Trying to convience my buddy to upgrade her setup from Olympus TG-5 (I know this is really old but still ok for macro😀) to a better set. She would like to keep the whole set in a very compactable size for the travel friendly and easy to use. So here is my proposal based on the discussions in the forum and AI, but still want to get any useful suggestions from all of you.

Now:

Camera: TG-5

Strobe: AOI Q1 RC

Wet lens for macro: Nauticam CMC-1

Wet lens for wide angle: Weefine wfl-02

New(Proposed)

Camera body: Olympus OM-1

Lens for daylight macro: M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 60mm F2.8 Macro

Lens for blackwater: M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 30mm F3.5 Macro

Lens for wide angle: M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ

Camera housing: AOI UH-OM1 II (embedded flash trigger which supports Olympus RC mode, Built-in Vacuum Analyzation and Wet Detection System)

Camera housing port for daylight macro: FLP-04P+ER-PN_PN-24

Camera housing port for blackwater: FLP-04P

Camera housing port for wide angle: FLP-04P+ER-PN_PN-24

Wet lens for macro: Nauticam CMC-1 (reuse)

Wet lens for wide angle: Nauticam WWL-1 (reuse)

Strobe: AOI Q1 RC

I try to reuse the same flat port and extension ring for different scenarios, and no need to buy new wet lens.

How about this setup, would it be sufficent and easy to use? Look for any better ideas~

Edited yesterday at 02:06 PM1 day by flowdesign

Seems to be a lot of duplication of capability. A main lens+ port for all types of shot. Then wet lenses for all types of shot. So as well as a bigger camera and housing, that setup also has the bulk of all that duplicated capability to carry on trips.

If you want to convince your buddy, prune the upgrade to a bare minimum, leave out the duplication and file away it for 'later expansion'. The wet lens subset, single port and single main lens, will be an easier initial upgrade because it is closer in operation to what they already have. Then let them upgrade the primary lenses and ports slow time as they gain experience.

Also to consider, they are used to using the camera screen to drive the TG5. Will they be using the screen or the viewfinder on the new setup? That can be a psychological hurdle, especially as most housing viewfinders get in the way of using the camera screen.

If you are going with the 12-50 (not the sharpest knife in the drawer) you would probably want the WWL-C as it is designed to go with a 24mm equivalent lens - though mating it to the AOI port might be an issue. Zooming to 14mm and not 12 might prove fiddly.

I think you want the extension tubes with the 12-50 and 60mm not the 30mm lens

The 60mm lens will fill the frame with a 17mm wide subject, adding the CMC-1 will fill it with a 7mm wide subject. I seem to recall the the TG cameras could only approach the magnification (frame filling) of the 60mm macro at very close focus distances making them less useful. I tried to find the field width at max magnification of a TG but couldn't find anything online, I seem to recall testing this on a TG4, but can't remember the results. Long story short - I'm wondering if a CMC is required at least initially.

I can see why you picked the lenses to keep the same flatport/extension tube setup, But to really surpass the TG in wide angle I'd suggest a fisheye in a small dome might be worth considering - depending of course upon what sort of subjects you want to shoot. I'd think a small dome might be cheaper than a WWL setup.

You cold also consider the Panasonic 30mm macro, I have that and find it very snappy in AF.

Probably just a typo, but the 60mm won't fit in FLP04(P) as far as I know. Maybe you meant the extension ring for that case. Another option instead of the 12-50+WWL1 is the 12-45 + DLP03/4 semi-dome. Probably cheaper, and the lens itself has much better image quality (I've shot both). No experience with the WWL-1.

Edited yesterday at 11:49 AM1 day by d2b

5 hours ago, John Liddiard said:

Seems to be a lot of duplication of capability. A main lens+ port for all types of shot. Then wet lenses for all types of shot. So as well as a bigger camera and housing, that setup also has the bulk of all that duplicated capability to carry on trips.

If you want to convince your buddy, prune the upgrade to a bare minimum, leave out the duplication and file away it for 'later expansion'. The wet lens subset, single port and single main lens, will be an easier initial upgrade because it is closer in operation to what they already have. Then let them upgrade the primary lenses and ports slow time as they gain experience.

Also to consider, they are used to using the camera screen to drive the TG5. Will they be using the screen or the viewfinder on the new setup? That can be a psychological hurdle, especially as most housing viewfinders get in the way of using the camera screen.

Good advice for the usage of viewfinder, but I think anyway the screen can still be an option to choose.

For me I'm using a FF Sony, but used to use viewfinder on land and screen for the UWP

3 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

If you are going with the 12-50 (not the sharpest knife in the drawer) you would probably want the WWL-C as it is designed to go with a 24mm equivalent lens - though mating it to the AOI port might be an issue. Zooming to 14mm and not 12 might prove fiddly.

I think you want the extension tubes with the 12-50 and 60mm not the 30mm lens

The 60mm lens will fill the frame with a 17mm wide subject, adding the CMC-1 will fill it with a 7mm wide subject. I seem to recall the the TG cameras could only approach the magnification (frame filling) of the 60mm macro at very close focus distances making them less useful. I tried to find the field width at max magnification of a TG but couldn't find anything online, I seem to recall testing this on a TG4, but can't remember the results. Long story short - I'm wondering if a CMC is required at least initially.

I can see why you picked the lenses to keep the same flatport/extension tube setup, But to really surpass the TG in wide angle I'd suggest a fisheye in a small dome might be worth considering - depending of course upon what sort of subjects you want to shoot. I'd think a small dome might be cheaper than a WWL setup.

You cold also consider the Panasonic 30mm macro, I have that and find it very snappy in AF.

The main consideration of entire setup is:

Cover most of scenarios with less components, after checking AOI port chart, it seems I can use 1 port + 1 extension ring to cover both 3 different kinds of shot

Agree with you that CMC-1 might not be necessary but since it's a spare part from old setup without any additional cost, could make the decision afterwards.

And talking about the selection of wide angle, just because of one existing WWL-1 with no cost🤣

2 hours ago, d2b said:

Probably just a typo, but the 60mm won't fit in FLP04(P) as far as I know. Maybe you meant the extension ring for that case. Another option instead of the 12-50+WWL1 is the 12-45 + DLP03/4 semi-dome. Probably cheaper, and the lens itself has much better image quality (I've shot both). No experience with the WWL-1.

Thanks for mentioning, it is the typo~ And if I can sell the WWL-1 in a resaonable price, definitely I can have more options to consider for wide angle

Would the 30mm vignette in the FLP-02N / 02P ?

1 hour ago, JayceeB said:

Would the 30mm vignette in the FLP-02N / 02P ?

I wouldn't expect so. I've used mine quite a lot in the similar length stock port for PT-EP13.

That port is just long enough for the 12-50 or the 60. Of course you get less magnification with the 30 in a longer port.

16 minutes ago, d2b said:

Of course you get less magnification with the 30 in a longer port.

Thanks. Was thinking it might be sufficient magnification for blackwater though.

If I was happy with a compact camera and two wet lenses, I doubt I’d be keen to move to a much larger system with double the parts and consequent packing, setup, and cleaning. But the potential increase in IQ might be the selling point. (Full disclosure- I use m4/3 gear for that reason plus travel-ability)

But why go with three lenses with overlapping range? If you’re willing to consider Nauticam instead of AOI, there is a port and gear for the 12-50mm lens that allows all three ranges. Chris is right that it’s not the sharpest especially compared to the 60mm, and the gear is fiddly to set up, but that combo will outshine the TG-5. I was happy with it for several years and produced some nice images. It turns up second hand once in a while too. Two quick examples below, both without wet lenses (these are jpeg so not full resolution)

I have no experience of M43 UWP, but theoretically it must be more powerful than TG series in most cases. Consider over 85-90% of our diving is only for macro, we rarely need to shoot macro and wide angle just in one dive even for the dives at the same day. Which means, I don't have to consider to use one lens fits for all, and if the existing wet lens can be used to enpower the entire setup, that's great, but if not, I'm also fine with that😀

Since the marco setup is much more important, I'd like to know:

• Does 60mm is enough for both normal macro and blackwater, or 30mm is recommended for the blackwater?

• As what Chris mentioned, panasonic 30 might be a better choice, but anyone has chance to check whether it could fie the same port as OM 30mm? It is 63.5mm in length, 3.5mm longer than OM 30mm.

15 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

You cold also consider the Panasonic 30mm macro, I have that and find it very snappy in AF.

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by flowdesign

35 minutes ago, flowdesign said:

I have no experience of M43 UWP, but theoretically it must be more powerful than TG series in most cases. Consider over 85-90% of our diving is only for macro, we rarely need to shoot macro and wide angle just in one dive even for the dives at the same day. Which means, I don't have to consider to use one lens fits for all, and if the existing wet lens can be used to enpower the entire setup, that's great, but if not, I'm also fine with that😀

Since the marco setup is much more important, I'd like to know:

• Does 60mm is enough for both normal macro and blackwater, or 30mm is recommended for the blackwater?

• As what Chris mentioned, panasonic 30 might be a better choice, but anyone has chance to check whether it could fie the same port as OM 30mm? It is 63.5mm in length, 3.5mm longer than OM 30mm.

They both take the same Nauticam port. If you want to minimise things and are into mostly macro the 60mm plus and MFO-3 would be the preferred solution I would think - it comes in handy when you find a larger subject when using the 60mm, think Anemone fish and even larger nudis and scorpion fish - like a Rhinopias. You have to back off too far with bigger subjects. I used it today for a 90-100mm long nudi, much less water between me and it, likewise a 130mm long seahorse. And you can put it on for blackwater. Then you don't need the 30mm.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

They both take the same Nauticam port. If you want to minimise things and are into mostly macro the 60mm plus and MFO-3 would be the preferred solution I would think - it comes in handy when you find a larger subject when using the 60mm, think Anemone fish and even larger nudis and scorpion fish - like a Rhinopias. You have to back off too far with bigger subjects. I used it today for a 90-100mm long nudi, much less water between me and it, likewise a 130mm long seahorse. And you can put it on for blackwater. Then you don't need the 30mm.

Hi Chris, fully agree with MFO-3's advantages, I used in my last dive trip together with new Sony 100mm macro, really incredible result, even it was my first "real" blackwater dive. But considering to have two MFO-3 is a really "Crazy" idea😊

I know you have very rich experience on various macro lens for M43, just want to know the overall impression between 30mm and 60mm+MFO-3 for the blackwater? Focusing speed, focal length, FOV, etc.

Big thanks in advance~

If you want a simple, do kinda everything solution, I'm a big proponent of the Olympus 12-45 in a mini-dome. The domes for the 14-42 / 9-18 or 8mm (with an extension ring) both work. Other than ultra wide or true macro, this combo is a do everything generalist. If you want ultra wide, bring the 8mm. If near-macro isn't enough, AOI macro ports are cheap and so are used copies of the 30 or 60. Used copies of the 12-45 can be found all day long for less than $400, and you get Oly Pro build quality, autofocus, etc. Can you tell I'm a huge fan? I currently shoot the 12-45 in an AOI OM-1 mkI/mkII housing with an Inon fisheye dome, and I could be perfectly happy with nothing else.

I have the special port and zoom gear plus 12-50 lens, it really is a generalist. I mostly use it I'm the macro port with a diopter however. I haven't tried it behind a dome.

However I'd be looking at the 60mm macro and MFO-3 for everything except wide angle.

The WWL-1 works really well with the 12-50 other than needing a little zoom in plus it's a heavy lens.

If you have the 30mm macro then the Weefine/Kraken KRL-09S is a lighter wide angle option.

17 hours ago, flowdesign said:

Hi Chris, fully agree with MFO-3's advantages, I used in my last dive trip together with new Sony 100mm macro, really incredible result, even it was my first "real" blackwater dive. But considering to have two MFO-3 is a really "Crazy" idea😊

I know you have very rich experience on various macro lens for M43, just want to know the overall impression between 30mm and 60mm+MFO-3 for the blackwater? Focusing speed, focal length, FOV, etc.

Big thanks in advance~

Unfortunately I don't have blackwater experience. The 30mm Panasonic seems snappier than the 60mm but I haven't used it for a while. I do know that the 60mm AF is better on the OM-1 and even the Em-1 mkii than the earlier bodies. I think the main reason for the shorter macros in blackwater is the wider field making finding your critter easier. From what I can see the 30 and 60 mm use the same port and you just add an extension tube for the 60mm so it's just the lens cost to add the 30mm.