All Activity

My take is that it is not visible in 90+ percent of all shots. I have used the Fix Neo with NO auto off and the S&S version of the same light with auto off and can't see a difference.

I think the IQ of the 45 is the best of all the macro options, but in Black Water it misses lots of shots trying to focus. It is probably my most used lens.

I should say first that I only shoot video. I have the 45mm and even if the quality is stellar, it's one of the slowest lens I tried on M43 (maybe the old 20mm was worse). Once they lent me the 30mm and it seemed faster than the 45mm to me. The flaw that everyone blames on the 30mm is that it reaches maximum magnification practically on the glass of the port. However, it can also be a false problem if you do not necessarily look for maximum magnification. In the end it depends on the type of environment and critters.

I’ve toyed around with an Olympus 12-50 mm EZ lens today. I got this together with an OMD-EM5 (the original one) for a really good price. I love the EM5 but had not given the 12-50 much attention. The lens has been discussed a lot when it came out in 2012, also for UW use, and I suppose pretty much everything has been said and posted about it. It’s a slow, decent but not brilliant lens with a moderate macro mode at 43 mm focal length. Some of the users here might have it lying in a drawer, collecting dust. So why do it over? Something has changed since 2012, and that is we now have AI-powered image touch-up possibilities. My approach is to use an algorithm that promise to recover unsharp shots (a myth) at a low intensity setting to improve the IQ of modest kit lenses. I explained this before in more detail on this site, many companies offer tools like that. Let’s see what this can do for the macro-mode. The 43 mm focal length is interesting as it is not too far away from the 60mm + MFO3 combination that many here like for the flexibility and outstanding image quality. The M43 30 mm macro lenses are great for the somewhat larger things but a bit limited for high-magnification by short working distances. The 45 mm Panasonic (Goldilock's compromise?) was sometimes described as a bit slower focusing. I only have the Panasonic 30 mm for a direct comparison and it’s all in air (can’t dive this year). I took the shots (sunflower) at a kind of UW-reasonable setting – hand-held, ISO 200, f 10, 1/200 sec and light coming from a flashgun. I tried to do this at the minimal focusing distance of the 12-50 EZ macro, so should be 1:3’ish. These are 100% crops from close to the center, a bit of "classic" noise-reducion & sharpening applied. 12-50 EZ in macro mode: Pana 30mm with a roughly similar field of view: The Panasonic 30 mm has better IQ, I think, though the focus may be ever so slightly different (try to look at the stigma to the left). But the difference is not all that big in this center part. The f 10 probably limited the Panasonic 30 mm somewhat, but realistically that's what many of us will use for sufficient depth. Now how does this look after my ON1 touch-up? (same raw-files, 65% AI noise reduction, 23% detail, 15% AI sharpening) 12-50 EZ macro: Panasonic 30 mm: Conclusions: 1) BOTH lenses benefit from this treatment. The 12-50 gets better than the “native” Pana 30 mm but after touch-up the Pana still wins clearly. 2) While I insist that recovering blurry images with this tool doesn’t work, it looks like the procedure CAN extend the focal depth a bit. Won’t save a truly ruined shot, but can be pleasing – or not, if shallow depth of view is what one wants. The Bokeh definitely gets busier for things that are just out-of-focus. AF performance: In air, I found the Olympus 12-50 EZ (macro mode) to be slightly faster than the Panasonic 30 mm. Both lenses will hunt occasionally, but the 12-50 will only focus out to ~1.2 m in the macro mode. Maybe that makes a difference? I only have bodies with contrast-detection AF, the newer phase-decetion systems may give different results. But the two lenses are not far apart. If you think that this might be an interesting 43 mm macro option for you, look around in the local classifieds as this lens has been discontinued. Reasonable prices will be 100-120 € if you buy from a private seller or less if you're lucky. I would not spend more than that. The lens should fit in any port designed for the 60 mm macro (12-50 EZ is just 1 mm longer). Add a +5 diopter if you need higher magnification. I certainly don't expect this to reach the IQ of the 60mm + MFO3 combination (those two lenses bought new are about 10x the cost of a pre-owned 12-50). I can't compare but that would be against all common sense. Nontheless, I think the image quality is good enough out-of-camera for sharing on social media and it can be improved post-processing for larger prints.

