All right! Please share with us once you have made your decision.
OM-D rig step by step
- Thread starter Storker
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
OP
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,743
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
I can't answer for Guy, but from my experience with topside photography, just having two control wheels is a major improvement. In manual, you control both shutter speed and aperture directly without pushing buttons or digging through menus. In A or S mode, you can have shutter speed (or aperture) on one wheel and exposure comp on the second wheel. Again, the basic control at your fingertips, directly without any menu-diving.
Add a few dedicated control buttons for e.g. focus, ISO control and flash comp, and you'll be able to handle >95% of your camera controls without ever going into a menu. If I want to focus on composition and catching the decisive moment, that's vital for me. Even if my images hardly ever reflect those ambitions...
jetlife2
Registered
That's what I don't understand. In the EPL2 in manual, the aperture is L-R on the wheel and the shutter is up-Down on the same wheel. (or possibly the other way around, I am on an airplane without the camera in front of me!) No menu. So I am not sure what I am missing.
tamas970
Contributor
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 59
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
Same here, with the E-PL5 on land I don't miss any controls - even coming from a D7000. As for IBIS: Given that most stills are shot with strobes, IBIS is only an issue while shooting video. Here the OMD is great, it uses the full potential of its 5 axis IBIS. However, if video is important, I'd definitely go in the Panasonic direction (GH2-3). The GH3 is also a pretty nice camera... (no housing yet though)
Apples and Oranges. 9mm will never replace 12, 100 vs 84 degrees FOV diagonal. The 12-50 is a very limited "macro" with 1:5 magnification - this won't help much with those few mm-sized beauties, you need a real macro or a close-up lens for them anyway. BTW is there a good port for the 12-50, which gives good IQ in the whole range? (most probably has to be a dome or semidome...)
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,743
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
It's definitely more versatile than the 9-18, which is a WA zoom. It's probably also more versatile than the 14-42. But it's also pretty darned long, making the camera too nose-heavy topside for my taste. For an old geezer like me, some of the emotional appeal of the OM-D is the retro design and the SLR-like handling. Quite reminiscent of the old OM-2, AE-1 or FM with a nifty fifty. With the pretty long 12-50, the setup becomes a bit more cumbersome in terms of "stuffability" (did I just invent a new word?). I might be happy with the 12-50 underwater, but topside the setup becomes too unbalanced for my taste.
YMMV, de gustibus non est, etc., etc.
The 12-50 is an alternative to the 14-42 for general purpose shooting. It is not an alternative to the 9-18 (more on that below). As a lens, it is not that much more costly than the 14-42 and I do recommend it highly for on land use as it is weather-sealed, has better optical quality, and a very, very nice macro function that is "true macro". It also has a power zoom option which is excellent for video, if video is important to you. Once I got mine, I sold my 14-42 and not only don't miss it, I am very glad I made the switch. Actually, although it is that much longer than the 14-42 which extends in shooting mode, it is very light weight and does not off-balance the camera, although it does not "shrink" like the 14-42 for non-shooting storage.
For UW use, it is the best all-around lens going, but only in the dedicated Nauticam Port/Gear. Nothing else even comes close. I went with this set-up and I can say from using it that it is beyond amazing with its versatility and ease of use. However, I know that cost is an issue for Storker and the Nauti port/gear is $800US.
Storker, before you say that is too much, let's compare the numbers for "Step One":
12-50 lens versus 14-42, $200 more (comparing prices of the camera/lens kits) and you have all the advantages inherent in the 12-50.
The dome port for 14-42 is $450. The 12-50 port is $450. So, equal.
Adding the dedicated macro/zoom gear for the 12-50 is $350 more if you get the gear "packaged" with the port. BUT, that replaces the diopter and macro adapter for the dome port of your 'step 4', which will total about $400 (200 for a quality diopter, 200 for the adapter). In addition, you have full macro capability at "step one"
So, you have $550 more up front, but avoid the need to spend around $400 later on, and you have instant switching between semi-wide, a versatile zoom range, and true macro for tiny things (you can fill the frame with a 24x35mm object like an SD card). So, in the end, a $150 or so extra cost. There is just no comparision in terms of the benefit you receive for this small extra expenditure (small in comparison with all of the gear).
So, if I really wanted to offer what I believe is best, Step One would be the 12-50 with dedicated Nauti port/gear, and a strobe. This will cover probably 70% of everything you will shoot, with one lens and one port that you never have to change, and no diopters to carry during the dive, screw on and off, or use with an expensive flip adapter. It would be as "seamless" an operation as you could ever imagine and, really, I can't imagine you needing anything else for quite a long time.
If, later and as you get more experience, you become more dedicated to macro and ultra/macro, the Oly 60mm macro fits in the same port.
If, later, you want to add wide/ultrawide, get the 9-18 and port and you are done.
But, with the 12-50, there will be no hurry to take these steps.
There is a post above that says the 12-50 only gives 1:5 magification. THIS IS WRONG. In macro mode, you fill the frame with an object 24x36mm. I have a full-frame-filling shot of an SD card. On a 35mm camera, this would be 1:1 magnification, equal to the very best 35mm macro lenses. This is an incredible feat and capability to have in such a useful general-purpose zoom, both above and under the water.
For UW use, it is the best all-around lens going, but only in the dedicated Nauticam Port/Gear. Nothing else even comes close. I went with this set-up and I can say from using it that it is beyond amazing with its versatility and ease of use. However, I know that cost is an issue for Storker and the Nauti port/gear is $800US.
Storker, before you say that is too much, let's compare the numbers for "Step One":
12-50 lens versus 14-42, $200 more (comparing prices of the camera/lens kits) and you have all the advantages inherent in the 12-50.
The dome port for 14-42 is $450. The 12-50 port is $450. So, equal.
Adding the dedicated macro/zoom gear for the 12-50 is $350 more if you get the gear "packaged" with the port. BUT, that replaces the diopter and macro adapter for the dome port of your 'step 4', which will total about $400 (200 for a quality diopter, 200 for the adapter). In addition, you have full macro capability at "step one"
So, you have $550 more up front, but avoid the need to spend around $400 later on, and you have instant switching between semi-wide, a versatile zoom range, and true macro for tiny things (you can fill the frame with a 24x35mm object like an SD card). So, in the end, a $150 or so extra cost. There is just no comparision in terms of the benefit you receive for this small extra expenditure (small in comparison with all of the gear).
So, if I really wanted to offer what I believe is best, Step One would be the 12-50 with dedicated Nauti port/gear, and a strobe. This will cover probably 70% of everything you will shoot, with one lens and one port that you never have to change, and no diopters to carry during the dive, screw on and off, or use with an expensive flip adapter. It would be as "seamless" an operation as you could ever imagine and, really, I can't imagine you needing anything else for quite a long time.
If, later and as you get more experience, you become more dedicated to macro and ultra/macro, the Oly 60mm macro fits in the same port.
If, later, you want to add wide/ultrawide, get the 9-18 and port and you are done.
But, with the 12-50, there will be no hurry to take these steps.
There is a post above that says the 12-50 only gives 1:5 magification. THIS IS WRONG. In macro mode, you fill the frame with an object 24x36mm. I have a full-frame-filling shot of an SD card. On a 35mm camera, this would be 1:1 magnification, equal to the very best 35mm macro lenses. This is an incredible feat and capability to have in such a useful general-purpose zoom, both above and under the water.
9-18 no contest. Fisheye is very difficult to master. It can give unique and dramatic looks that no other lens offers, but it offers a one-dimensional perspective that must be mastered, and then followed through the entire dive. 9-18 gives much greater versatility. Personally, I like the rectlinear wide angle look better than the curved fisheye look. The best fisheye shots are those that are framed so as to minimize the curved field of view (ie water or irregular shapes at the edges) and emphasize the ultra-wide angle view of the lens. I do not, however, have any desire to own one in the near future.
Similar threads
