Panasonic 8-18mm, which dome?

[Jesper64 1]

Thanks for the quick reply and test shots.

 

Yeah there's definitely a difference which you've nicely shown.

 

I've currently have the 6" dome but neither of the wide angle lenses. I'd prefer the 8-18mm for topside work so debating whether a bit of softness in the corners is an alright trade off.

 

Centre of the 6" is alright?

[Interceptor121 707]

I have decided not to bother with the 8-18mm for now. I am using the 6” dome for the leica 12-60mm and I have found an alternative set up to use the panasonic 7-14mm

From what I see from the examples here the 6 dome sits too close to the lens and therefore it will behave more like a flat port with blurred edges and narrower filed of view compares to the 7” dome. You would need an extension to the 6 dome to balance off but then the zoom gear won’t fit through the opening..:

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave@immersed 21]

Thanks for the quick reply and test shots.

 

Yeah there's definitely a difference which you've nicely shown.

 

I've currently have the 6" dome but neither of the wide angle lenses. I'd prefer the 8-18mm for topside work so debating whether a bit of softness in the corners is an alright trade off.

 

Centre of the 6" is alright?

Yes the centre is fine. Its similar to how the Pany 7-14 behaves in the same dome (if I look back at some of my older stills with that combo). I think you'd need to zoom to 10mm or more to avoid the corner distortion but I haven't tested. It was the softness of the 7-14 in that dome that drove me to get the 8-18 and 7"...

I'm happy with results from the lens inside the 7" dome, its not perfect, but to get any better would involve glass and probably various extensions/adaptors. I also love the lens topside.

I have made up a weight to attach to the dome to assist with buoyancy. 250g of lead and its still a bit front-buoyant but much more manageable.

I've just packed everything for a big trip to Indonesia starting Sunday, so from now on its going to have to be real world testing!

[Jesper64 1]

Yes the centre is fine. Its similar to how the Pany 7-14 behaves in the same dome (if I look back at some of my older stills with that combo). I think you'd need to zoom to 10mm or more to avoid the corner distortion but I haven't tested. It was the softness of the 7-14 in that dome that drove me to get the 8-18 and 7"...

I'm happy with results from the lens inside the 7" dome, its not perfect, but to get any better would involve glass and probably various extensions/adaptors. I also love the lens topside.

I have made up a weight to attach to the dome to assist with buoyancy. 250g of lead and its still a bit front-buoyant but much more manageable.

I've just packed everything for a big trip to Indonesia starting Sunday, so from now on its going to have to be real world testing!

 

Enjoy Indonesia!

[dreifish 353]

Not directly on topic, but I've now had the opportunity to test the 8-18 on the GH5 with the Nauticam 7" acrylic dome and the 180mm glass dome (albeit it with 65mm of extension rather then the recommended 75mm). I'd say the acrylic and glass performed similarly, with a slight edge to the acrylic (that would probably change with the recommended extension ports). Neither produced usable corners for photos below F8, IMO. Maybe with video you could get away with F5.6 because of the 16:9 aspect ratio.

 

Because of the amount of air inside the dome and the relatively light lens, both combinations make the camera want to turn dome up. The glass is slightly better in this respect.

 

That said, my daily driver has been the 14-42II +WWL-1 combination for a while, and I continue to vastly prefer it to the 8-18 + dome port option. Corners are clean down to F3.5 for video, so you gain two stops of light. The trim is also better (it doesn't try to turn upwards), the field of view is noticeably wider (around 5-6mm equivalent) and it's slightly fisheye at the edges, whereas the 8-18 produces pincushion distortion at the edges. Pincushion distortion is a lot more unnatural and distracting IMO, especially as soon as there's any motion like with video.

 

The only downside of the WWL-1 setup is that it can't be used for split shots and needs to be unmounted & remounted upon entry to release trapped air between the port and wet lens. But ultimately, image quality is much better and the focal length is better. Zoom range with the 14-42 + WWL-1 is roughly equivalent to a 5-15mm rectilinear lens, so significantly wider than the rectilinear options at the wide end and slightly shorter at the long end then the 8-18.

[Lionfi2s 74]

Not directly on topic, but I've now had the opportunity to test the 8-18 on the GH5 with the Nauticam 7" acrylic dome and the 180mm glass dome (albeit it with 65mm of extension rather then the recommended 75mm). I'd say the acrylic and glass performed similarly, with a slight edge to the acrylic (that would probably change with the recommended extension ports). Neither produced usable corners for photos below F8, IMO. Maybe with video you could get away with F5.6 because of the 16:9 aspect ratio.

