GH4 - Nauticam Macro Lens/Port Thoughts

As you all know, I'm building out a new 4K video system based on the GH4. I'm happy with my wide-angle setup, the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom in the Zen 170mm port.

But, this last weekend I had a tough time getting good video from my macro lens choice; the Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro. The lens and port is fine. But, for video, I found that the focal length is just a little too long. It's OK if you can hold the housing down onto a firm base, but even then, water movement gets transmitted into the footage. The 60mm works fine for photography as it only needs to be still for 1/10,000s. Holding it still for 10 seconds is more challenging.

• Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. Lens It can focus as close as 20cm. Add a flip macro and it might be a good double-purpose option. The Panasonic lenses have the advantage of OIS on the GH4. Nice and compact.
• Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 Ez Lens. The lens has a switch for electronic zoom and electronic focus, including locking into a Macro range. Gets very good reviews as all purpose lens. Expensive port and gear.

 

As you all know, I'm building out a new 4K video system based on the GH4. I'm happy with my wide-angle setup, the Panasonic 7-14mm zoom in the Zen 170mm port.

 

But, this last weekend I had a tough time getting good video from my macro lens choice; the Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro. The lens and port is fine. But, for video, I found that the focal length is just a little too long. It's OK if you can hold the housing down onto a firm base, but even then, water movement gets transmitted into the footage. The 60mm works fine for photography as it only needs to be still for 1/10,000s. Holding it still for 10 seconds is more challenging.

 

The macro stuff that I do never goes smaller than nudis, shrimps or pygmy seahorses. I can’t see things smaller than that...

I thought about the Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH. MEGA O.I.S. Lens. Being a bit wider than the 60mm, it might be a bit easier to stop movement. And, being Panasonic, the lens includes OIS.

But. having thought about it, I don’t really like the idea of diving with a macro-only system. Even at Lembeh, sometimes I want to do a wider shot to capture the environment in which the animal lives. A zoom / macro option might be best - even if there is a sharpness and f-stop trade-off.

So I have started looking at these lenses:

• Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. Lens It can focus as close as 20cm. Add a flip macro and it might be a good double-purpose option. The Panasonic lenses have the advantage of OIS on the GH4. Nice and compact.
• Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 Ez Lens. The lens has a switch for electronic zoom and electronic focus, including locking into a Macro range. Gets very good reviews as all purpose lens. Expensive port and gear.

Either of these with a flip diopter wet lens might cover everything I need.

But they are not cheap lenses and the Nauticam port / gear is quite pricey too.

So, before I injure the credit card further, I thought that I'd see if anyone in wetpixel land had used either lens for macro video.

Or, if anyone has any other suggestions.

Regards

Peter

 

When I looked at it (that is before I abandoned the idea) I drew exactly the same conclusions that you have found

Going in the water with a macro lens and not being able to shoot anything wider that 20 degrees is a bit limited

For video I would think your best guess is the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm this lens has a smooth zoom and has a stabiliser, if you do anything hand held you will be glad to have it. You can add a few diopters to the set like a +3 and a +6 and be able to fill most of the frame in all situations even stacking them if need be

The 12-50 seems a great lens for stills but the lack of in built OIS will make your close up harder than what they need to be. May be a good choice if you have a tripod with you at all times but seems painful just to think about it

The other benefit of the 14-42 is that the 35 port is very cost effective

Let me know how you get on!

PS optically both those lenses won't be anywhere near the 60mm but I would trade that with not being able to take any decent shot because of shake

GH4 + Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm would be my choice mainly because of the Power O.I.S and the compactness of the lens. However, I'm not going to pull the plug until I learn about what the new Panasonic LX8 has to offer. the LX8 will be announced late this month or early next month. You can wait around, research and drool around some of the rumored spec of the LX8 and see if it's a right fit for you.

I'm currently on a Point & Shoot system so I'm not ready to give up the flexibility of doing macro and wide in the same dive.

I am really curious to see how the GH4 performs with the 14-42 and a close up lens

This is a little video I took with the LX7 in Lembeh

I had a combination of close up lenses and also used some of the clear edge zoom or whatever it was called

The last time I looked at micro 4:3 for video I had considered the 12-35 and 14-42 because they both have IS. 7-14mm for me does not cut is in real life situation 28mm is too wide. The quality issue crops in with the 14-42 compared to a compact as sharpness in lab tests is worse. The 12-35 instead seems very interesting behind a dome port though not very wide would do fine for most

I look forward seeing some GH4 14-42mm close ups and macro

I think that I'll try the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. Lens in the Nauticam Macro Port with the flip diopter frame and +5 wet lens.

