GH4 - Nauticam Macro Lens/Port Thoughts

There was a firmware update to version 1.1 for the Olympus 60mm macro in September. "MF shooting operations have been improved." Might be worth trying for those having trouble.

There was a firmware update to version 1.1 for the Olympus 60mm macro in September. "MF shooting operations have been improved." Might be worth trying for those having trouble.

You can find firmware here (Oly 60mm update for Panasonic camera body).

http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/download/software/pana/m_ed6028macro.cfm

The 60mm macro lens is an absolutely fantastic and sharp lens - but I can't see using this lens much hand-held - especially at close focus (which I usually do between 1-4" for small subjects). In 4k, the lens is equivalent to ~83mm on a APS-C sensor, 138mm on FF - hardly a fish portrait lens. That being said, I can't really see using any macro setup much without a tripod or some sort of stabilization to get decent video. Neither OIS nor IB stablization is likely to eliminate that need. I'm just starting to use this lens more, and although it can be challenging, especially in surgy conditions, I'm loving the video I'm getting from it!

The 60mm macro lens is an absolutely fantastic and sharp lens - but I can't see using this lens much hand-held - especially at close focus (which I usually do between 1-4" for small subjects). In 4k, the lens is equivalent to ~83mm on a APS-C sensor, 138mm on FF - hardly a fish portrait lens. That being said, I can't really see using any macro setup much without a tripod or some sort of stabilization to get decent video. Neither OIS nor IB stablization is likely to eliminate that need. I'm just starting to use this lens more, and although it can be challenging, especially in surgy conditions, I'm loving the video I'm getting from it!

Hmmm, maybe I should give it another try....

At which airport did SQ check the weight of your carry-on bag? Did they check everybody's bag weight?

 

I live in Singapore and Thailand and travel on SQ, TG, MI, GA, MH, KR, VN, etc. all the time and have never had my carry-on bag weighed. My underwater camera fits in a maximum-size backpack and weighs 15kg and it has never been weighed.

 

In fact, apart from the budget airlines, I've never even had a problem with overweight checked luggage. Just chat friendly with the staff, tell them what you do and they are usually very cooperative.

 

Maybe you need to hone your chatting technique...

 

Regards

Peter

Peter I just returned from Raja Ampat. Amazingly enough Singapore Air weighed my ThinkTank Camera Backpack at JFK before the start of my trip. They made me take my Nauticam Housing out of my backpack and put in my luggage. Luckily nothing got broken and all my luggage arrived ok.

Seems like it's common for Singapore Airline to weight carry on bags at the gate for outbound flight from US. Did they give you the choice of gate check your Thinktank backpack?

Peter I just returned from Raja Ampat. Amazingly enough Singapore Air weighed my ThinkTank Camera Backpack at JFK before the start of my trip. They made me take my Nauticam Housing out of my backpack and put in my luggage. Luckily nothing got broken and all my luggage arrived ok.

Maybe it's a JFK airport policy. The staff who insisted were probably not even SQ people, just their ground handling agent.

I see its been about a month since anyone has posted to this thread. So ..... is the Oly 60mm still problematic for underwater video ? There was a FW update mentioned a few posts back, but no further inputs. With the GH4 4K crop factor, I can't imagine using a 60 in anything but absolutely still conditions with a firmly planted tripod.

Assuming that the 60mm is still difficult for video, is the 14-42 PZ + diopters the best option for GH4/Nauticam housing macro/micro ? I may be able to sell my Oly 60mm and 65 Port and replace it with a proper setup for not too much more.

I have shot quite a lot with the Oly 60mm underwater and I like it. The quality of the image is good. The only problem I have with it is the focus gearing. It takes 30 full turns of the knob on the Nauticam housing to move through the whole focus range. In reality that's about 60 half-turn operations of the focus knob. Expect your subject to get very bored waiting for you to manual focus or to swim away. I wish the focus gearing was MUCH more coarse, but I can see that would be an engineering challenge to design. So I find myself having to use autofocus a lot with it, if only to get in the right focus range before fine tuning in manual mode.

It's a very tight lens so if you want wider establishing shots of anything bigger than a small nudi then you're going to be a long way away. To fit in a full-body shot of a ghost pipefish I was something like a metre away.

I will only use this lens in the future for a change/gamble or when I have a specific small macro subject I'm diving for (e.g. pygmy seahorse). For general "small stuff" dives I'm using the Olympus 12-50 in the special Nauticam port that allows switching to the 43mm macro mode. I like that setup, but the Oly 60mm has the edge for very small subjects. I guess the 14-42 PZ + diopters would give a similar sort of range. On the plus side it has OIS which the Oly 12-50 hasn't. I guess it's cheaper too. On the down side, flipping a big wet diopter is not as neat as switching to macro mode with the Oly 12-50.

I've moved from the 60mm to the 14-42PZ (plus a flip thingy and a INON UCL-100) - its changed my 'small' stuff diving for good. I have to thank Peterkk for that.

The 60mm is just too 'macro' I know that sounds stupid, but you really have to know you will only be shooting macro if taking this lens, no diver portraits, no shots of octopus - its made for Nudi's and anything smaller - and I've never tried it with video locally, too much swell.

Now I have a more all round lens and yet can still get the small stuff. I'll still take the 60mm diving (so keeping all the ports and gears) - but only if I know I'm going to be going super macro.

I agree on the MF aspect too - its way too slow...

I had tested the PZ 14-42 extensively you can read here

Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 14-42mm / F3.5 – 5.6 / Power OIS and Nauticam Macro Port 35 | Interceptor121 Underwater Photo & Video Blog

http://interceptor121.com/2015/01/25/panasonic-lumix-g-x-vario-14-42mm-f3-5-5-6-power-ois-and-nauticam-macro-port-35/

On the gx7 you get to 44mm width so on the gh4 it will be 37 with an inon UCL-165 or similar +6. With UCL-100 equivalent to subsee +10 I get 31mm for the gh4 it would be 26mm that is super macro already. The gx7 has a tele mode that performs a 2.4x zoom so with that you don't really need more diopters I believe the gh4 has this mode to only in 1080p

For what concerns nick comment about cheaper the 35 port + PZ14-42 + wet diopter costs the same of olympus 12-50 plus port with macro switch however the 14-42 is stabilised and you can attach wet wide angle lenses on it with surprising image quality (for the gx7) I don't have a GH4 but I bet you can attach a different lens to get your 100 degrees diagonal.

A silly little video that gives you an idea of the range of the Oly 12-50. The 4 or so tightest shots are in the 43mm macro mode. Focus ain't great on some clips, which is user error.

So I'm the only one happy with Oly 60mm? I even thinking why there's no teleconverter for m43.

Thanks all. I like the video Nick !

Is this the correct port for the 14-42PZ ? The nauticam N85 macro flat port 35 with 67mm threads ?

http://www.backscatter.com/sku/na-36139.lasso

I Could then add this dual flip diopter holder ?

http://reefphoto.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=5791

Also, apologies if this is a stupid question. I have just ordered the 14-42 PZ and the 35 flat port. Do people that use this, use the zoom gear or does the camera operate the power zoom ?

I've got the zoom ring - expensive but I think worth it, as you can use the touch screen to zoom, but that won't work in the housing!

I've got the zoom ring - expensive but I think worth it, as you can use the touch screen to zoom, but that won't work in the housing!

Thanks Richard

I thought that might be the case so I ordered the ring also.

So I'm the only one happy with Oly 60mm? I even thinking why there's no teleconverter for m43.

I'm very happy with it, but it's only for certain dives. I've been flipping the Subsee +10 in front of it a bit too.

Thanks all. I like the video Nick !

 

Is this the correct port for the 14-42PZ ? The nauticam N85 macro flat port 35 with 67mm threads ?

http://www.backscatter.com/sku/na-36139.lasso

 

I Could then add this dual flip diopter holder ?

http://reefphoto.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=5791

Thanks! What are you planning to put in those 2 flips? Just asking because I originally thought I needed that dual flip for +5 and +10 Subsee diopters but got the single Nauticam flip because it was quickly available here in Thailand. And now in reality I tend not to bother with the +5 and just use the +10 if I want a bit more magnification. With my Oly 12-50 I haven't been bothering with either diopter as some quick tests showed they didn't add much. Planning a more in-depth on that.

I use a nauticam m67-LD adapter and then bayonet lenses that I put in lens caddies on the arms. Obviously are need either an m67-LD adapter per lens or get the inon bayonet lenses you are however then bound to inon (which is fine although more expensive than subsee)

I'm very happy with it, but it's only for certain dives. I've been flipping the Subsee +10 in front of it a bit too. Thanks! What are you planning to put in those 2 flips? Just asking because I originally thought I needed that dual flip for +5 and +10 Subsee diopters but got the single Nauticam flip because it was quickly available here in Thailand. And now in reality I tend not to bother with the +5 and just use the +10 if I want a bit more magnification. With my Oly 12-50 I haven't been bothering with either diopter as some quick tests showed they didn't add much. Planning a more in-depth on that.

I was thinking a +10 to go with the +5, but probably would have been ok with a single like you mentioned.