Klaus

There clearly are ways to reduce noise and INCREASE sharpness at the same time during post-processing. Yes, this is AI - at its best. And these algorithms are likely driving much of the improved signal/noise ratio in the new camera bodies' jpg engines (no matter which sensor format).

Scientific work and museum exhibits are great projects, but not many of us have the luck to participate in that kind of event. Great stuff! As for the original question - may I ask what limits your photo archive most, image quality or diving opportunity? An honest answer may tell you where the money should go. And, since we shouldn’t bite the hands of the equipment dealers that feed this site: May I throw in that perhaps a better strobe or snoot might benefit your pictures more than a bigger sensor? I confess to GAS: I also feel better when traveling with something new to something blue …

I’m not sure if Nauticam still makes the special port that allowed to flip the macro mode of the lens on and off again. It was the only one offering that functionality. Without that particular port, you have to decide whether to dive general-purpose (12 and 50 mm electronic zoom positions) or whether to switch it into macro before closing the housing and use it as a dedicated 43 mm macro lens that will do up to 1:3 . A close-up lens can be added in both scenarios, but it will result in higher overall magnification when combined with the macro mode. Or, in other terms, you need a stronger diopter if you use it in the normal mode. I cannot currently test which option gives better image quality under water, but the macro mode of this lens has a somewhat better reputation than the 50 mm zoom position. And the 12 mm position may result in vignetting depending on how narrow the port glass is - the Olympus ports from that time were really wide. There are dome ports for this lens, but then you can’t add a diopter. So, unless you can dive with the vintage Nauticam port, there probably are better all-rounder options than this lens today. I think the 12-50 can be used with any setup designed for the 60 mm when it is switched to macro mode. Essentially, an affordable and perhaps faster focusing alternative to the Lumix 45 mm (but consider the diopter as well). It will not focus to infinity, just like when you mount the MFO3.

This is a perfectly valid point of view (= no AI whatsoever) and I certainly understand anyone who chooses this approach. I have always used technology to alter my pictures according to what I want to achieve. Red filters for dramatic skies on b/w film, polarizing filter for crystal-clear water on my Ektachrome slides, shading and burning when making prints in the darkroom … and the non-AI part of our image processing programs have a slew of sliders that can do all this and more. I see no harm in using an AI-tool to remove noise and improve sharpness/contrast. This does not alter the composition, it “only” makes the image look like I had a better camera and lens when I released the shutter. I think this is a much less invasive step than e.g. manually “stamping” away unsightly backscatter. I also have no problems declaring that I used the tool should that be asked for: I simply spent money on a software tool, rather than excellent & heavy glass. The results are very similar. Using AI to alter the composition, like removing objects or inserting a beautiful sky, is a very different thing. I am not ready for that kind of manipulation, even though I used the red filter back in the aRgentic days and of course I remove backscatter. I am also a big supporter of the EU rule that fully AI generated images now need to be marked. I have not bothered to find out whether a sky-swap falls into that category as well, but the touch-up I am doing certainly doesn’t (but no problem if it did). Most of the latest-generation camera bodies will have some sprinkle of AI in their jpg engines and our smartphones a lot more. It may become difficult to fully escape from AI at some point, but that remains nonetheless a valid goal. There is no good or bad in all of this, just personal preference.

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.

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.

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.

I was toying around today (dry) with the Oly 12-50 EZ lens. Disappointed to find out that I can trigger the extreme zoom positions from a camera button but NOT the macro mode. Nauticam has a port for that, but none for the plastic housing I have. Why, Olympus…. ? But then… I wonder: If I manually push it into Macro mode and then place it in the housing, would it not be similar to the 60 mm + MFO3 combo discussed here? I know the image quality will not be the same, but in practical terms. On land the lens can focus out to something like 1.2 m in macro mode. And of course, the MFO 3 can be taken off for stronger macro, which would require a diopter with the 12-50. But considering the price… any opinions?

