EPL-2 camera and housing

[cardog]

The only thing keeping me from purchasing this new system is the lack of macro capability with the kit lens. I don't want to spend 780.00 for the 45mm macro lens!

The new add-on lens converters for the 14-42 II kit lens include a fisheye, wide angle and macro type diopter. Not likely they would work well behind the stock dome port except for perhaps the macro.

Phil Rudin

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Hello Ron,

I don't see anything in your public gallery that could not have been taken with this lens. I am not sure how much magnification you need but the attached images were taken with the 14-42 at the 42 mm end. As much as a +10 diopter or more could be added to the lens if you want to get even closer. Any quality macro lens that goes to 1:1 is going to cost more than this kit lens for sure. The Olympus 50 mm macro coming in the next few months will be less than the Panasonic lens I would bet.

PHIL RUDIN

 

[cardog]

Hello Ron,

I don't see anything in your public gallery that could not have been taken with this lens. I am not sure how much magnification you need but the attached images were taken with the 14-42 at the 42 mm end. As much as a +10 diopter or more could be added to the lens if you want to get even closer. Any quality macro lens that goes to 1:1 is going to cost more than this kit lens for sure. The Olympus 50 mm macro coming in the next few months will be less than the Panasonic lens I would bet.

PHIL RUDIN

I'm shooting most of my images within 1-4 inches of the subject. Isn't the minimum focusing distance with the 14-42mm about 9-10 inches?

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

if being 1 to 4 inches from your subject is your preference you may want to stay with what you have. That has nothing to do with the final subject size in the frame. If you can get to the same magnification from 5 or 6 inches rather than 1 or 2 that is a good thing.

Phil

 

[cardog]

if being 1 to 4 inches from your subject is your preference you may want to stay with what you have. That has nothing to do with the final subject size in the frame. If you can get to the same magnification from 5 or 6 inches rather than 1 or 2 that is a good thing.

Phil

That's the difference between shooting in Florida and shooting in the Puget Sound.
Six inches away in 5-10' of viz is not conducive to good photos.

 

[slowhands]

The only thing keeping me from purchasing this new system is the lack of macro capability with the kit lens. I don't want to spend 780.00 for the 45mm macro lens!

If you are shooting macro only, you can add a +4 close-up lens to the kit lens, inside the housing. This is very inexpensive and much more convenient than using the external macro adapter, in my opinion. The filter ring is 40.5mm on the original kit lens. (It appears the filter ring size changes to 37mm on the new 14-42mm II lens.) I plan to use it all the time in my Zen dome. This should give closer working distance with minimal quality loss.

I do love the non micro 4/3 50mm macro lens. Olympus knows optics. But it won't fit in the housing, to wide for the port. So, maybe when the M4/3 50mm comes out I will give it a chance. Right now I am debating buying the m4/3 the 9-18mm, because I love the non micro 4/3 9-18mm, which of course also does not fit. Irks me. Partly it's the cost, partly it's the waste - I try to be green and frugalize my camera addiction.

 

[cardog]

If you are shooting macro only, you can add a +4 close-up lens to the kit lens, inside the housing. This is very inexpensive and much more convenient than using the external macro adapter, in my opinion. The filter ring is 40.5mm on the original kit lens. (It appears the filter ring size changes to 37mm on the new 14-42mm II lens.) I plan to use it all the time in my Zen dome. This should give closer working distance with minimal quality loss.

I do love the non micro 4/3 50mm macro lens. Olympus knows optics. But it won't fit in the housing, to wide for the port. So, maybe when the M4/3 50mm comes out I will give it a chance. Right now I am debating buying the m4/3 the 9-18mm, because I love the non micro 4/3 9-18mm, which of course also does not fit. Irks me. Partly it's the cost, partly it's the waste - I try to be green and frugalize my camera addiction.

Thanks! Those +4 close up "filters" might be worth a shot. I wonder how much image clarity I would lose?

 

[Wisnu]

The 4/3 35mm macro is certainly not the best Oly lens, but not expensive 1:1 lens. With MMF-1 adapter (still available in ebay) it will fit 10bar housing or other housing with ID 70mm or larger.
Yes, the AF is slow and not easy.

 

[nudibranco]

Ron,

Actually I am not sure how far you can keep focus over a certain distance with the close up lens internal to the case. You would only be limited to very short focused distances.
But if your water is like dirt (!) then ... it does not matter.

I have an Epoque macro lens and that attached to the Olympus case gives me less than a couple of inches from the subject. Without it I get about 4 inches... Less than that I get no light into the subject unless I get one of those circular macro lights...

Cheers
Andrea

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

That's the difference between shooting in Florida and shooting in the Puget Sound.
Six inches away in 5-10' of viz is not conducive to good photos.

Ron,

I have shot macro in 5-10 feet of vis both in Florida, Canada and Alaska as well as several other places around the world and you do not need to be that close to your subject to get good results. All these images were taken in turbid water at over six inches.

Phil Rudin