mirrorless beginner

Nauticam CMC gives you 0.8 according to website Subsee +10 less as you say but still better than lens in macro mode, cheaper than Nauticam Port 77 and zoom gear and more flexible than locking in macro mode all dive.

Have you actually tried a Subsee +10 with this lens? If you look at my examples at the link, at minimim focus distance, that combination gives a horizontal image size of 32mm, whereas the lens alone at 43mm in macro mode gives a horizontal image of 35mm. I would call that no meaningful difference.

As for being "locked" in macro mode, that is only true without the Nauticam gear, which is admittedly pricey. If the argument is about expense, that is different. But the gear costs about the same as the diopter plus a flip adapter. Not having the gear also limits the lens to 12mm or 50mm but nothing in between. So (for my purposes anyway) it still doesn't make a significant difference to rely on that lens plus a diopter versus that lens plus the gear.

I use the 12-50 lens for dives where I dont know what I'm going to shoot and want versatility including decent closeup. I use the 60 lens with a Subsee when shooting macro exclusively.

I own a E-M1 and E-M10 both in Nauticam, 2 60mm macro lenses, the 12-50mm, a Subsee +10 and I have just bought a CMC-1. When I want macro I use the 60mm ( which is most of the time) so would not use the 12-50 in macro mode. When I use the 12-50 I have the electric zoom set so you can use full range from 12-50 without a zoom gear and I use the flip diopter with the Subsee +10 for a decent macro which is a bit better than the 43mm setting and a whole lot better than set at 50mm. The point I was trying to make is it's as versatile as Nauticam port 77 and zoom gear which cost AU$1100 but cheaper as 12-50 works perfectly in macro port 65 which is used for the macro 60mm lens.

I got the CMC-1 as the Subsee is too long and you have to move camera back loosing magnification so it only yields a approx 30% increase. The CMC gives approx 100% in magnification. It also gives more magnification than the Subsee when used with the 12-50 at 50 and at 43mm macro.

My results are different. I recently tested the Olympus 12-50 lens with a Subsee +10, comparing specifically at 43mm macro versus 50mm normal + diopter, to answer this exact question. The result was nearly no difference, and certainly nowhere near the 1.6x difference you cite. Have a look here:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=48953&hl=olympus&do=findComment&comment=359057

http://www.nauticam.com/product.asp?id=312

Just did a quick test. Used 12-50 at 50mm no diopter got image 94mm across. With Subsee +10 got 31mm image and with CMC got 21mm image (all in air not water). With macro lens you get 17mm or 1:1 and CMC gives you around 9-10 mm so it looks like Nauticams figures are pretty spot on. The only draw back is the small working distance so you have to get strobes close to end of port to light subject.

I think there is another consideration you need to make if you really want to use the 12-50 and this is about the sharpness and chromatic aberration. The Olympus lenses are generally pretty bad at ca and the 12-50 is no exception also resolution drops at longer focal ranges. A wet lens even the best one introduces further chromatic aberration. Also the discussion seem to focus on flat ports but actually the 12mm end is also decent for other purposes like shooting skitty fish like sharks. I do video for most so the 12-50 is not interesting for me but if I had an Olympus camera I would look at the 4" wide angle port with flip diopter at least you can shoot at wide end without reduction to the field of view. Shooting something at distances closer than 5 cm seems a bit too close to me let alone the difficulty with lights also in terms of respect for aquatic life

I think we are all on the same page here! Thanks for the info on the Nauticam SMC, that is something I would like to try if the local dealer ever brings it

Thank you guys, I have more or less finalized my decision but I have a small doubt left. I am going for the EM-1 with the Nauticam housing, one Sea&Sea YS-D1 only for the time being and I'll take the Olympus 60mm macro lens, since you all think it would be the best for the macros in Bali. My doubt is that the kit they were offering me had the camera coming with olympus 12-40 PRO f2.8, which they say it would be very versatile. However, since I definitely need the specific macro lens, would it make sense to have as second lens the 12-40 or you think it would be smarter considering a more specific second lens? Thanks again for your suggestions, they were great!

The 12-40 f2.8 would be a great general lens above water but for below the surface the 7" dome port and zoom gear are quite expensive. If you are only getting underwater lenses then look at a wide zoom like the Panasonic 7-14 (again dome and zoom gears not cheap), Panasonic 8mm with 4.3" dome or Olympus 9-18 with 4" dome, which would be great for the giant Mantas or Mola Mola if you go to Nusa Pedina (highly recommended).

