Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Storker

Olympus 9-18 with Nauticam 4.33"?

Recommended Posts

So, with the motivation to reduce the amount of gear to schlep on travel and vacations, I started wondering about ways to reduce the amount of camera stuff to carry. I like to switch between the Olympus 9-18 for general shooting and the Panasonic 8/3.5 FE for CFWA/WA stuff. Problem is, they require two different ports. But since Nauticam makes these nifty extension rings, I was wondering if anyone has tried the 4.33" dome, maybe with a 20 or 30mm extension ring, with the 9-18. Or will the curvature of the 4.33" dome make this a hopeless idea?

 

I could try, of course. But I'm not very motivated to buy at least one of those extension rings just to try it out, so it'd be nice to know if anyone has tried it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4" wide angle port is less curved as it is cut out of a larger piece of glass (I think 8") so the dome would perform worse than the wide angle port. To work out the extension just measure the ports

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I have enough issues with the 9-18 behind the 4" semi (although not enough to make me give it up), so I guess that idea goes in the bin.

 

 

--

Sent from my Android phone

Typos are a feature, not a bug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I have enough issues with the 9-18 behind the 4" semi (although not enough to make me give it up), so I guess that idea goes in the bin.

 

 

--

Sent from my Android phone

Typos are a feature, not a bug

 

Sorry to hijack the thread a bit, but I'm considering getting the 9-18 and 4" port, so was wondering what issues you have with that combination ?

 

I'm currently using an Oly 14-42 with Inon H100 wet lens, and was hoping the 9-18 and 4" port would give me the same 100 degree field of view, but better overall image quality, especially at the edges.

Edited by bobdob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry to hijack the thread a bit, but I'm considering getting the 9-18 and 4" port, so was wondering what issues you have with that combination ?

Well, at 9mm the corner sharpness sucks. At more or less every aperture. Also, the corner distortion of a so wide rectilinear WA can be annoying for some subjects.

 

The corner sharpness can be greatly improved by zooming to ~12mm or by adding a - preferably achromatic - +2 dry diopter to the lens before closing the housing. I've chosen the latter approach and have posted a test here sometime in the past.

 

This isn't an issue which is particular to the 9-18. It's a fundamental optical issue for more or less any rectilinear extreme WA behind a dome (i.e. not flat) port. OTOH, you lose some 25% of FOV if you use a flat port, so it's up to you to decide on your priorities and choose your subjects so your images don't suffer too much from the limitations of your optics.

 

I prefer WA shooting, so I basically use either the 9-18 or the 8mm/3.5. Both have their pros and cons.

 

 

--

Sent from my Android phone

Typos are a feature, not a bug

Edited by Storker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that Storker. As it happens, I've just found and read through a thread from Jan/Feb 2014 where you did a report on the 9-18 with 4" port and adding diopters in to the mix. Very informative, and answered all my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Inon lens is wider with the 14-42mm than 9mm. However the Olympus 14-42m as a lens itself is quite average and depending on how close is to the port it will give lower quality than the 9-18mm. If you want a wide rectilinear you should consider the more expensive 7-14mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Inon lens is wider with the 14-42mm than 9mm. However the Olympus 14-42m as a lens itself is quite average and depending on how close is to the port it will give lower quality than the 9-18mm. If you want a wide rectilinear you should consider the more expensive 7-14mm.

 

Thanks for that. I've certainly considered a 7-14, and would love to get either the Panny or new Olympus one, but the cost of the lens combined with the port and dome is way above what I can afford, I can only justify up to £750 all in, and the 9-18 + 4" port comes within that.

 

I'm also considering the new Nauticam WWL-1 wet lens to replace the Inon H-100. The few reviews I've seen (including yours) are quite favourable, but of course at the heart of the rig is the Oly 14-42 II R which is ok, but not brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 7-14 is generally considered to be better than the 9-18, and the extra two mm at the wide end really make a difference. On the other hand, one of the main reasons I went for an m43 system instead of a dSLR was size. So mounting the 6" semidome or a huge FE dome sort of negates that advantage of m43. Which is also the reason that the 8mm/1.8 FE or the new f/2.8 zooms never have been an alternative for me. The 9-18, even with its limitations, is quite compact and the fairly small 4" semi and the 4.33" dome make for a decently-sized rig. The 3.5" dome even more so.

 

Me, I prefer the extra two mm at the long end instead of the wide end for multipurpose shooting. If I want to go really wide, I'll use my 8mm FE. Find what fits your needs and your style. It may not be the same solution that fits other photogs best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most important to me (apart from the specific housings, domes or lenses on the market) is the question if the nodal point of your Fish Eye (FE) is aligned with the centre of the sphere your dome was cut out of. The 4 inch mini dome is cut out of a sphere with a diameter of 4 inch (100 mm). The size of a grapefuit? These domes are half-sphere 'mini' domes with a strong curvature that are often designed to fit a special type of lens and housing. The virtual image at infinity will be around 15 cm. With the mini domes you usually do not have to worry much about unsharp corners (see A in my drawing; blue spot is the nodal point of the lense aligned with the centre of the sphere, the housing=blue, dotted black line = camera, thick black line = back of the dome). The mini dome with a FE allows you to get very close to your object which makes them suitable for CFWA shots.

