Wetpixel Live: Downsizing UW Imaging Systems

Problem with the 12-40 is that is requires a larger dome, so you cannot fit a wet lens like with the 12-50. I wonder how the 12-45 PRO would perform behind something like the 4" wide angle port that also allows attachment of a flip adapter. Nauticam Port chart has very little info on this lens (macro port 35 + 2x 20mm extension). No idea if that lens would even work, but it might be a better iq alternativ and it allows 0.5 magnification through the whole zoom range, which is better than both the 12-50 and 12-40. 

2 hours ago, hyp said:

Problem with the 12-40 is that is requires a larger dome, so you cannot fit a wet lens like with the 12-50. I wonder how the 12-45 PRO would perform behind something like the 4" wide angle port that also allows attachment of a flip adapter. Nauticam Port chart has very little info on this lens (macro port 35 + 2x 20mm extension). No idea if that lens would even work, but it might be a better iq alternativ and it allows 0.5 magnification through the whole zoom range, which is better than both the 12-50 and 12-40. 

 

The problem of many shooters is that they do not understand that lenses that are good on land may not be good underwater or be less compact.

Underwater I use the 14-42mm lens with WWL-1 a lens that I never use on land.

On land I use the 8-18mm and 12-60 both need a dome and they are not compact neither take wet lenses same goes for 12-35 and 12-40mm 

Then you have the macro 30,45,60 all have a small port

And fisheye that in the MFT version takes also a small port

So if you want to have a compact set up you need to avoid wide lenses and good standard zoom or you go into dome territory

11 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

The problem of many shooters is that they do not understand that lenses that are good on land may not be good underwater or be less compact.

 

Or vice versa!  The Tokina 10-17 is, in my view, horrible above water. On an APSC underwater - terrific!

Or vice versa!  The Tokina 10-17 is, in my view, horrible above water. On an APSC underwater - terrific!

Yes exactly as the 14-42mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the input. I’ve been using the pancake 14-42 on land and as you say I’ve been missing the sharpness of the 12-40. But, if I understood correctly, paired with the wet-lens it’s will on pair of the 12-40. As said have only used the rx100iv underwater so I’m learning.

The problem with the WWL is that it's so huge that you basically have to do make the decision of what you're going to shoot before the dive. If the 12-45 works well behind the 4" dome you could go to 1:1 with a macro lens and still have 24mm equiv which is not amazing, but decent. That would be a pretty cool setup for Video or just when you have no idea what you're going to see on a dive.

The 12-50mm with the MWL-1 would also be able to do this. Not sure about IQ though as there are very few reviews. 

8 minutes ago, hyp said:

The problem with the WWL is that it's so huge that you basically have to do make the decision of what you're going to shoot before the dive. If the 12-45 works well behind the 4" dome you could go to 1:1 with a macro lens and still have 24mm equiv which is not amazing, but decent. That would be a pretty cool setup for Video or just when you have no idea what you're going to see on a dive.

The 12-50mm with the MWL-1 would also be able to do this. Not sure about IQ though as there are very few reviews. 

12-45 is not an interesting lens. The 4" dome is also a not terribly interesting port!

Any reasons?

29 minutes ago, hyp said:

Any reasons?

4" dome port or 2" 5 cm width typically out of a 11 cm circle means 57 degrees coverage which is less than 20mm for MFT

Any lens will be pushed into it not to vignette creating severe aberrations

The 12-45 changes length as it zooms so at wide settings it will be sitting back inside the dome extension, you would need to check it doesn't hit the dome of the 4"port which is very flat.  It also won't be optimised for dome placement as the centre of curvature is way back inside the extension. 

As for macro performance the 12-45 gets 0.23x natively at a working distance of about 140mm, you could get some improvement with a close up lens, but not sure you'd get 1:1

We've talked back and forth on getting something equivalent to the RX-100 focal range with some talk on alternative lens options, to me the real benefit in m43 over compacts is using the dedicated lenses, the 60mm macro for macro dives, the fisheye for CFWA reef dives etc.  The best option will probably depend most on what you like to shoot and where.  I like the 12-40 lens and use it around Sydney quite a bit, but not so much in crystal clear tropical reef diving.   What type of shooting do you do?

What type of shooting do you do?
 

17 minutes ago, caolino said:

I mainly shoot in tropical water and usually CFWA with limited macro with a bit of cropping. So far single strobe or ambient light with red filter.

Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

Thanks, I would think that the 12-40 would probably not be the best for that situation - it's a nice mid size fish lens but really not wide enough for a lot of CFWA, though it does indeed focus close, almost on the dome - so it would work but probably be limiting.   For that sort of shot I tend to favor the little 8mm fisheye lenses, though they really are not a possibility for macro even at closest focus touching the dome.   The coverage  is something like 400mm - for a subject about 100mm away from the front element.  I use mine in the 100mm Zen dome which is very compact.

Do you use a wet lens for your CFWA work currently?

This again gets back to what I see as the plus of m43 over 1"sensor compacts - the ability to use things like 8mm fisheye or 60mm macro, but this gets down to using it either for a macro dive or a reef dive with CFWA.

To do both is possible but there are compromises.  You could certainly do it with WWL - but that is a big heavy piece of glass even if the float collar now helps out underwater.  Changing it out UW is possible but probably not practical.

If you wanted a dual solution of mostly CFWA and occasionally take a large nudi or closeup on clown fish or the like you could use the 30mm macro with the MWL-1 on on a flip holder, this gives a wide 150° field or you can get in close enough for half life size shots of smaller creatures quite easily.  The MWL is like a 100mm dome on an 80mm extension and weighs 1.2kg in air.   I've seen reviews on full frame where f16 is recommended, not seen anything on it for m43 and if the f16 requirement can be relaxed or not. 

Do you use a wet lens for your CFWA work currently?