Yes / no it is depending... But also with the VPN deactivate it doesn't work, And until the last picture at the top of this topic ... all was fine... I posted it... made a second with a cut in the pieces to show you how this parts are build... and that's it. Maximum 2 minutes after the first.

Are you using any sort of VPN? Sometimes these can cause odd issues due to filtering that takes place on the web server or CDN middleman.

Although not everybody agrees, I prefer the Pana 45mm over the 30mm. The working distance is far much better and I have no AF issues for macro.

"In the context menu i have the option paste... when I click on this item... nothing" With text in the clipboard it works

In the context menu i have the option paste... when I click on this item... nothing

No nothing ... I use Greenshot, allways copy to the clipboard and paste it. Exactly the way i used for the first picture in this topic. I've try on a second PC same. I'm using Win11 last update. As browser I'm using edge and I have no other browser on my PCs

It didn't work... the file has only 947 Kb really small

Thanks all , especially the backscatter argument resonates for me. The Kraken 1800 WSR looks perfect for me, small and simple. The EU common market helps me out, i'll order one from Spain.

I raised group limits a little.. you may want to reduce the size a bit on images you upload. Let me know.

You are right and that is what I could find on other posts about it here as well, sorry for doubling this. So « two lens options » are 60 mm +/- MFO3 but also 45 mm +/- diopter. The difference is that the 60 mm without wetlens gives a longer working distance than the 45 mm with a +5 diopter, right? Edit: With the pana 45 or 30 one actually doesn't need the diopter up to 1:1, it's only if I use the 12-50 in macro mode that I would need it for something approaching 1:1. It's all about the working distance one has for the high-mag shots. Think I finally got it.

Just to have two focal lens on a flip in the same dive. Otherwise the Pana 30mm is perfect.

does it give you a error?

Wow, great work!

The auto off feature is important to me. Both my older Inons and my new Retra strobes have an auto off feature and my Kraken 1800 and former 1500 light that rides atop my housing also has an auto-off mode. I find it not required to hook an optical cable to the Kraken, it sees the strobes flash just fine. The purpose/use of the auto off is to prevent backscatter illumination. Most noticeable when I use the focus light mounted in the cold shoe on my Nauticam, especially at night. For integral strobe focus lights perhaps less useful since anything the focus light illuminates will be illuminated by the strobe light as well, not so with a focus light mounted over the lens port.

I suppose that was Olympus’ intention and it follows the theme of kit-lens + wet diopter for general purpose dives. The question has been raised before on this thread more or less - why should an MFT shooter buy the MFO3 rather than one of the 45 or 30 mm macro lenses? Any of those are cheaper than the MFO3, so there must be another reason than simple mathematics of focal length. Is it AF speed? Correction of flat port optical issues? [edit: the 45 mm is about the same price as the MFO3 when bought new, sorry.] The 12-50 in its macro setting is perhaps another option, with its own set of compromises (which we should not discuss in this post, I think). For the record and based on a quick test in air: @50 mm with a +5 diopter is about the same field of view as the macro mode, add the same diopter to that and it gives about twice the magnification. So it does make a difference whether you switch it to macro before the dive.

Not important. Mostly *. Unless shooting a very slow exposure or very high ISO. It would be very exceptional for the wide angle, low powered spotting beam to to show in an image. * A tight beam high intensity light might break through, but that would be a flashlight, not the configuration of a focus light.

I have shots taken at night, in wrecks and in caves where the focus light shows as a slight hot spot with a slightly red tinge from the difference in white balance. For macro photography its less of an issue. The key is the focus light acts over the entire exposure time. Hence, for example, a wide angle shot from beneath a dark overhang or inside a wreck with portholes would often use a slower shutter to get some of the blue, but that exposure time also increases the opportunity for a focus light to create a noticeable spot. Sometimes similar techniques are used to lighten the background for a macro shot. Without an auto cutout, a focus light needs to be as weak as usable with a diffuse beam (no hard edges). i.e. Buy cheap or expensive, but probably not in the middle ground.

I might have to do some testing sometime, and also see if white PVC increases (or has less of a decrease) than black reduction rings.