GX7 vs OMD series under water

I have seen images of the 12-50mm at the wide end. Having 24mm behind a flat port is not something to be really excited about as the edges are blurred

I am with you if you invest in good quality ports and lenses you are in a different place but the 12-40 or 12-50 with a flat port for me are not the way forward.

I see many people trying to step up from compacts not embracing the concept of getting the proper ports and lenses if you do not want to do that you better off staying with something like the RX100 and investing in the best wet lenses made of glass

Once you made the investment in lenses and port the housing plus camera cost goes a factor 2x to 3x from RX100 to mirrorless

I know Tom is not realizing this in full hence am writing it down here so that is clear in his mind what commitment is required

I haven't used (on land) my 12-50 after I had compared it to the 12-35/2.8 because I found it too soft. But I might have a lemon - I know there is sample variation.

With all my cameras on land I find lenses very very important. Put a Sigma 35/1.4 ART on your camera and you think you have a new camera.

I already own the EM1 and a 9-18 (and 12-40 plus some primes) so this would be my starting point for m43. Allready owning some of this and using it on land also makes the cost gap between RX100II (which I do not own) and m43 smaller in my case.

Still the RX100II + housing + wet lenses would be lower additional cost. And maybe the RX100II could also replace my wifes 5 years old LX-something camera and would not mean just money for underwater.

I also would need to learn only one camera functions and menues. Plus´(maybe?) the EM1 could have faster and more direct access to the important functions (for example EXp Comp + f-stop / WB and ISO with the 2 wheels seems very quick in the EM1) vs the RX100II where I probably would have to go more often into the menues?

What bugs me is the kind of poor video quality of the EM1 - even still shooters like me sometimes want to shoot a little movie in decent quality. That's why I also wondered about the GX7/GH4.

My biggest dilemma is that I do not dive that much (I expect maybe 20-40 dives per year in the future) but still want a decent UW-camera with good handling and good IQ. I am sure that both options can do this. I am a little afraid that in 2 years I might want a new camera/housing again. At least I hope that flashes will be more a long time "investement" than the camera body.

Thanks for all the help and I hope there might be also others who can benefit from this thread.

I would not be obsessed with ergonomics. I shoot manual and use few aperture settings a limited selection of shutter speed and even smaller selection of ISO

If you already have an OMD-E1 get a good housing and ports and start shooting. Then get a Gopro for a bit of wide angle video on top

I have been looking for a compromise to do good video and pictures in the mirrorless market and I could only see the A6000 as a possible upgrade currently but there are lens issues still on the macro side so not there yet for me

I have very, very little experience with underwater video, but from that experience and from what I have read, it is very difficult to do a good job "mixing" video and stills. They require a different mindset, different subjects, different lighting issues and so on. So, I have never worried much about video on my stills camera. I have a gopro and have played with that a bit and on occasion will take that on a dive instead of a stills camera. If video was more important to me and especially if I felt I needed high quality video and photo in one camera I would get the GH4. But for now I will, from time to time, take a short video with my stills camera on a dive, but it is just a minor thing.

I am sure there are those who can readily switch from taking nice stills to taking nice video and back again, and I am sure there are even more who would insist they can do that, but for me that just isn't what I am looking for.

FWIW, although I cannot judge this for myself, I think the video ability of the E-M1 is not so bad:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11895/first-look-olympus-om-d-e-m1-vs-panasonic-gh3

It wasn't long ago folks were raving about the video from the GH3. I suspect the E-M1 is capable of producing can take much better video than I can shoot.

I think if I wanted a camera to "take along" on dives rather than really having a goal of doing dive photography, I think I would get a Canon S120 or Sony RX100 and Nauticam or Recsea housing. I'd use a ULCS tray and single handle with an Inon S2000 strobe and then either have a red filter I could attach for video or maybe use dual handles and put the strobe on one and a video light on the other. That choice might change with a bunch of new camera models coming out between now and Photokina in September.

Something like this could be really interesting as a "take-along": http://camyx.com/rumors/2014/07/new-panasonic-lumix-lx8-specs-leaked/

I think Olympus deliberately don't want their camera to be too good at video and also lack the camcorder expertise of panasonic and sony

Personally I think the best compromise cameras are the Sony the Nex were pretty good and the new A series are very good indeed I also like the fact that most lenses are stabilised this does not happen with panasonic

One weird thing of the OMD-E1 is that it shoots at 30p and does not even have a PAL 25p option (probable the smoother and best all around video format that exists) but again probably they did not bother much

Taking video and stills on the same dive is complicated and even when your set up allows it you need two strobes and two video lights really painful

What I like of the RX100 is that it may not be the best but both video and stills can compete with more expensive cameras and I can pack pretty much everything same for video and photo only an additional video light instead of one and few more lenses instead of a complete port system. Fits fine in hand luggage

 

 

What I like of the RX100 is that it may not be the best but both video and stills can compete with more expensive cameras and I can pack pretty much everything same for video and photo only an additional video light instead of one and few more lenses instead of a complete port system. Fits fine in hand luggage

Thats really the attraction of RX100: Compact package, decent IQ and decent movie quality.