Upcoming Panasonic GH-4K

[dreifish 353]

I'm going to be picking up the GH4 in the new Nauticam housing and I'm looking into lens options for video (topside and underwater). Because I will be using this for travel, I'd like to keep it to as few ports/domes as possible. I need some advice, especially on how to optimize ports and extensions to keep travel size down so ports/domes can be put to multiple uses. Sorry for all the questions! Maybe I should split them out into several posts.

 

1. For wide angle work, I think I prefer the look of the 8mm fisheye to the rectilinear lenses for more "dramatic" shots, especially with the 2.4x 4k crop. My understanding is that this lens only works in the Nauticam 3.5, 4.33 and Zen 100mm domes (not the larger 6 inch dome, the 170mm zen or new 180mm Nauticam glass dome. Is this correct?

 

2. Can any of the small domes (Nauticam 4.33"/Zen 100mm) be used with the 9-18 or 7-14 using extension rings (and diopeters?) I'd like to minimize my travel kit.

 

3. Are there any issues with using the 8mm for video with a 2.4x crop aside from finding enough lights to evenly light the scene? What angle of coverage would the 8mm have with the crop? Basically, it would behave like a 19mm fisheye on full frame/13mm on APS-C?

 

4. Would you recommend the 7-14 or 9-18 for wide-angle rectilinear video?

 

5. I will probably also pick up one of 12-35, 12-40 or 12-50 for topside use? Are any of them (more) useful for underwater video? I'm thinking of potentially using them for establishment shots (wide->medium->narrow) when filming macro or for shy sharks, fish portraits.

 

6. Does the 12-50 do anything that the 12-40 couldn't? Seems like macro on the 12-40 is almost as good -- but how about port compatibility? Which domes/ports would the 12-40 work with?

 

7. For macro/super macro, I will probably pick up the Olympus 60mm. Any point in also getting the Panasonic 45? Or would pairing up the Olympus with the 12-50 make more sense?

 

8. Assuming I choose to go with the 60mm & 12-50, any disadvantages to housing them in the dedicated Nauticam 12-50 port vs the 60mm port?

 

9. What wet diopeter should I combine with the 60mm for super macro? I understand that in 35mm equivalent terms, it's already 2x -- so I would get twice the magnification I'm used to from the 105mm on Nikon FX for the same size "print" or display. In fact, with the 2.4x 4k crop, it's going to be 2.4x equivalent magnification, yes? Is adding a Nauticam SMC way too much? Does the depth of field became unusable for macro video work?

 

10. What tripod/steadying solution can be used for macro video?

 

11. For those who already have the NA-GH4 housing, what's the buoyancy like? My NA-D800 was almost perfectly neutral with a dome, but the RX100 setup was quite negative with wet lenses. Does the GH4 need to a number of floats?How should they best be configured to keep the system steady for wide angle video?

 

12. I will probably get the Atmos Shogun as a monitoring/recording solution once it's out and there's a housing for it. In the meantime however, are there any housed monitors larger than 4" that can be used with the GH4? Or is the DP4 in Nauticam housing the best current solution if all I want is a monitor?

[kc_moses 142]

8. Assuming I choose to go with the 60mm & 12-50, any disadvantages to housing them in the dedicated Nauticam 12-50 port vs the 60mm port?

 

 

10. What tripod/steadying solution can be used for macro video?

 

I'm going to give opinion for these two questions since I'm on the same boat of considering the GH4, while waiting for the Panasonic LX-8 to release before I pull the plug. During my research of the GH4 I came across some answer of my own that might relate to you.

 

For question 8:

I'm not sure if you could house the 60mm lens into the $800 Nauticam 12-50 port (NAU.36162). You can house the 12-50mm lens into the $300 60mm port (NAU.36163) with an aftermarket $120 zoom gear (cheaper if you use 3D printer to print it). This however won't give you access to the 43mm macro feature of the 12-50mm lens. The 12-50 Nauticam port is 77mm thread, while the Nauticam 65 port is 67mm threat. So people use Subsee +10 or the Nauticam SMC on the 67mm threat to get good macro. 77mm wet lens flip holder is another $300 or so. Therefore the 12-50mm port route is very expensive.

