Jak Crow
Contributor
I just bought the 12-50mm, so I haven't shot with it yet, and while it may be better than the 14-42mm, I have had great results from the 14-42 and most of my underwater photos were taken with it.
OLY E-M1 New Camera
- Thread starter BoltSnap
- 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
Natali
Registered
Hi guys, I am currently looking to purchase E-M5 camera with Nauticam housing. Is anybody in this thread planning to upgrade to E-M1 and may be interested in selling me their E-M5 setup?
Jak if u shoot the 12 50 in the nauti port u wont go back to the 14 42. I sold mine. 12 50 is better every way.
Natali
Registered
I purchased the camera through this thread, happily awaiting it's arrival 
.
.
Jak Crow
Contributor
The e-m1 will automatically zoom the lens in and out if you use the underwater modes. I'm not sure I can justify the cost of the port and gear when it would be better spent on the 12-40mm and port.
Hi Jak,
I offer this advice from my experience with the system. If you are choosing which medium zoom to house, the 12-50 or 12-40, by all means get the 12-50 dedicated port/gear before you use the 12-40 for underwater. Althugh the 12-40 might be a "better" lens in image quality, and is the best going for travel/landscape above water, for all-around UW use the 12-50 in the dedicated port/gear is a WAY better choice than the 12-40. The macro mode alone is a superior feature that the 12-40 can't match. The power zoom is better for video. The instant switching between true macro and wide angle is just not achievable by any other port/gear combination.
There are many disadvantages to the 12-40 for UW use. First, it extends hugely while zooming, while the 12-50 does not extend at all. This makes the 12-40 very questionable as to image quality throughout its range unless you have a huge dome and maybe extension rings. Even then, the long zoom extension might move a portion of the zoom range outside the best image area of the dome. Next, because you must have a big dome, you can't get true macro because you cannot even use a diopter. Even the lens' normal close focusing ability becomes highly questionable in use because the dome is going to be very close to, almost touching, your subject, scaring many subjects and making lighting extremely difficult. Even if you could find some sort of diopter adapter that would fit the dome without scratching it, you then need a diopter and still have the same problem with working distance. The 12-50 has none of these problems and excellent working distance at the macro setting.
Add it up, big dome, extensions, plus adapter, plus diopter, and you are far more expensive than the dedicated 12-50 port and gears (and, the 12-50 port is also the correct port for the 60mm macro, so you get double duty). You don't have anywhere near the functionality in use. Also, the 12-50 in its port is much smaller and compact than a big done. You will really notice the difference in a strong current.
I have written about this several times in other threads. Trying to save money by not getting the 12-50 port/gear is simply false economy. You cannot get equivalent capability, functionality and versatility for the same price.
Now, as to image quality, not the big difference everyone thinks between the 12-50 and 12-40 for underwater use. The 12-50 has distinctly better quality than the 14-42 so you get an improvement already. Next, for most UW you are shooting F8 or smaller, which greatly evens out the image quality differences between the 12-50 and the 12-40.
You have both lenses, so do what I have done, put the 12-50 into the gear and dedicate it to underwater use in the port. Use the 12-40 on land and have the best of all worlds. I actually have 2 12-50s, one in the gear for UW and one for land that I bought used, because the 12-40 had not come out, but I plan to sell my "land" 12-50 and replace it with the 12-40. No way for underwater, though.
I an not "dissing" the 12-40 which is superb. But, like the Nikon 14-24, it is not the optimal underwater performer, where other factors become much more important. Still, if (1) you don't care that much about macro and are shooting larger subjects, (2) you regularly shoot underwater at large apertures like 2.8, or don't use lighting, (3) you don't mind having a big dome on your housing all of the time then maybe the 12-40 might be a better choice.
But (1) if you want to be ready for anything on a dive which for me is the whole point of the medium zoom, (2) you want "true" macro ability (3) you also shoot video (4) you want instant switching between wide, tele and macro (5) you don't want a big dome with a bunch of awkward accessories as your regular port, then go with the 12-50.
Then, save for one of Nauti's excellent dedicated smaller dome for either the Oly 9-18 or Panasonic 7-14 lenses. At that point, two compact ports cover three lenses and basically all UW needs wide in the dome, and all-around (12-50) and dedicated macro (60mm) in the flat port.
I offer this advice from my experience with the system. If you are choosing which medium zoom to house, the 12-50 or 12-40, by all means get the 12-50 dedicated port/gear before you use the 12-40 for underwater. Althugh the 12-40 might be a "better" lens in image quality, and is the best going for travel/landscape above water, for all-around UW use the 12-50 in the dedicated port/gear is a WAY better choice than the 12-40. The macro mode alone is a superior feature that the 12-40 can't match. The power zoom is better for video. The instant switching between true macro and wide angle is just not achievable by any other port/gear combination.
There are many disadvantages to the 12-40 for UW use. First, it extends hugely while zooming, while the 12-50 does not extend at all. This makes the 12-40 very questionable as to image quality throughout its range unless you have a huge dome and maybe extension rings. Even then, the long zoom extension might move a portion of the zoom range outside the best image area of the dome. Next, because you must have a big dome, you can't get true macro because you cannot even use a diopter. Even the lens' normal close focusing ability becomes highly questionable in use because the dome is going to be very close to, almost touching, your subject, scaring many subjects and making lighting extremely difficult. Even if you could find some sort of diopter adapter that would fit the dome without scratching it, you then need a diopter and still have the same problem with working distance. The 12-50 has none of these problems and excellent working distance at the macro setting.
Add it up, big dome, extensions, plus adapter, plus diopter, and you are far more expensive than the dedicated 12-50 port and gears (and, the 12-50 port is also the correct port for the 60mm macro, so you get double duty). You don't have anywhere near the functionality in use. Also, the 12-50 in its port is much smaller and compact than a big done. You will really notice the difference in a strong current.
I have written about this several times in other threads. Trying to save money by not getting the 12-50 port/gear is simply false economy. You cannot get equivalent capability, functionality and versatility for the same price.
Now, as to image quality, not the big difference everyone thinks between the 12-50 and 12-40 for underwater use. The 12-50 has distinctly better quality than the 14-42 so you get an improvement already. Next, for most UW you are shooting F8 or smaller, which greatly evens out the image quality differences between the 12-50 and the 12-40.
You have both lenses, so do what I have done, put the 12-50 into the gear and dedicate it to underwater use in the port. Use the 12-40 on land and have the best of all worlds. I actually have 2 12-50s, one in the gear for UW and one for land that I bought used, because the 12-40 had not come out, but I plan to sell my "land" 12-50 and replace it with the 12-40. No way for underwater, though.
I an not "dissing" the 12-40 which is superb. But, like the Nikon 14-24, it is not the optimal underwater performer, where other factors become much more important. Still, if (1) you don't care that much about macro and are shooting larger subjects, (2) you regularly shoot underwater at large apertures like 2.8, or don't use lighting, (3) you don't mind having a big dome on your housing all of the time then maybe the 12-40 might be a better choice.
But (1) if you want to be ready for anything on a dive which for me is the whole point of the medium zoom, (2) you want "true" macro ability (3) you also shoot video (4) you want instant switching between wide, tele and macro (5) you don't want a big dome with a bunch of awkward accessories as your regular port, then go with the 12-50.
Then, save for one of Nauti's excellent dedicated smaller dome for either the Oly 9-18 or Panasonic 7-14 lenses. At that point, two compact ports cover three lenses and basically all UW needs wide in the dome, and all-around (12-50) and dedicated macro (60mm) in the flat port.
Jak Crow
Contributor
Those are all good points. Which means it will drive the IQ snobs crazy recommending the 12-50
PHIL RUDIN
Contributor
Today Nauticamusa.com has announced the NA-EM1 housing for the Olympus EM-1. You can see the finished product with all of its new features, including an optional adapter for Olympus 43 lenses and gears at, nauticamusa.com
Go for it, jak, that housing looks really sweet!
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Article