Interesting experience, thanks for sharing (and not re-iterating the curses). It would be nice to be able to program two focus positions into the camera, say on an Fn button or so, for a given lens. Then we could have it all- fix-focus for reef and CFWA plus AF if we want to. And the ability to switch rapidly and reliably between all this. Does that exist?

I think there’s two aspects to this - using a very specific lens that’s off the charts and then the « tinkering » , i.e. how to actually fit it in a system. Tinkering is a fun project for some «dry » evenings /weekends but ultimately only rewarding if the photography gains something from it. I adapted a manual fisheye for a simple m43 system and that was fun (you can find a post somewhere on this site). For dome-ports, a simple way to verify a reasonably correct position is to take a split shot and look at whether off-center vertical lines match between above and below. There are also some reports on this on the forum, @DreiFish has included this in his testing-routine which I think is as good as it gets. The MF fisheye exercise is image -wise of course nonsense for m43 because the AF lenses exist and are even quite affordable. For me, it was a test to see whether I like shooting a FE (which I bought for above-water use) under water. Fisheyes can be used fix-focus as @Phil Rudin described and I got some good shots with my setup. I can change focus for CFWA but that is difficult to verify under water. Keeper-rate is so-so. Rectilinear wide lenses have a shallower depth of field than FE and are more sensitive to the curved virtual image - that does not make focusing easier. And I think doing macro with an MF lens will be very challenging. Yes, one may anyways choose to pre-focus an AF lens and then use focus-peaking to pull the trigger. But having at least the option of AF will make you more flexible and faster for unexpected opportunities. What’s better, a sharp frame that you need to crop or the ideal focal length and framing but slightly out-of-focus? AF may not be what I miss most on my FE, but changing the aperture is important for sunball shots and those are a staple for FE. I am looking out for a second-hand Panny 8mm on the classifieds, that’s the bottom line.

If you venture toward Olympus, you will likely end up reading some reviews written by Robin Wang. He uses the term „shutter therapy“ - I like that a lot. I own a Nikon APS-C, the D3300 bottom-feeder model. Bought it new as my re-entry into photography (shot 35 mm Film when I was young, nothing when our kids were young) and loved it - humble kit lens and the 50-200 for reach. Then, I bought the pre-owned Olympus housing + Epl system for UW. I thought I should get the Epl out on land to learn the Olympus menu system & controls. I literally haven‘t touched the Nikon since. M43 is great because the lenses are really small and very lightweight. The bodies are almost too small for my hands (also have a 1st gen OM5 now), but the lenses are really nice to lug around. I have both Olympus 14-42 kit lenses (fine) but my favorite combination top-side are the Panny 12-32 and the 35-100 (the slow one, tiny) in a pocket. UW, with the housing, strobes etc the size &weight difference to APS-C may be less pronounced - but if you also use the camera top-side I can say that the system is very attractive. Corner sharpness, contrast, fringes: Not an issue for me at all but AI can anyways straighten that out for you.

Dear Tim, I‘m glad to read all this from your own writing and not as an obituary. I will be pondering this for a while. It‘s an expensive hobby with equipment, travel and diving costs - I would be very, very tempted to go and grab the stuff (in particular the memory cards!). One tends to forget that the most important Megapixel is a beating heart. Glad you showed us a good example. That said, have you already thought about the new gear? Mirrorless after all?

Sorry to diverge but I‘d like to add an issue that I have with splits - viewfinder? I have more or less a compact setup so only the lcd on the back. It is not only too dim but also „split level“ with half of it above &below the surface.I can‘t even see where the waterline is in the real frame. Any solutions for that other than spray and pray?

Looks like the „gangway“ is about in the middle of the frame. In that case, a fisheye would not have distorted the lines much. The distortion is really only very visible towards the „corners“, but interpret the term generously. You can get images that look as if they were taken with a rectilinear, but your composition is limited if that is your goal.

I think we‘re already at that point more or less (and getting closer even to the optical limits), but then we like to crop… A new car will also only get me from A to B, but it does feel a lot better. From a buyer’s perspective: I have so far mostly bought used equipment (and really rather old) for probably 10% of the original price or less. But lower-end models, and those loose value more than the pro stuff.