With the slightly larger 5 inch dome (not a mini-dome for the puritans) you can also get pretty close to your UW object. This dome requires a somewhat longer port body on the housing for a correct alignment with the FE lense (like a 10-17 mm Zoom, or a 16 mm prime FE lense). They are often used on DSLR housings with a DX camera inside. The 4 inch mini-dome also fits smaller PEN type bodies used for 4/3 cameras equipped with a 8mm FE. Which makes this a very handy small combo to take with you as a back up system, together with your larger DSLR camera/housing system with the 5 inch dome..

 

The 8 inch (or: 200 mm) dome is made from of a sphere with a much larger diameter and less curvature. These domes are normally not half-sphere domes, and its virtual image will lie further away from the lense than with a mini dome (around 30 cm at infinity). Which makes them less suitable for CFWA. To reduce the size, a smaller segment of the sphere (not half but say 30%) is often cut of (see black line in B). An extension ring (or extended port) on the housing (in red) is then used for alignment with the nodal point of the FE lense. These 'universal ' domes are designed to fit several housings and lenses, FE as well as rectilineair wide angle lenses. Because of their large radius, the line separating water and air is thinner, which makes the 8 inch domes more suitable for over-under shots than the smaller domes..

A third possibility is to use a half (or almost half) sphere 8 inch dome (drawing C), with a shorter port on the housing.The virtual image will be at the same distance to the lense as with dome B, This bulky dome will extend more outside the housing than dome B, and does not seem to be the best choice for a FE lense. Please correct me if you notice anything not clear or you dont agree with (-;

post-7335-0-31872000-1450953273_thumb.jpg

Edited by albert kok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried a year ago both the 3.5" and the 4.33" nauticam ports with extensions on the em5 camera and olympus 9-18mm lens.

The results are no good. The 9-18mm is a great lens for land use but not for UW. Close focus is not good and even with diopters (achromatic too) attached the results are pretty bad. The 4" long semi dome port is good and results are reasonable with at least a +2 diopter in the case. Better an achromatic one. In the end I use this 9-18mm lens UW very little!.

 

I much prefer the 8mm FE lens with the small 3.5" dome and use that also when I want really wide and CFWA. Packing the dome and the 8mm lens is of little weight and space!

 

I have been using with good results the 4" semi dome port with the 12-50mm lens with a cmc flip diopter. I get true 24mm equivalent all the way to true macro. This is a reasonable versatile setup and have been using daily on my last Cozumel trip. The semidome also houses and works excellent with the 60mm macro lens.

 

Lately some options on wet wide angle add-ons have appeared but have not tried them The INON and the Nauticam seem to have a good wide wet solution matched to the 14-42 lenses (the Panasonic one seems the better one). And Nauticam offers a bayonet mount for easy detachment. This is an expensive setup but you could have a full solution from 110° wide to macro ... underwater . I would like to hear on someone that has tried it. The INON solution is less expensive and less wide but a bit less quality. The Nauticam advocates great quality but weight is 1kg and 1k € the cost!!!

 

Andrea

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nauticam lens has great quality and no chromatic aberrations so the image strays sharp. The Inon lens has a bit of fringing when the camera corrects it the result is softness in corners. Generally the nauticam wet lens with the Panasonic 14-42mm is a good optic but is not a fisheye. The WWL lens however is to heavy to be removed in water even with the bayonet and the lens caddy only works on normal arms. Nauticam is working on a float collar but this will make the camera even heavier on land. Until then you can only do macro and wide with one dive with the Inon as their bayonet system is lighter and works with lens holders on float arms. For still images however I wouldn't really bother the benefits of multi set up is more for video as in most places you don't get super macro and great wide in one dive except maybe raja ampat it has never happened to me to see a Pygmy and schooling barracuda on the same dive. In video you can zoom through both wet lenses and in Egypt for example I keep the wide angle on all the time for video. If you go to Lembeh flat port and few diopters are OK but rarely I get to use both. The ability to shoot the flat port and wet lens instead is useful for video especially to avoid going around with a 60mm macro and then you can't take even a large portrait

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Which is also the reason that the 8mm/1.8 FE or the new f/2.8 zooms never have been an alternative for me.

 

Well, the Oly 8 mm 1.8 fisheye fits nicely in the 4,33 dome with a 20 mm extension ring and is hardly larger than the solution for the Pana fisheye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...