Decided on a new micro 4/3 setup now need help deciding on which camera?

As a side note, that's a super impressive shopping list. Quite a lot of gear all I one go...You sure the 7-14mm fits behind the 4.33" dome (that's normally for the 8mm? )

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a lot to buy in one go and that's why I'm trying to get it right. I've been using an RX100 with fisheye and macro wet lenses for three years now and have finally decided to upgrade. Unfortunately no cheap way to upgrade other than buy a whole new setup.

You're correct the 7-14mm will not fit behind the 4.33 dome but the 9-18mm fits behind the 4 inch wide angle port (36137), so the list should read:

I've priced up my wish list to a total of about USD 8100 and the following is a breakdown of the approximate costs:

Expensive business this underwater photography !

Might want a focus light and may or may not need the focus gear for the 60 and if you are going to get the 9-18 and the 4" port, you should search through some older posts for the discussions about adding a diopter to improve image quality. I assume you have something in which to transport all of this stuff, if travel is anticipated?

Coming from experience. IMHO I still think the 9-18mm is a mistake. Never bothered with diopters, mind, just upgraded to the 7-14mm.

Seriously look at one of the zooms starting at 12mm for your general use.

The 9-18mm will disappoint

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I already have a focus/video light, and am still open to discussion regarding my wide angle options. The Panasonic 7-14 is still an option I'm just a little worried about the overall size of the rig with this lens and a 6 inch wide angle port.

Thanks for all the help so far.

 

I've priced up my wish list to a total of about USD 8100 and the following is a breakdown of the approximate costs:

 

$170 - Nauticam focus gear (36149) for 60mm macro lens

$480 - CMC-1 macro converter with flip mount (for super macro)

For stills, seriously auto focus usually is the king. Save the gear!

Bear in mind that the 60 mm Oly allready fills the sensor width with a 17 mm long creature. The CMC might not be needed or preferable. The operating range is short with the CMC, ususable focus depth extremely small.

I already have a focus/video light, and am still open to discussion regarding my wide angle options. The Panasonic 7-14 is still an option I'm just a little worried about the overall size of the rig with this lens and a 6 inch wide angle port.

You can't get smaller than the Panasonic 8 mm fisheye in the 4,33 inch dome, or the Oly 8 mm fisheye in the same dome with a 20 mm extra extension. If fisheye is a wide option that is. Not everybody likes it.

There is 3 variants of the Panasonic 14-42mm, all with varying image quality.

 

The one I'm using is the 14-42mm ASPH f3.5-5.6 Mk II (and for additional confusion there is two sub variants, one metal mounted, one plastic)

It seems that the kit versions of the 14-42 MkII has a plastic mount. The separate boxed version has a metal mount.

I was positivly suprised when I bought it in january. The exhibited shop versions was probably all from kits and with plastic mounts.

The one I got in the box had metal mount.

 

For stills, seriously auto focus usually is the king. Save the gear!

 

Bear in mind that the 60 mm Oly allready fills the sensor width with a 17 mm long creature. The CMC might not be needed or preferable. The operating range is short with the CMC, ususable focus depth extremely small.

Auto focus is nice and the 60mm lens seems to be pretty good, but I'm used to using manual focus with focus peaking which I've found allows me to focus on a particular part of the subject (for instance the eye) whilst the rest remains slightly out of focus. I love super macro and as far as I understand it, the 60mm zoomed to 1:1 and fitted with the CMC-1 will give me 2:1 magnification with an operating distance of 22mm, which although close is doable.

Here is an example of an "eye shot" taken with my RX100 and +7 diopter:

 

You can't get smaller than the Panasonic 8 mm fisheye in the 4,33 inch dome, or the Oly 8 mm fisheye in the same dome with a 20 mm extra extension. If fisheye is a wide option that is. Not everybody likes it.

I have looked at the Panasonic 8mm and I believe it will even fit behind the Nuaticam 3.5 inch wide angle port (perhaps with a little vignetting in 4:3 aspect ration), but being so wide I'm not sure it would work for me as general/wide angle lens. I do like to take "wide angle macro" shots but I'm pretty sure you need to get really up close for more general shots, if you have any experience with this lens I would appreciate your feedback on this?

Coming from experience. IMHO I still think the 9-18mm is a mistake. Never bothered with diopters, mind, just upgraded to the 7-14mm.

 

Seriously look at one of the zooms starting at 12mm for your general use.

 

The 9-18mm will disappoint

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have any problems with flaring with the Panasonic 7-14mm, and do you need the zoom gear, or does the lens have motorized zoom?

I'm still struggling with what wide angle option to go with so I have made an overview of the comparative cost of what I think are my four main options:

$1130 - Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 (4 inch wide angle port)

To complicate things further, for Panasonic or Olympus 8mm you can also look at Zen 100 dome (4"), they are glass domes and can be found used for price of the acrylic ones if you care to spend some time.

Considering there were no big appraisals for 9-18, I would say that the Panasonic setup is a winner if you look at the parameters you mentioned as well (price, size, quality). However, yes, you have to come close to fill the frame - I use it.

To complicate things further, for Panasonic or Olympus 8mm you can also look at Zen 100 dome (4"), they are glass domes and can be found used for price of the acrylic ones if you care to spend some time.

 

Considering there were no big appraisals for 9-18, I would say that the Panasonic setup is a winner if you look at the parameters you mentioned as well (price, size, quality). However, yes, you have to come close to fill the frame - I use it.