A budget alternative as we have covered before is the 12-50 behind the macro port 65, utilising the electric zoom (no zoom gear) of the EM1 and a close up diopter if you see an interesting macro subject. I used this on my last 3 dives at Padangbai (also highly recommended) in Bali as the site has larger subjects like Rhinopias and Giant Frogfish that were too big for the macro lens my wife was using. Again the 12-40 would be good for the big critters but you can't put a diopter on itt for macro.

I have noticed that the 12-50 lens sells second hand for +/- $250. I really want the superior optics of the 12-40 Pro for shooting above water. So if there is a package that amounts to a decent discount on the 12-40, I'd get that setup and buy the 12-50 separately. But that is considering how to optimize both land and water uses.

then look at a wide zoom like the Panasonic 7-14 (again dome and zoom gears not cheap),

Take care, I read that the Pana 7-14 makes purple flare artefacts with Oly bodies:

http://trevinchow.com/blog/2012/10/24/olympus-om-d-e-m5-panasonic-7-14-bad-combo/

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OMD_EM1/EM1_with_Lumix_7-14mm_flare.shtml

Or can anyone contradict with this reviews?

I am also planning to get a new mirrorless camera and I also planed to get an Oly-Body, but now i think the GH4 is better, what do you think?

Note that the 12-40 is currently on sale for $799.

I got extremely lucky and picked one up from olympus refurbed and with 20% discount. Price was $519 + tax.

The build quality is very nice. I haven't taken enough photos with it yet to comment on that aspect.

I do not plan on using this underwater for all the reasons listed in the thread.

 

Take care, I read that the Pana 7-14 makes purple flare artefacts with Oly bodies:

http://trevinchow.com/blog/2012/10/24/olympus-om-d-e-m5-panasonic-7-14-bad-combo/

http://cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_OMD_EM1/EM1_with_Lumix_7-14mm_flare.shtml

 

Or can anyone contradict with this reviews?

 

I am also planning to get a new mirrorless camera and I also planed to get an Oly-Body, but now i think the GH4 is better, what do you think?

Check my thread on EM1 rear dial problem, which is a common fault beginning to wish I had gone with GH4.

The shop I bought it from did exchange it even though it was 6 months old but will be most disappointed if the new (silver) one has same problem.

sounds not good, thanks for the hint!

But also some GH4 has "shutter problems"

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.at/2014/06/panasonic-gh4-user-review-part-4.html

did you hear already from this problem?

sounds not good, thanks for the hint!

But also some GH4 has "shutter problems"

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.at/2014/06/panasonic-gh4-user-review-part-4.html

did you hear already from this problem?

No did not pick that one up. I still have a Canon 700D in a Nauticam housing and I have not had any problems with 7 Canon DSLRs I've owned. Also the major draw back of mirror less is battery life. The reason I got the OM-Ds is for when we dive in Bali and overseas in general. With a DSLR we could easily shoot 3 long dives and on one occasion the strobes run out of power long before the battery went in the cameras. With the mirror less the batteries on the EM10 go first and the EM1 shortly after early into the third dive. I have now got spare batteries but that would need opening the housing, cleaning seals etc which is not ideal. Everything is a trade off and compromise I know and depends on what your priorities are to which system or camera you choose.

yes, the next "Problem"

The GH4 should be a little bit "better" than the OM-Ds.

How many pics can you take with one battery?

I was on a workshop last week and there were Panasonic GH4, GX7 Olympus OMD-M EM5 and EM10. There was very little difference amongst all in terms of colour and dynamic range if you compared at the same ISO. The GH4 most attractive feature is 4K video and in general Panasonic are better at video while Olympus are preferred by pure still shooters. Battery for all this models lasts between 2 and 3 dives. If you shoot with flash in manual at 1:128 power on my GX7 I get easily 250 shots that for me is more than 3 dive on average. With the vacuum system changing the battery is not an issue after each dive

What advantage has Olympus against Pana in stills?

Hello guys! To whomever dedicated some time giving me an advice, I was owing you an answer and this is what I eventually bought few days ago...

I eventually bought the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and I attached the following gadgets to my kit:

NA-EM1 housing for Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera