Nauticam's website has a port chart saying what ports go with what lenses. For the 6" it lists the pana 7-14 and 12-35. For me, the system bottleneck is me, and while the 7-14 i'm sure is better than the 9-18, I'm really not skilled enough to take advantage of it. I'm having a hard enough time framing, composing and lighting with the 9-18 and I don't think going wider is the fix. Right now I have the OMD and Nauticam, 60mm macro, 9-18, with their respective ports. For the wide angle, I end up shooting a lot of video.
Choice of Lenses 9-18mm for sombody who already has the 8mm, 12-50mm and 60mm
- 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
PHIL RUDIN
Contributor
This is an issue that has been beaten to death in the Olympus fourms. While one dome may fit all or several lenses it will likely only work really well with the lenses it was designed for. Nauticam and others would not be offering all of these port choices if you could get the same results from one or two ports.
You can find the most up to date lens chart for M43 cameras at nauticam.com
Phil Rudin
You can find the most up to date lens chart for M43 cameras at nauticam.com
Phil Rudin
Last edited:
Burhan,
I had intended to sell the 9-18 once I got the 7-14 for underwater. I had always planned for the 7-14 underwater. If you do not have either lens yet, then I completely recommend the 7-14 for underwater.
Having both, I discovered that the 9-18 has advantages for a travel lens above water due to its ability to take filters, and its significantly smaller size. This has led me to keep it for non-diving travel. I do lots of landscape, travel, architecture photography and use polarizers and ND filters a lot.
I do not know if I could also use the 9-18 or other lenses in the dome for the 7-14. I will ask Reef about that, and, Phil, what do you think? Using a lens that takes ND filters is useful for uw video and maybe some long exposure/second curtain flash special effects I want to experiment with. That does not change my recommendation that the 7-14 is definitely best for uw. The difference between 7mm and 9mm is pretty amazing on the wide end.
I had intended to sell the 9-18 once I got the 7-14 for underwater. I had always planned for the 7-14 underwater. If you do not have either lens yet, then I completely recommend the 7-14 for underwater.
Having both, I discovered that the 9-18 has advantages for a travel lens above water due to its ability to take filters, and its significantly smaller size. This has led me to keep it for non-diving travel. I do lots of landscape, travel, architecture photography and use polarizers and ND filters a lot.
I do not know if I could also use the 9-18 or other lenses in the dome for the 7-14. I will ask Reef about that, and, Phil, what do you think? Using a lens that takes ND filters is useful for uw video and maybe some long exposure/second curtain flash special effects I want to experiment with. That does not change my recommendation that the 7-14 is definitely best for uw. The difference between 7mm and 9mm is pretty amazing on the wide end.
OP
I can't find an up to date lens/port chart for the M43 cameras. What they have is very old. Do you have a link that shows more up to date chart please?
---------- Post added January 9th, 2013 at 10:42 PM ----------
OK, you convinced me that the 7-14 is better but I found this comment about the 6" dome with the 7-14 lens, how true is this comment?
"Unfortunately this lens is very expensive, and it needs a larger dome port for sharper results. With a 6-inch dome port, the corners are ok but not great at 7mm, they are better at 9mm"
Can't comment on that. I have not done test shots against a completely flat pool wall or chart, which is the only way to tell if the dome as opposed to other factors causes sharpness fall-off. In normal shooting, objects in the corners are often, almost always, at a different distance that the objects in the center and unsharp corners might have more to do with depth of field/point of focus issues than dome performance. I might also add that it is rare where some lesser sharpness in the corner impacts an image that is well-composed, dynamic, and sharp on the elements of key importance, which are almost never in the corners anyway.
Personally, I find my photos with this set-up very impressively sharp.
Personally, I find my photos with this set-up very impressively sharp.
PHIL RUDIN
Contributor
You may want to try and learn to do a little of this homework on your own Burham, I have attached a link to the Nauticam port charts and a link to six pages of information on the Panasonic 7-14 zoom (that would be in the Panasonic forum) detailing points of view on this lens with several photos (another issue that has been more than covered here and on wetpixel).
Phil Rudin
http://www.nauticam.com/images/catalog/catalog_18.pdf
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/panasonic-planet/413982-panasonic-7-14-mm.html
Phil Rudin
http://www.nauticam.com/images/catalog/catalog_18.pdf
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/panasonic-planet/413982-panasonic-7-14-mm.html
ConchyJoe
Contributor
Totally agree:
8mm Pana and 100mm Zen OR 60mm Macro and PP0-EP01
I decide that I am going to shoot macro or WA based on where I am going, or how deep I am diving. I feel that WA is better for deep, and macro better for shallow, as there are more small critters shallow, and large critters deep.
And on top of that the 8mm does AWESOME SFWA.
If you spend a lot of time and effort on on zoom, and then DF and aperture along with shutter speed, you are going to miss shots fiddling with your camera.
I just am not smart enough for all that! :worried:
Similar threads