 

Because of the amount of air inside the dome and the relatively light lens, both combinations make the camera want to turn dome up. The glass is slightly better in this respect.

 

That said, my daily driver has been the 14-42II +WWL-1 combination for a while, and I continue to vastly prefer it to the 8-18 + dome port option. Corners are clean down to F3.5 for video, so you gain two stops of light. The trim is also better (it doesn't try to turn upwards), the field of view is noticeably wider (around 5-6mm equivalent) and it's slightly fisheye at the edges, whereas the 8-18 produces pincushion distortion at the edges. Pincushion distortion is a lot more unnatural and distracting IMO, especially as soon as there's any motion like with video.

 

The only downside of the WWL-1 setup is that it can't be used for split shots and needs to be unmounted & remounted upon entry to release trapped air between the port and wet lens. But ultimately, image quality is much better and the focal length is better. Zoom range with the 14-42 + WWL-1 is roughly equivalent to a 5-15mm rectilinear lens, so significantly wider than the rectilinear options at the wide end and slightly shorter at the long end then the 8-18.

Andrei do you see major differences between the 14-42 II and the 14-42 PZ ?

[Interceptor121 707]

Andrei do you see major differences between the 14-42 II and the 14-42 PZ ?

 

The PZ lens is slightly sharper than the 14-42 II at wide end it is very hard to see the difference in still images though. As you zoom to 42mm the 14-42 II gets better than the PZ

 

However if you shoot video you may want to consider that the PZ lens does not support Dual IS whilst the 14-42 II does this is very frustrating as obviously the PZ is better for video on land as the zoom can be controlled remotely

 

If you already own a lens and take only still images it is not worth changing if instead do not own any generally the 14-42 II is a better option especially if you plan to use diopter at the tele end

[dreifish 353]

Andrei do you see major differences between the 14-42 II and the 14-42 PZ ?

 

I haven't tested them back-to-back. Actually, I no longer have the 14-42 PZ from Panasonic and I never used it with the GH5/WWL-1, but I used to use the 14-42 EZ from Olympus before the 14-42 II.

 

As between the 14-42 II and the 14-42 EZ from Olympus, I didn't notice a huge difference in terms of image quality, I think the 14-42 II handles flare a little bit better and is probably marginally sharper (but you won't notice with video unless you're pixel-peeping. On the other hand, the 14-42 EZ can focus closer, so it is a better option if you find yourself doing a fair bit of macro with a wet diopter (or even without).

 

Stabilization seems a bit of a wash between the two of them as well, surprisingly. At least, I didn't notice any ground-shattering improvement despite the 14-42 II theoretically having Dual-IS while the 14-42 EZ has no in-lens stabilization.

 

In retrospect, it was probably a waste of money to change from the 14-42 EZ to the 14-42 II. There might be a slight improvement, but it's by no means night and day. So if you already have the 14-42 PZ and you're happy with it, just stick with it. The 14-42 II needs a new gear and port, so it's not a cheap upgrade.

[Lionfi2s 74]

 

I haven't tested them back-to-back. Actually, I no longer have the 14-42 PZ from Panasonic and I never used it with the GH5/WWL-1, but I used to use the 14-42 EZ from Olympus before the 14-42 II.

 

As between the 14-42 II and the 14-42 EZ from Olympus, I didn't notice a huge difference in terms of image quality, I think the 14-42 II handles flare a little bit better and is probably marginally sharper (but you won't notice with video unless you're pixel-peeping. On the other hand, the 14-42 EZ can focus closer, so it is a better option if you find yourself doing a fair bit of macro with a wet diopter (or even without).

 

Stabilization seems a bit of a wash between the two of them as well, surprisingly. At least, I didn't notice any ground-shattering improvement despite the 14-42 II theoretically having Dual-IS while the 14-42 EZ has no in-lens stabilization.

 

In retrospect, it was probably a waste of money to change from the 14-42 EZ to the 14-42 II. There might be a slight improvement, but it's by no means night and day. So if you already have the 14-42 PZ and you're happy with it, just stick with it. The 14-42 II needs a new gear and port, so it's not a cheap upgrade.

Thanks a lot. Think i am staying with the PZ.

[Interceptor121 707]

By the way Dave@immersed how was your experience with the 8-18mm?

