens was later re-tested on the Sony NEX-7 a 14MP camera V. a 24MP camera the results tell you a lot about the quality of the lens.

 

Since deepbluemd also brought up his frequent use of the Tokina 10-17 on his APS-C cameras it may be worth noting that in the few reviews of the Tokina 10-17mm zoom it scored much worse than the Olympus 12-50 has. However it is still one of the most popular W/A, U/W zoom lenses, if not the most popular W/A around because it is so unique for U/W use. Very close focus, can be used with a very small dome and of course can be zoomed. The Panasonic 8mm fisheye can also focus to the port glass, uses the same small port and is much better image quality wise but does not zoom.

 

Many of the owners of new E-M5 systems are those coming from consumer compacts who are use to the idea of using only one lens with wet lens add-ons for macro and wide angle. For those who intend to only use the 12-50 with a macro and a W/A adapter I think that you have not only picked the wrong lens but also the wrong camera. A camera like the excellent Sony RX-100/Nauticam NA-RX100 system would be a better choice to me. For those who are “down sizing” from a DSLR or moving to mirrorless systems to expand their lens range the M43 system has the most extensive lens range from which to chose.

 

So again while I think the 12-50 will be an excellent starting point at F/6.3 on the long end compared to F/2.8 for the 60mm macro the 12-50 would hardly fall into the so called “pro” category where as the 7-14, 8 fisheye, 12, 45 & 45macro, 60 macro, steller 75mm and others would.

 

Phil Rudin

Edited January 11, 2013 by Phil Rudin

[ajblanckley 3]

I'm by no means experienced, but I've always figured I should try to do my best with whatever equipment I had with me at the time. When I last went diving my fisheye port hadn't arrived so the best I had for wide angle was the 12-50mm. Sure there are some limitations, but I still managed a few images that I thought came out ok. That I could also take some photos of smaller creatures was an added bonus.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ajblanckley

[Kenr 2]

Could someone comment on the usefulness of a 45 degree view finder with the Nauticam housing.

[glee719 6]

Phil, do you use the Subsee attachment to attach Subsee +10 to the 12-50 port? Or do you use a step-down ring? If you use the Subsee attachment can you tell me which diameter you got?

[Phil Rudin 485]

Kenr,

 

I use the Nauticam 45 degree viewfinder on all dives with the NA-EM5 housing and it is a tool I would not want to be without. I have never been a fan of using the LCD as a way to achieve critical focus with any lens and have used both Inon and Nauticam 45 degree finders on several past DSLR housings and on the NA-NEX7 housing. This is an excellent addition for the NA-EM5 housing and the viewfinder can be moved from system to system just like quality lenses when you change camera bodies. If you look at those on this forum using DSLR’s many are using these accessory finders. You will find support for both the 45 and 180 versions which in most cases come down to the type of shooting you are doing. Most prefer the 45 for macro and the 180 for W/A, over/under and faster moving subjects like sharks. The usefulness of these viewfinders does not change between optical viewfinders and electronic viewfinders. The issue again comes down to cost and how much you are willing to pay to get the best image quality out of your system.

 

Glee,

 

First let me say that the 12-50 Nauticam port and gear were on loan to me at the time I used them and a 67mm step down ring had been added so that I could use my 67mm SAGA flip lens holder with the port. I used both the Inon ULC-165 M67 closeup and the SubSee +10 closeup lenses with the 12-50 zoom and the 60 macro lenses. Nauticam & Saga have flip holders with the 77mm thread for the port and that would be my recommendation with any 67 mm close-up lens. So I was making the best with what I had at the time. Because I already own and use the Panasonic 45mm macro, I have since added the Nauticam 20mm extension port for use with my Nauticam 45 macro port when using the Olympus 60mm macro. The extension ring works very well with the 60 macro and adds very little to the overall size and weight of the system. With the step-down ring and the SAGA flip holder added to the 12-50 port you have the following problems. First the step-down ring reduces the Inside diameter to 67mm, when you add the flip holder the diameter is reduced by about another 10mm and the unit moves out another 5mm from the port glass when the flip holder is open. As a result the 12-50 lens begins to vignette at around 14-15mm and at 12mm the image is almost round with just a few degrees cut of the top and bottom of the circle. With the closeup lenses flipped into place the system worked very well at the 43mm macro setting where it is intended to be used. The idea of using the closeup lens at other focal length settings defeats its purpose to me, in other words way use the C/U lens when you can already get to the same magnification without it going into the 43mm macro setting. If you are not using the Nauticam gear for the lens and you only can get to 50mm then I guess it would help. I like the 12-50 Nauticam port combo and if I owned it I would have a 77mm flip holder so that I could use the full range of the lens. Since I tend to shoot more macro than W/A I am focused on the 45 & 60 macros along with the 7-14 & 8mm for my wide shots. I also think the Olympus 12mm is a steller lens and I use it from time to time.

 

My review on using the Saga flip holder and a review of the new Saga Zoom filter used on the 12-50 port with both 12-50 and 60macro can be found in the current and past issues of uwpmag.com

 

Phil Rudin

[girelle 19]

Great topic. I spent a couple of hours reading through all of the posts in this topic. BTW the photos presented here are great, I especially enjoyed Connie's photos, fantastic lighting and hdr. I'm off today to check out OMD before I buy it. I would be upgrading from a LX5, the OMD looks like a lighter and less expensive alternative to a SLR without giving up too much.

 

I have a trip scheduled for this coming April and don't know if I want to get the 12-50 and get the 60mm and a fisheye (or wide lens) or just get the 12-50 with the super deluxe port. Ultimately it would be nice to get a dedicated macro and wide lens, however it might be too much overload to get familiar with 3 lenses on a single 36 dive trip.

 

I am interested in some super macro. I don't think there are problems with the 12-50 and a step down adapter to my inon 67mm diopter (ucl 165), I'm not positive. I also have the UWL-100 wide conversion lens type 2. Do you think I would get any benefit from using it? I would have to step down from 77mm to 67mm and I read here that there is already a little vignetiting with the 77mm port. Maybe I could zoom to 14mm and still get a wider field of view? Am a little ignorant on these matters..

 

lastly Girelle, we might have meet in Bohal, June 2011. I was diving with an LX5 and diving with Seaquest. If that's you hi .

 

thanks

 

Ken

 

Yes it's me and back to Bohol untill May !! I've posted some pictures in this forum in" Photo and Gallery Showcase" , I think you might be interested .

Don't hesitate to jump to the OMD , it's an excellent camera

 

[Kenr 2]

Yes it's me and back to Bohol untill May !! I've posted some pictures in this forum in" Photo and Gallery Showcase" , I think you might be interested .

Don't hesitate to jump to the OMD , it's an excellent camera

 

 

 

Wow 5 months, what fun! I was in Bohol 3 weeks ago, too bad the French restaurant sold. Then a week in Malapascua. Malapascua is worth a trip if you haven't been there its a very beautiful island.

 

Do you still have your SLR? Miss it?

Edited January 13, 2013 by Kenr

[deepbluemd 9]

Phil

As always, your knowledge and willingness to contribute meaningful information about lenses etc to these discussions is greatly appreciated. This forum is a treasure trove to those seeking useful discussion (and opinion) about the equipment they are using or intend to purchase. I often find it interesting to note that many wetpixel participants are scattered around the globe, often without local UW photography stores or experts nearby. This makes a venue like WP one of the few places folks can turn to for in depth discussion on these issues

 

Cheers

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Deep6 7]

Phil

As always, your knowledge and willingness to contribute meaningful information about lenses etc to these discussions is greatly appreciated. This forum is a treasure trove to those seeking useful discussion (and opinion) about the equipment they are using or intend to purchase. I often find it interesting to note that many wetpixel participants are scattered around the globe, often without local UW photography stores or experts nearby. This makes a venue like WP one of the few places folks can turn to for in depth discussion on these issues

 

Cheers

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Ditto, in spades!

Bob

[girelle 19]

Wow 5 months, what fun! I was in Bohol 3 weeks ago, too bad the French restaurant sold. Then a week in Malapascua. Malapascua is worth a trip if you haven't been there its a very beautiful island.

 

Do you still have your SLR? Miss it?

 

We were already in Alona three weeks ago , stange we'd missed .. We have alredy been to Malapascua and we'll go back in February for 10 days §

No my DSLR does not miss me

[Kenr 2]

I recently sold my LX5 system because I want to upgrade before my next dive trip this coming April. The primary reason to sell the was because of its limited macro abilities. I found myself passing on too many small subjects because they were just too hard to capture, even with a 6x diopter. If I do go the OM-D route I would get the 60mm and the 8mm FE. So now I am one the fence about what additional lenses I would want to buy, mostly for topside shooting as neither one of the two above lenses will work for me topside in most situations. I could buy the 12/50 because it has a good range, however it is very slow and is not as sharp as I would like. It is an inexpensive kit lens so I suppose I can’t expect that much from it.

 

In reading the posts in this tread it looks like some really like this lens as an all-around underwater lens. I’m hesitant to buy it for underwater use primarily because the port cost $800 and it appears that it’s difficult to take the gear on and off. Before I buy it and potentially get the port I would like to know what to expect. Comparing specs to my old LX5 they are similar in some respects. The LX5 has a 24 to 90 zoom, similar to the 24 to 100 on the 12/50. Both have some macro capabilities. I’m not sure if the 12/50 is better for macro. Both can accept diopters. However the LX5 can accept a wet wide angle lens to give it more than 100 degree FOV. I don’t know if I could fit a 67mm wide lens to the 12/50 and get more FOV. The LX5 is a much faster lens then 12/50 by about 1.5 stops. That may be mitigated by the better sensor on the OMD and that most macro isn’t going be shot wide open.

 

I think the LX5 is very good for what it can do underwater, its sounds like the OMD with the 12/50 doesn’t really offer much more than the LX5, maybe less (wide). Of course I would expect the OM-D with the 60mm and FE to be much superior to my LX5 and just about on par with the popular crop SLRs. Do you agree with my assessment?

 

thanks

Ken

 

[guyharrisonphoto 21]

The OM-D has a far better sensor than the LX-5. It is truly professional quality with excellent resolution and high sensitivity. That is why the OM-D with the 12-50 will give you much better results than the LX-5. The 12-50 also has macro capability down to subjects 23x34mm in size. Without attachments, the LX-5's "native" in-lens macro does not get as high magnification, and its macro is only at the wide end, and only 1 cm working distance! Underwater, forget it! You have to go to the hassle of diopters to get macro at the longer end on the LX-5, which the 12-50 does not need.

 

And even though the 12-50 is not an "official" pro lens, you will see a striking difference in image quality over the LX-5.

 

Also, if you are going to get the 8mm FE, then what do you care about wide wet lenses on the 12-50?. For wide dives, just use the fisheye. For versatility on dives for semi-wide to full macro, use the 12-50.

 

One aspect of pro-level interchangeable lens systems is that they do not readily take wide wet lenses, so you lose that versatility compared to the LX-5. To shoot ultra-wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) you need a dedicated lens like the fisheye, or the excellent 9-18mm or 7-14mm wide zooms.

 

By the way, the port/gear is heavy and complex, so I do not use the 12-50 for surface shooting and dedicate it solely to underwater. I use the 14-150 instead, much more versatile.