The PZ doesn't have great optical test reviews but its issues are mainly solved through in-camera correction.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Regards

Peter

I took my GH4 and 60mm for a dive last weekend - and if I'm honest I was very disappointed. Taken it before and been happy with the results - perhaps it was the conditions / dive site. Its just too narrow if you don't have something particular in mind to photograph / video.

We came across a torpedo ray, morays etc and these aren't macro candidates at all My mate had his old TZ10 and took some amazing photos... Just goes to show.

What about the 12-35mm ? I haven't tried it behind a flat port yet either mind.

I took my GH4 and 60mm for a dive last weekend - and if I'm honest I was very disappointed. Taken it before and been happy with the results - perhaps it was the conditions / dive site. Its just too narrow if you don't have something particular in mind to photograph / video.

 

We came across a torpedo ray, morays etc and these aren't macro candidates at all My mate had his old TZ10 and took some amazing photos... Just goes to show.

 

What about the 12-35mm ? I haven't tried it behind a flat port yet either mind.

12-35 was my choice for 'normal use' 24-70mm equivalent is fine for most and although at close range the capture area is still fairly large it is enough for a fish portrait. Not for macro of course. The other plus is that this lens is stabilised.

I never considered the 7-14 as for me 28mm is too wide for fish portraits but I understand it for wrecks

Shooting video with a 60mm is something you do if you dive in a muck diving site but even there 60mm is too narrow for an octopus

Also Richard there is no flat port that I am aware for the 12-35 only 6mm dome (I believe same as for 7-14 you already have)

Interesting dilemma. It would seem that if you were going to shoot super-macro though, you'd want some sort of tripod regardless of the image stabilization of the lens itself. Image quality and macro versatility wize, is the Olympus 12-50 a better choice than the panasonic 14-42?

What tripod can be used with the GH4 in a Nauticam housing underwater?

Interesting dilemma. It would seem that if you were going to shoot super-macro though, you'd want some sort of tripod regardless of the image stabilization of the lens itself. Image quality and macro versatility wize, is the Olympus 12-50 a better choice than the panasonic 14-42?

 

What tripod can be used with the GH4 in a Nauticam housing underwater?

Both below average sharpness the 12-50 is not stabilised and the long port with macro switch costs $800 versus $290 of the 35. The macro switch and longer focal length will give you more magnification but at 35-100 equivalent you definitely want a stabiliser if you are hand held in my opinion even if you are not 1:1

If you were 1:1 you would want some form of tripod solution for fish potrait and super close a stabilised lens should be sufficient

I have the 12-50mm and it is overall a great lens for video. The pro's are the electronic zoom and great range (12mm to 43mm macro mode/50mm zoom). The big con is definitely have no OIS. Why can't camera manufacturers understand our needs??? I have the 14-42 PZ (or should I say, my wife does on her EM10). I'd be interested in trying it underwater. If I can get similar results using my subsee +10 and the OIS improves the non-tripod mounted U/W shots, I'd consider making the switch.

I believe also with the GH4 you can use the thumb control to control the electronic zoom? I haven't tried this yet, but read about it this week. (I have used the electronic zoom controls on the Wi-fi app which work great).

What tripod can be used with the GH4 in a Nauticam housing underwater?

But, even so, with a jiggling current or some remnant wave action, it is very difficult to keep a 60mm (~120mm) lens still enough underwater for video.

12-35 was my choice for 'normal use' 24-70mm equivalent is fine for most and although at close range the capture area is still fairly large it is enough for a fish portrait.

I never considered the 7-14 as for me 28mm is too wide for fish portraits but I understand it for wrecks

 

It all depends on the subject matter and conditions but, I found the 12-35 not quite wide enough for underwater use. For larger subjects, you end up with a lot of water between the camera and the subject, with the resulting lack of contrast. Depends on visibility and suspended particles, but the nearer you get, the better the shot.

OTOH, I found the 7-14 to be excellent for general underwater WA shots. For larger subjects, you can get quite close without any strong distracting WA "look". It has great sharpness and useful DoF. It does not have OIS, but that's less relevant at wider angles. Zooming in to 14 (~28mm) works well for shy subjects. I used it to shoot batfish, turtles, divers, cat-sharks, stingrays and fan corals. I found the focal length range to be ideal. The 7-14 does very well in lens bench tests.

So, my current setup is a GH4 with Zen 170mm dome port and the 7-14 for underwater video and a GH4 with the 12-35mm lens for above-water video.

Now I am going to test the Pany 14-42 PZ OIS lens with a +5 diopter for underwater macro, with one of the heavier Gorillapods for stability. Fingers crossed. I'll post something when I've got it working, probably next week.

Regards

Peter

Pete, I have the 12-50mm & find it a very good lens with a great zoom range.

I find it to be very light underwater & even a tiny amount of surge or swell with move it.

I use a gorilla pod for a tripod but find I need to put a finger two on it to steady it.

Pete, I have the 12-50mm & find it a very good lens with a great zoom range.

I find it to be very light underwater & even a tiny amount of surge or swell with move it.

I use a gorilla pod for a tripod but find I need to put a finger two on it to steady it.

I'm sure that the Olympus 12-50mm is a great lens. I've always had confidence in Olympus glass. My very first camera in 70s was an OM1, followed by the ground-breaking OM4Ti. Great lenses.

But, with Panasonic doing OIS in the lens and Olympus doing it in the body, it means that Olympus lenses on Panasonic bodies have a stability disadvantage over Panasonic lenses on Panasonic bodies. Especially for longer focal lengths and macro.

The Gorillapod is compact and useful when subject and surroundings are suitable. I'll definitely use one in Lembeh where most of the subjects are on sand. But, for other situations, I'm wondering whether a variable-length monopod mounted on a ball joint might be more versatile. I had one for my last housing that could be adapted to the NA-GH4.

Regards

Peter

I have the 12-50mm and it is overall a great lens for video. The pro's are the electronic zoom and great range (12mm to 43mm macro mode/50mm zoom). The big con is definitely have no OIS. Why can't camera manufacturers understand our needs??? I have the 14-42 PZ (or should I say, my wife does on her EM10). I'd be interested in trying it underwater. If I can get similar results using my subsee +10 and the OIS improves the non-tripod mounted U/W shots, I'd consider making the switch.

 

I believe also with the GH4 you can use the thumb control to control the electronic zoom? I haven't tried this yet, but read about it this week. (I have used the electronic zoom controls on the Wi-fi app which work great).

It all depends on the subject matter and conditions but, I found the 12-35 not quite wide enough for underwater use. For larger subjects, you end up with a lot of water between the camera and the subject, with the resulting lack of contrast. Depends on visibility and suspended particles, but the nearer you get, the better the shot.

 

OTOH, I found the 7-14 to be excellent for general underwater WA shots. For larger subjects, you can get quite close without any strong distracting WA "look". It has great sharpness and useful DoF. It does not have OIS, but that's less relevant at wider angles. Zooming in to 14 (~28mm) works well for shy subjects. I used it to shoot batfish, turtles, divers, cat-sharks, stingrays and fan corals. I found the focal length range to be ideal. The 7-14 does very well in lens bench tests.

 

So, my current setup is a GH4 with Zen 170mm dome port and the 7-14 for underwater video and a GH4 with the 12-35mm lens for above-water video.

 

Now I am going to test the Pany 14-42 PZ OIS lens with a +5 diopter for underwater macro, with one of the heavier Gorillapods for stability. Fingers crossed. I'll post something when I've got it working, probably next week.

 

Regards

Peter

The 7-14 is definitely very sharp. For me the ideal focal length would be 9-18 unfortunately the olympus lens is poorer on the optics and again not stabilised. I agree with all you say I guess it is a matter of conditions you can still stabilise in post though I don't really like it

I have the GorillaPod SLR Zoom on my NA-GH3. Its great for steadying macro shots as the DoF is so small.

As to a more 'robust' tripod you can get the XIT404 Tripod (#TS2009NC) and either the Twist Clamp style legs (#TL200100) or the Ball Adaptor style legs (#TL100100)

you can still stabilise in post though I don't really like it

I might be missing a trick or two, but I've never had much success with stabilisation in post. Tried it in a couple of editors but the results have had an annoying blurriness about them. Maybe I could invest in a better plug-in than the out-of-the-box function but my preference is to solve it at time of capture.

If your tray can accept a ball mount under it I found the best is to have a portable extendable set of legs

You can see the configurations under this tag http://interceptor121.com/category/underwater-video-2/tripod/

With this set up I have also taken stills with speed of 0.4" or slower

1st Cave@Jackfish Alley by Interceptor121, on Flickr

 

I might be missing a trick or two, but I've never had much success with stabilisation in post. Tried it in a couple of editors but the results have had an annoying blurriness about them. Maybe I could invest in a better plug-in than the out-of-the-box function but my preference is to solve it at time of capture.

Yes you get the 'warp' effect with blurred edges. Sometimes is more worth looking for part of your footage that are fine and leave them as is

I use a cheap NLE I thought you more pro guys had better tools than those I use

Well, we are still working on the ultimate configuration, waiting on the Shogun and housing to arrive in a month or two. Then we will know the final layout, shape and balance and should then be able to decide the right leg layout for both stability and flexibility. Maybe even 4 flexible legs...

Regards

Peter