Unfortunately I live on a Caribbean island and will only be in Florida for one week to make all my purchases so don't really have time to shop around, which is a pity. Shipping stuff to Caribbean islands is very hit and miss and trying to buy local is impossible, I suppose that's one of the down-sides of living here, many up-sides though, like all year round shore diving !

The 8mm fisheyes are another kettle of fish altogether. These aren't for 'general' diving photos.

Look at the 12-40mm from Olympus. That behind a dome might give you everything you need. Or the Panasonic 12-35mm of going GX8.

As to the 7-14mm. You will need the zoom gear. It's mechanical zoom. Never encountered any issues with the 7-14mm, apart from no front filter holder and lack of OIS.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 8mm fisheyes are another kettle of fish altogether. These aren't for 'general' diving photos.

 

Look at the 12-40mm from Olympus. That behind a dome might give you everything you need. Or the Panasonic 12-35mm of going GX8.

 

As to the 7-14mm. You will need the zoom gear. It's mechanical zoom. Never encountered any issues with the 7-14mm, apart from no front filter holder and lack of OIS.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that the 8mm fisheyes are a completely different type of lens, but I think for me both the 12-40mm or 12-35mm, at the wide end, will not have the angle of view I'm looking for (74' horizontal, 59' vertical 86' diagonal).

This leaves me back with the Panasonic 7-14mm (104', 88', 116') at the wide end, or the Olympus 9-18mm (90' 74' 103') at the wide end. Of these the 7-14mm would seem the perfect fit, my only reservations are the price, the size and the minimum focus distance of 25cm, which eliminates CFWA (wide angle/macro shots) shots which I quite like taking.

Both the fisheye lenses have very close focus capability which would be ideal for CFWA shots, but of course they come with their own limitations in more general use.

I know it sounds like I want everything from one lens but please be patient with me, I'm just trying to think through the options to come up with a solution that will best suit the type of pictures I like to take, and all help regarding other more experienced peoples feedback will help me make these choices and is much appreciated.

Well, the good news is that you have simplified things for yourself. If 12mm is not wide enough and a fisheye isn't what you want, then you have three choices. In descending order of both quality and price, you can get the Oly 7-14 in a 170 or 180 dome, the Panasonic 7-14 in a 6" or 170 dome (and maybe works in a 180 dome; not sure) or the 9-18 in a smaller port of around 3.5-4.33".

You just need to decide higher price/quality and large size vs lower price, lesser quality and smaller size.

No one can really tell you how to resolve this...it is personal and we all struggle with the same or similar issues.

Welcome to underwater photography.

Oh, and I believe the minimum focus of the Oly 7-14 is 20cm.

Well, the good news is that you have simplified things for yourself. If 12mm is not wide enough and a fisheye isn't what you want, then you have three choices. In descending order of both quality and price, you can get the Oly 7-14 in a 170 or 180 dome, the Panasonic 7-14 in a 6" or 170 dome (and maybe works in a 180 dome; not sure) or the 9-18 in a smaller port of around 3.5-4.33".

 

You just need to decide higher price/quality and large size vs lower price, lesser quality and smaller size.

 

No one can really tell you how to resolve this...it is personal and we all struggle with the same or similar issues.

 

Welcome to underwater photography.

 

Oh, and I believe the minimum focus of the Oly 7-14 is 20cm.

Correcto Mundo, although I haven't yet ruled out the fisheye option, I'd like to hear some feedback from people who use it on a regular basis, and what they consider the main advantages and disadvantages? I'm worried there would be to big a gap to fill between the 60mm macro and 8mm fisheye. Although I have to say I currently mostly use either my UWL-04 Fisheye Wet Lens, or my +7 diopter on the RX100, I don't use the bare lens often, so perhaps 60mm / 8mm would suit what I do?

I've ruled out the Oly 7-14 as to expensive and bigger than the Panasonic 7-14 and I'm not sure it's much better. So it's either the Panasonic 7-14 in a 6", the 9-18 in the 3.5 or 4.33", or maybe a 8mm fisheye option.

Decisions Decisions!

12 is definetly not wide enough (I have the 12-50), and 8mm is too wide, for sure.

Advantage of the fisheye is that everything fits in the frame. Disadvantage at the same time is that too much fits in the frame and you do need to come close in order to fill the frame with one object/animal. Another advantage is the size for travelling, 8mm + 3,5 or 4" dome is very portable.

However, everything comes with a price/performance or value tag, my setup includes only 60mm macro and 8mm, and if I need less than 8mm, I pick up the 12-50 which came as a kit lens with my EM5 and use it with the flat port for 60mm macro as a cheap workaround (3 lenses, two ports). In ideal life, 7-14 would be an option, but then again, I do not make money with this hobby, so for me it makes no sense spending that much on top. If I had a chance to try the 7-14 it might change my mind, but luckily where I live, mirroless systems underwater are so rare (even for topside, 7-14 is very egzotic to find), that it will not happen. Which is maybe good.

The Panasonic 7-14mm you won't be disappointed with, as long as you don't try any CFWA stuff with it (due to soft corners) but apart from that it's stellar .

It works with the Nauticam 7" acrylic dome, the zen 170mm glass dome (which i had) and also the new Nauticam 180mm glass dome. The bigger the dome, in theory the better the corner sharpness.

However even at 14mm it's still quite wide. So you will be limited to wide angle shots.

If you are looking at the 7-14mm and a dome, please consider (again) the 14-42mm plus the WWL. You get better image quality, massive more flexiblity and all about the same size / weight. Plus add the CMC you in theory could get rid of the 60mm.

All the lenses you mention, Ive had underwater and I've gone full circle to the 14-42 with the WWL and CMC.

Still have the others, but in the process of selling off.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk