Question Basic questions regarding EM-1 mkii/OM-1 with zoom as snorkeling camera?

[Trilobite]

Hello,

I can't dive due to sinus issues, but am becoming an enthusiastic snorkeler. I've used the EM-1 cameras for seven years for bird and insect macro photography, but have only used the TG-4 underwater (liked it and got some good results, but looking for something more capable). So I am something of a newbie with respect to underwater photography, but I'm thinking it would be preferable to use a camera that I am already experienced with above water. I had some basic questions about using the Olympus interchangeable lens cameras underwater.

1. I want to use a single zoom lens, hopefully around 100 mm equivalent zoom. Are there cases that accommodate zoom lenses and make it easy to zoom in and out?

2. Obviously, it is hard to swim with a camera in your hand. What are the popular ways for stowing the camera in a case so you can swim?

3. Alternatives I'm considering are high-end compacts with 1 inch 20 megapixel sensors, e.g. the Canon GX 7 ii/iii or the Panasonic LX 10 (I already own the latter). Any thoughts on how these would compare to the Olympus in terms of ease of use (I already know how the image quality compares above water)?

4. Any recommendations as to lens or case? Any decent cases that accomodate both the OM-1 and the EM-1 mkii? (I currently have two of the latter, but would be hesitant to buy a case for the mkii if it doesn't fit the OM-1.)

5. Any recommendations as to accessories such as simple strobes, etc. (obviously, for snorkeling strobes are less critical than when diving).

Thanks for any help,
Jim

 

[d^2b]

I would say 14-42mm + UWL-09 wet lens.

I use a wet lens for close focus on a swing in holder, so that would not be so convenient for me. But sure, that's an option; then you just miss a little reach at the long end, which is probably easier to replace with "get closer".

 

[BoltSnap]

I generally prefer the 12-50 over the 14-42, if only for the extra reach at the wide end. You should be able to find one used fairly inexpensively; they are not so highly regarded for terrestrial use.

But does the housing mfg. have the required port and zoom lens with the macro switch?

 

[Trilobite]

I generally prefer the 12-50 over the 14-42, if only for the extra reach at the wide end. You should be able to find one used fairly inexpensively; they are not so highly regarded for terrestrial use.

Thanks for your input, but I am not following your terminology--am I missing something? I would say the 12-50 has "extra reach" at the long end--50 mm vs. 42. At the "wide end," it has a wider field of view (less reach): 12 versus 14mm.

 

[Trilobite]

I would say 14-42mm + UWL-09 wet lens.

Thanks. Is that wet lens to better facilitate wide-angle shots, and is it something you would have to take off for regular close-up shots (I'm not using the word macro since I don't think you could get true macro with the 14-42mm)? Carrying extra lenses and taking stuff on and off is something I'm trying to avoid.

Also, I see they list the AOI UWL-09 PRO Underwater 130° Wide Angle Conversion Lens as an option for this housing, but for $1,129.00. That is a lot of coin.

 

[Trilobite]

But does the housing mfg. have the required port and zoom lens with the macro switch?

I can check, but I suspect not since they don't describe it as one of their recommended lenses. I read that the macro mode achieves 0.36x magnification (or 0.72x 35mm equivalent?). Do you know how much of an improvement that is over regular mode?

 

[d^2b]

Thanks for your input, but I am not following your terminology--am I missing something? I would say the 12-50 has "extra reach" at the long end--50 mm vs. 42. At the "wide end," it has a wider field of view (less reach): 12 versus 14mm.

I mean I appreciate that the lens goes wider.

 

[Barmaglot]

Thanks. Is that wet lens to better facilitate wide-angle shots, and is it something you would have to take off for regular close-up shots (I'm not using the word macro since I don't think you could get true macro with the 14-42mm)? Carrying extra lenses and taking stuff on and off is something I'm trying to avoid.

It's to get close to your subject, placing as little water as possible between them and the lens, while still fitting them, and a good amount of background, into the frame.

I have seen some divers who use a wet wide lens take one off and put it on constantly, but personally, I hardly ever do it. I either do wide-angle, or macro.

Also, I see they list the AOI UWL-09 PRO Underwater 130° Wide Angle Conversion Lens as an option for this housing, but for $1,129.00. That is a lot of coin.

The 'Pro' model has a glass front dome; it is significantly more expensive and also quite heavy. The UWL-09F model, with an acrylic front element, costs a good deal less - I got mine for $600 slightly used.

 

[Trilobite]

I called backscatter and they said they don't support the 12-50 mm – you need to go with the nauticam housing. (Though the lens is listed as a supported lens for their OM-1 AOI housing.) So it looks like my choice is limited to the 14-42 mm ez as far as zoom lenses for this housing (?) They also suggested the AOI UWL-09 PRO if I want to add wide-angle capability while still maintaining the zoom range. I asked if there were less expensive alternatives to the pro and they said no– but not sure I believe that.

So I guess if I'm going to go this route I would have to go for the kit lens, i.e. the 14-42 mm ez and maybe consider adding a wet lens down the road.

The lens specs of high-end compacts (faster lenses with longer zooms), plus the ability to use a pop-up flash, still tempt me in that direction. But I reckon that the larger sensor is still going to make this the better set up by a significant margin.

 

[rmorgan]

Philosopher, the 14-42 EZ does not have the macro switch that Boltsnap references. You might consider adding the excellent Olympus 30mm f/3.5 macro, which AOI specs for the same port as the EZ. Having true macro available is compatible with your experience, and the 30 is short enough that it serves pretty well as a "normal" lens. The 30 macro runs about $200(!) used/excellent.

 

[BoltSnap]

the 14-42 EZ, which does not have the macro switch that Boltsnap references?

No, it doesn't. It is unique to the 12-50.