 

For question 10:

Look up "Xit 404" tripod, the 3 legs point is the way to go. I played around with cheap attempt of using a Gorillapod, since there is only one point under the camera and the center of gravity will be off depends on your arm/light/strobe configuration, Gorillapod is not a good solution for bigger set up (will work from things like goPro).

 

Since you're outputting 2.4K from 4K, you have the advantage of stabilize the footage in post and still not loose quality because you would have plenty of pixel to crop. So, no need tripod for now unless you want to output to 4K.

 

Since you're doing video, the Panasonic G X 12-42mm may be a contender as it has Power O.I.S, electric power zoom, low profile. However, some said the sharpness is not as good compare to things like Sony RX100 base one some data from DXOMark website. This is where you can do more research, but at least at this point you would just narrow down to less lens.

 

Hope that help!

 

Moses

[Interceptor121 712]

I think you need to be a bit careful when talking about crop factors of 2.4x

The field of view is evaluated on the diagonal so it looks like the lens will be 19.2mm equivalent

 

However the crop is only on the vertical axis so the horizontal field of view does not change.

Once you add an electronic stabiliser this will start reducing the field of view accordingly meanwhile the lens will still have plenty of barrel distortion typical of fisheye

 

Going to the other point I personally do not like fisheye lenses for video the 7-14mm lens is sharper than the 9-18mm that is much cheaper however if you had to crop say 1.15x in post the wider lens would be better

 

In terms of lenses the only options when I looked at it to minimise the number of ports were

1. Get 6" dome with 7-14mm and 12-35mm OIS (you want a stabiliser at those focal lenghts for sure) you will then need a macro port as well

2. Get the 14-42mm with 35 macro port and use wet lenses, results optically not as good as 1 above but easier to travel with you do add a number of wet lenses

 

Option 1 has better IQ option 2 is more portable

 

Using ports not designed for the lenses could result in the lens not focussing at all worse case or poor performance in others

Edited July 21, 2014 by Interceptor121

[SimonSpear 65]

Some 4K underwater footage from the GH4.

This was uploaded overnight on the slow hotel wifi so it is a bit short, but still I'm very impressed (obviously for the best quality playback select the 4K option, but some computers won't be able to handle it).

Edited July 23, 2014 by SimonSpear

[peterbkk 110]

 

Some 4K underwater footage from the GH4.

This was uploaded overnight on the slow hotel wifi so it is a bit short, but still I'm very impressed (obviously for the best quality playback select the 4K option, but some computers won't be able to handle it).

 

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

As always, even at 4K, YouTube compression messes it up. Blocky artefacts appear in the blue. Vimeo does a better job at HD than YouTube does at 4K.

 

What about the colour? Were those colours close to what you saw with your eyes?

 

What did you do for colour correction? In camera? In editing?

 

The blue background looks at bit purple to me.

 

Regards

Peter

[SimonSpear 65]

This clip was straight from the camera. The codec is pretty robust so I'm sure you could make the turtle pink with green spots if you know how to do it, but why would you want to make it look like your eyes see? If you want that there are plenty of less expensive cameras that can do it!

[textilet 7]

Nice Simon- red filter or just white balanced?

[ScubaBob 37]

This clip was straight from the camera. The codec is pretty robust so I'm sure you could make the turtle pink with green spots if you know how to do it, but why would you want to make it look like your eyes see? If you want that there are plenty of less expensive cameras that can do it!

 

Well said Simon - I think the footage/color looks great!!

[kc_moses 142]

I too like that deep blue color. Did you shoot with CineV color setting?

[peterbkk 110]

This clip was straight from the camera./quote]

 

Can you please share your camera image settings with us.

 

Regards

Peter

[Interceptor121 712]

Looks very similar to my deep sunset red filter

[Raptor^ 0]

Anyone got any thoughts on the upcoming Aquatica AGH4 housing vs Nauticam NA-GH4?

http://wetpixel.com/articles/aquatica-unveils-the-agh4-housing

 

The housing from Aquatica seems more compact and the dials seems bigger/easier to operate than the Nauticam housing.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Raptor^

[peterbkk 110]

In the immortal words of Crosby Stills Nash and Young, "Love the one you're with" --- although I'm not sure they were referring to underwater housings.

 

I have the Nauticam NA-GH4 right here in front of me and therefore it is far superior to the Aquatica, which I don't have...

 

Having only seen photos of the Aquatica it's hard to compare the two. But I'm not sure how they'd make it much more compact. There's not a lot of spare room inside the NA-GH4. So far I'm very happy with the controls layout. The combination of the start-stop trigger and the AFS/AFC lock trigger work well. The start-stop trigger is great, enabling an easy half-press, full-press action.

 

But, of course, it is always great to have choice and some competition to keep the players on the ball.

 

Regards

Peter

[kc_moses 142]

I'm wondering the same question as well. I like the fact that Aquatica has the powder coating finish, which make it less slippery if I have to hold it one handed. I suspect the Nauticam housing could get scratch easily because of its smooth finish.

 

The Aquatica is also $250 cheaper than the Nauticam version. Of course the big question is what kind of ports is available for the Aquatica.

[peterbkk 110]

 

The Aquatica is also $250 cheaper than the Nauticam version.

 

Need to make sure that's an apple-to-apples comparison. Friend of mine bought an Aquatica and had to pay extra for the port cap - which is included with the Nauticam.

[peterbkk 110]

Nauticam has one huge advantage over the Aquatica.

 

When you tell your non-diving friends that you've just invested a few grand in the latest "Nauticam", they think that you've set up your own porn studio...

 

Priceless conversation starter over a dinner table.

 

[paratom 1]

I recently compared Nauticam and Aquatica for the EM1 (only on land).

 

I found the Nauticam EM1-housing a slight advantage in regards of reaching the important buttons. However in case of the GH4 housing this could be different.

 

On the other side the Aquatica seems more solid to me, in regards to finish/coating, wheels (less plastic parts)and internal gears for the buttons.

I also find the Aquatica Domes nice - a 4 inch glass dome for the (mmFE) and a nice 8 inch Dome in small size with extensions which you can use with many different wide angel lenses).

 

If there would not have been the long distance between the handle and the Aquatica back wheel I would probably have choosen the Aquatica housing because it feels so solid.

So I think its important to take both in the hand to find out how you can reach the controls which are important to you.

[Viz'art 24]

I'm wondering the same question as well. I like the fact that Aquatica has the powder coating finish, which make it less slippery if I have to hold it one handed. I suspect the Nauticam housing could get scratch easily because of its smooth finish.

 

The Aquatica is also $250 cheaper than the Nauticam version. Of course the big question is what kind of ports is available for the Aquatica.

 

KC_Moses, the ports available for Micro 4/3 series housings are as follow:

 

The 4" Fisheye dome which is, one could say, exclusive for the Panasonic 8mm Fisheye

 

The SW8 which is the same 8'' dome lens we use for our DSLR housing, but with a more compact redesign, so it is more in line with the system original idea of being smaller and lighter.

 

There is an upcoming port adapter that will let you uses current DSLR ports on the Micro 4/3 series housings, that is especially important for the Panasonic 7-14mm which requires a very large dome radius for taking advantage of its huge rectilinear field of view. Shooting over/under shots can be done easily with large ports, so it is quite possible to shoot the AGH-4 using a dome port as large as the 9.25’ Megadome

 

Then, to complete the dome port system and give it more flexibility, there are various extension tubes that can be inserted between the dome ports and housing, these are used for positioning the optical center of the dome and lens as close as possible to each other in order to optimize their optical performance.

 

On the flat port side Aquatica has three ports, that can be used for close up and macro work, again these combined with the existing port extension will give some form of flexibility in regard to lens selection.

 

So if you include the access to the line of DSLR ports, you have a total of 11 different ports to choose from.

 

Cheers

Edited August 1, 2014 by Viz'art

[Viz'art 24]

I recently compared Nauticam and Aquatica for the EM1 (only on land).

 

I found the Nauticam EM1-housing a slight advantage in regards of reaching the important buttons. However in case of the GH4 housing this could be different.

 

On the other side the Aquatica seems more solid to me, in regards to finish/coating, wheels (less plastic parts)and internal gears for the buttons.

I also find the Aquatica Domes nice - a 4 inch glass dome for the (mmFE) and a nice 8 inch Dome in small size with extensions which you can use with many different wide angel lenses).

 

If there would not have been the long distance between the handle and the Aquatica back wheel I would probably have choosen the Aquatica housing because it feels so solid.

So I think its important to take both in the hand to find out how you can reach the controls which are important to you.

 

 

Paratom, The AGH4 rear control is located differently than on the AE-M1, if you check the press release, there is a side view of the right hand side on which you can see the layout of the control

[thani 86]

Hi Jean,

 

I already invested in a Zen 8 inch dome with an Aquatica mount, can I use the same for your GH4 housing?

http://reefphoto.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=80_153&products_id=4569

 

I have the panasonic 7-14 and contemplating to buy the faster 12-35mm 2.8 cause it's faster. Is the above dome good for such lenses?

[SPP 16]

I have the Nauticam NA-GH4 right here in front of me

Regards

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

May I trouble you a bit please.

 

Is the assc port at the door a M14 size ? The front left at main body surely is an M16 for HDMI.

The Nauticam user manual stated the assc port at the door is M14 but Backscatter and Reef Photo reccomended the vacuum valve of M16 size.

I want to use the vacuum valve at the door assc port and keep the M16 one at main body for HDMI.

I fear the NA-GH4 user manual has a print mistake on the M14 assc port size at the door.

 

Page 9, item 20

http://www.nauticam.com/images/product/p_299.A.pdf

 

The exterior look for the port plug is always the same between M14 and M16, so me kind of worried.

http://www.backscatter.com/hostedstore/templates/backscatter_wideload/product_detail_zoomimage.lasso?img=na-17709_7

 

 

Hope its not too troubling you.

 

Many Thanks

SPP

[SPP 16]

Hi Again Peter,

 

Dang, I must be blind.

I saw Chris photo and its M14

http://chrisparsons.smugmug.com/photos/i-4xk9SF5/0/M/i-4xk9SF5-M.jpg

 

Same here too...

http://www.backscatter.com/hostedstore/templates/backscatter_wideload/product_detail_zoomimage.lasso?img=na-17709_5

 

Solved.

Sorry for the request and thanks Peter.

 

SPP

[Viz'art 24]

Hi Jean,

 

I already invested in a Zen 8 inch dome with an Aquatica mount, can I use the same for your GH4 housing?

http://reefphoto.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=80_153&products_id=4569

 

I have the panasonic 7-14 and contemplating to buy the faster 12-35mm 2.8 cause it's faster. Is the above dome good for such lenses?

 

Thani, It should normally fit if the bayonet was designed properly, To be honest I have not put the 12-35mm f/2.8 on the optical bench, typically for this lens I don't foresee any problem, although, I would still recommend the SW8 as a more compact solution (the optical performance are equal to our regular 8'' dome port) and the lens has a much lesser field of view than the 7-14mm.

 

So far in the wide lens range for the Micro 4/3, the Olympus 9-18mm and the Panasonic 8mm fisheye do seem to have the upper hand. in mid range, both the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 12-50mm (which has good close up potential) are the favorite.

 

Let me check deeper on the 12-35mm and see if I can get a lens for the optical bench. then I will report back, honestly, I am not really a big fan of slapping things together just because they fit physically, I like doing my homework and seeing that everything is in the right place optically as well before going official.

[paratom 1]

Paratom, The AGH4 rear control is located differently than on the AE-M1, if you check the press release, there is a side view of the right hand side on which you can see the layout of the control

 

Hi Jean, thats what I thought looking at the images. I guess the Gh4 Aquatica might have worked for me very well. The 7d Aquatica also felt very ergonomic in my hands, just in case of the EM1 housing I found the right back wheel too far for my size hands. If I had a GH4 my choice would probably have been Aquatica. In the end i think its really important to handle a housing and see how ergonomic it feels for the own hands ( also depending which functions are important for the specific user)

[IcyMike 3]

I'd like to ask if anyone's aware of the Aquatica housing being backwards compatible with the GH3? The GH3/4 bodies are by all accounts are the same, except for the taller mode dial on the GH4. Not sure about clearances inside the housing, but hopefully that wouldn't be a problem?