[Kenr 2]

Yes I would agree that the OM-D has a much better sensor then the LX-5, I wasn't comparing the two. I don't think macro is only available at the wide end on the LX5. Yes, at 24mm the min focusing is less than 1cm, I recall at the long-end with the macro on it will focus at 30cm. Does the 12-50 really do 1 to 1 as some are saying? I have read it doesn't its .36x and does .76 on the 4/3 sensor (I can't confirm if this is correct. You can't trust half of what you read on the internet). But isn't that half of what you get from a Canon crop SLR with a macro lens? Does the 60mm give you a 2 to 1 magnification with the 4/3 sensor? I don't have a clue what the magnification is on a LX5, I would be interested in knowing for comparison.

 

The purpose of my post wasn't to compare the image quality of the LX5 vs the OM-D. However I wanted to get a feel for its versatilty. My underwater photography is mostly limited to my LX5 so that's about all I have to compare it too. I wanted some information to help me make the decision if I would buy the 12-50 port or not. Its good to know that it's best to dedicate that lens solely for underwater.

 

I'm still not sure how the macro capabilities on this lens compare to the 60mm, will the 60 give you more than 2.5 times the magnification? how does it compare to a 60mm canon on a crop. I just interested in magnification factor.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Kenr

[nudibranco 28]

My experience:

The versatility of compacts is hard to find with the 4/3 and even more difficult with the DSLRs. But the image quality is different worlds especially because you start focusing on what you are going to shoot UW before and in the water. If you are quickly distracted by both small organisms and large fish or scenery on the same dive then it is not easy to focus on composition and techniques that help you get the best shots. That is true on land as well so it is a mindset not only the image sensor. I agree that when you are diving and you are not sure what you are going to see in unknown locations or waters then a versatile lens like the 12-50 on an OM-D can get a lot of different subjects. But then I think some of the better compacts are probably better as you can really cover the whole range with a small but reasonable quality. I believe that once you move to the better images it is hard to go back to compacts though. I am myself tempted to try the new Sony RX100 for those situations I mentioned and for light traveling. In regards to the 12-50 I can confirm like many others did that it does indeed do 1:1 magnification in macro mode without diopters. Not sure why Olympus quotes 0.76. The 45 or 60 mm macro lenses do 2:1 magnification since they can fill the image with about 17mm horizontal subjects.

[tetsuhiro 0]

To those who use Olympus housings:

 

Olympus housings for E-M5 provide a very poor view of EVF and an Olympus stuff told me some tips to improve this.

 

When you look EVF through underwater protecter, "style 1" is more preferrable than "style 3," because you can easily see an entire field of view with "style 1." However, if you set "built-in EVF Auto Switch" to "OFF" (a normal setting for underwater), "style 3" will be automatically selected (I don't know why).

Following settings will resolve this problem.

1. In "Custom Menu - Built-In EVF" section,

Set "Built-In EVF Style" to "Style 1" and "EVF Auto Switch" to "ON."

With these settings, you can see photos only on EVF and cannot use a rear monitor at all.

2 Then, Set 'Setup Menu - Rec View' to "Auto," and you will see photos are replayed on EVF for about 2 seconds and after that they will appear on a rear monitor automatically. You can end these replays by half-pushing a release button.

With this method, you can use EVF while taking photos, and use a back EL monitor while checking photos.

3. When you would like to use back monitor while taking photos, long-pressing the button on the side of EVF will show you "EVF Auto Switch" menu, and you can turn it ON and OFF to switch EVF and a rear monitor.

 

I hope those will help you.

Edited January 19, 2013 by tetsuhiro

[Jock 14]

Ken, did you read through all of this thread (I know it is looooong)? If you do not want to spend the 800$ for the dedicated port go for the 60mm port and buy the austrian zoom gear!

 

As for lens quality: What do you normally do with your photos: Publish them in magazines or coffeet-able books? Or have them on your hard drive, look at them on a monitor and occasionally print the one or other? In this case, never worry about image quality of the 12-50 lens - it is much, much (!!) more than "good enough". IMHO. It is a kind of swiss-army-knife lens, as somebody wrote. It is cheap if you buy it with the camera, so go for it, test it on land and decide if -for you!- it is worth taking it underwater.

 

Jock