 

What dreifish says it's correct using a wide angle behind a dome will never match an optic like the WWL-1 however for me a rectilinear lens servers a different purpose for example pictures with people or internal or wrecks where barrel distortion is not ideal

[dreifish 353]

By the way Dave@immersed how was your experience with the 8-18mm?

 

What dreifish says it's correct using a wide angle behind a dome will never match an optic like the WWL-1 however for me a rectilinear lens servers a different purpose for example pictures with people or internal or wrecks where barrel distortion is not ideal

 

I dunno about that.. every rectilinear wide angle lens I've used behind a dome port introduces pin-cushion distortion at the wide end (the edges get stretched outwards), which I find even more distracting and unnatural when shooting people (or anything else for that matter). Some do it to a lesser degree, but it's inherent in the physics of it, so but you'll always want to keep your subject in the center to avoid the distortion. I find that you need to shoot at around 20-24mm equivalent to mostly eliminate the perspective distortion.

 

I think the WWL-1 is a great option for shooting people personally. There is mild barrel distortion around the edges of the screen shot wide open, but it disappears once you zoom in about half-way. You'll notice the barrel distortion more with things like wreck interiors or the pillars on a jetty for example -- anything that's supposed to look straight. But keep in mind that the field of view on the WWL is quite a bit wider than any rectilinear lens option as well.

[Interceptor121 707]

 

I dunno about that.. every rectilinear wide angle lens I've used behind a dome port introduces pin-cushion distortion at the wide end (the edges get stretched outwards), which I find even more distracting and unnatural when shooting people (or anything else for that matter). Some do it to a lesser degree, but it's inherent in the physics of it, so but you'll always want to keep your subject in the center to avoid the distortion. I find that you need to shoot at around 20-24mm equivalent to mostly eliminate the perspective distortion.

 

I think the WWL-1 is a great option for shooting people personally. There is mild barrel distortion around the edges of the screen shot wide open, but it disappears once you zoom in about half-way. You'll notice the barrel distortion more with things like wreck interiors or the pillars on a jetty for example -- anything that's supposed to look straight. But keep in mind that the field of view on the WWL is quite a bit wider than any rectilinear lens option as well.

 

I see what you mean that the edges look stretched however this is not due to pincushion distortion but to lack of depth of field and the camera struggling to focus this in turn creates also fringing of the image.

Look at this image for example

Headlights Bikes by Interceptor121, on Flickr

You can clearly see that the lines inside the wreck are straight there is no pincushion distortion however if you look at the corners they are blurred despite the f/8 and there is some fringing (corrected)

Now a lot of people don't mind barrel distortion and will happily take that picture with a fisheye lens but in my opinion you don't take picture to look in corners and if the lines are curved is worst, A matter of personal taste

 

In video the blur on the edges combined with rolling shutter kills the image entirely creating a pull effect but it is not pincushion distortion as such.

By the way I have seen this on any rig with a rectilinear lens with video see for example taxidriver with 12-24 FE on the A7 beatiful centre but as things pan on the edge they get blurred

 

So in conclusion I would fully agree that for video nothing beats a flat port with a zoom lens and a wet lens of decent quality for still images is down to personal taste and for some type of images where the respect of the shapes is more important a wide lens behind a dome can be useful but is not for everyone and is expensive considering the limited use

[dave@immersed 21]

By the way Dave@immersed how was your experience with the 8-18mm?

 

What dreifish says it's correct using a wide angle behind a dome will never match an optic like the WWL-1 however for me a rectilinear lens servers a different purpose for example pictures with people or internal or wrecks where barrel distortion is not ideal

Hi guys,

Still in Raja :-) but heading home soon.

I've been really happy with the Pany 8-18 inside the 7" acrylic. Yes, stills are a little soft in the corners when fully wide and at less than around f8, but I don't see it as pin cushion, just a slight stretching and softness, particularly for close-up WA, as expected.

For video, the 16:9 aspect reduces the corner issue (and if I use e-stabilisation it "helps" further by cropping a little...) I don't see much distortion, just a bit of corner stretching and its still quite sharp, although I try to keep it above f5.6 at all times. Overall I'm happy with the results. I'll eventually post some examples.

The lead weight on the front of the dome makes a big difference (I forgot it on one dive after removing it for split shots...). It is still a bit "front-up", but quite comfortable and it may have saved the dome from a few scratches ;-). I have enough floats/arms to make the rig neutral.

 

Gotta go, I'm supposed to be editing video, not browsing Wetpixel, and anyway its time for a late afternoon snorkel ;-)

[dave@immersed 21]

Finally done some video editing and upload... I have just posted something on the "showcase" thread.

Mostly filmed with the 8-18mm (mainly at 8mm) the edit is all "full frame", no cropping or zooming.

There is some corner softness and distortion, but its not extreme and I enjoyed using the lens/port combination.

[Xberges 4]

Hello, following this closely, as I already have the 7" acrylic dome. Does anybody have an album of still photos they can share to see the image quality?

 

Thanks,

[dave@immersed 21]

There are plenty on my website shot with the 7" dome.

I reduce them to 1860x1140pixels and 550kb for the website but you get the idea.

I can pick one or two and upload a higher res version if you like?

 

Just back from a fabulous trip to Fiji. Most of these were taken with the 7" dome, with 8-18 lens, or sometimes 12-60 (ie sharks), with a few macro and fisheye photos in the mix.

https://immersed.net.au/ON-LOCATION/Fiji/thumbs

Yes it really was that colourful, in fact Lightroom "auto" settings significantly reduced the saturation 'cos it didn't believe it!

I find that in processing I often do a small crop to help with the soft corners if shooting at 8mm, say a 5% crop.

The 12-60 works really well in the dome.

 

The wide-angle photos in the Raja Ampat, Egypt and Maldives albums were mostly with the 7" dome too.

[Xberges 4]

Yes,

 

If you can pick some at high res it would be amazing and highly appreciated. For me it's hard when looking at your website to know which lens you used, unless I'm missing something obvious.

 

Thank you!

[dave@immersed 21]

Yes,

 

If you can pick some at high res it would be amazing and highly appreciated. For me it's hard when looking at your website to know which lens you used, unless I'm missing something obvious.

 

Thank you!

You're not missing anything, no captions to tell which lens was used, but most of the wide angle are 7" with 8-18 Leica.

OK will organise high res examples somehow; is it the 8-18 Leica lens that you are interested in?

So I can pick some useful images, is there any particular kind of image quality aspect that are you most interested in? eg dome vs lens, overall sharpness, corner sharpness, flaring, low light etc?

[ChrisRoss 150]

some really nice shots on your Fiji gallery, off topic but who did you dive with?

[dave@immersed 21]

some really nice shots on your Fiji gallery, off topic but who did you dive with?

Thanks Chris.

I was on-board the Nai'a. Excellent boat, fantastic crew, very comfortable, amazing food (free drinks with dinner!). Decent camera facilities and careful handling by the crew, they are used to photographers. We had great conditions, not much sunshine and generally windy, but great viz and suitable currents (but at 26C it was a bit chilly for a mostly tropical diver ;-)

We didn't see another dive boat, I wish the same could be said for Raja Ampat these days...

I will definitely go again.

Trip report here:

https://www.naia.com.fj/blog/sonias-superstars-sequel/

[Xberges 4]

Hello!

 

I'm interested in the 8-18" yes. If you have a reefscape, large animal example and another photo where you think color are easy to see I'd highly appreciate it.

 

Thanks again!

[dave@immersed 21]

OK, I've uploaded a few high-res photos to this web page. Tried to pick a few varied scenes to show how the camera deals with it.

 

https://immersed.pixieset.com/wetpixelsamples/

 

These are jpg files straight out of the camera, GH5, 7" dome with 8-18mm lens, no cropping, no adjustments, all shot at ISO200, other camera settings are shown on the image.

Only thing I've done is "export from Lightroom as jpg" so I could add a watermark and annotation.

 

 

You should be able to download the individual images at original resolution and have a look at them more closely in your photo editor.

 

No large animals really, I've got plenty of manta shots but only as frame grabs from video. For sharks I use the 12-60.

 

Happy to help. Let me know how you go.

[horvendile 12]

OK, I've uploaded a few high-res photos to this web page. Tried to pick a few varied scenes to show how the camera deals with it.

 

https://immersed.pixieset.com/wetpixelsamples/

 

 

 

That second shot. The one with the batfish(?) from below.

Wow.

[Xberges 4]

Thanks for the examples, they look very crisp and amazing! Seems like q very solid lens!

[dave@immersed 21]

Thanks for the examples, they look very crisp and amazing! Seems like q very solid lens!

Yes I'm really happy with the lens, also topside.

It can be a bit soft in the corners inside the dome, at 8mm, but I can work with it and it is much better than when I was using a 7-14 Panasonic lens inside a 6" dome.