M5 to M1

[xahhax]

did anybody upgrade from a M5 to M1?
From pure UW usage is it worth the upgrade? I am doing 99% of macro still & video so for me focusing speed is key and I feel I loose so much footage/shots with the M5 and the slow Panasonic 45mm. Am i better off trying the Olympus 60mm lens on the M5?

 

[deeper thoughts]

I had both lenses and in my simple opinion, the 60mm focuses much faster

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

I have both lenses and I would agree that the 60mm is faster than the Panasonic 45mm. I also have used both the E-M5 and E-M1 extensively and the E-M1 has faster AF.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Agree with all of the above, but no need to upgrade to M1. Image and video quality essentially the same, AF speed close, and the 60mm will close the gap considerably. I sold my panny 45mm and replaced it with the 60, much better focus.

With the money you save, take a dive trip!

If I was buying new, the M1 definitely would be in consideration, but not for an upgrade to the already excellent M5.

If video is really important to you, and you have the $$ to upgrade, the only real choice is the GH4. From the reviews, ultra-fast focus, video in a whole different league, stills every bit as good as the Oly cameras. It lacks the 5 axis IBIS which is second to none and the reason I have not switched yet. If only Oly would up their video quality . . . . .

 

[xahhax]

Thanks..I already have the M1 for 'above water' pictures...but not the $$$ housing....will try first the Oly 60mm lens, thanks all!

 

[deeper thoughts]

Agree with all of the above, but no need to upgrade to M1. Image and video quality essentially the same, AF speed close, and the 60mm will close the gap considerably. I sold my panny 45mm and replaced it with the 60, much better focus.

With the money you save, take a dive trip!

If I was buying new, the M1 definitely would be in consideration, but not for an upgrade to the already excellent M5.

If video is really important to you, and you have the $$ to upgrade, the only real choice is the GH4. From the reviews, ultra-fast focus, video in a whole different league, stills every bit as good as the Oly cameras. It lacks the 5 axis IBIS which is second to none and the reason I have not switched yet. If only Oly would up their video quality . . . . .

Did you ever try a diopter with the 60 mm lens? I read somewhere that they don't really work well with the 60 mm

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

No, the 60mm gives the equivalent of 2:1 magnification in 35mm terms (in other words, you can fill the frame with an object half the size of a 35mm slide. I have not had the inclination to go to even higher magnifications yet although if I become a nudi or bumblebee shrimp fanatic we will see . .

If I got a diopter, it would to be add more magnification to the 12-50 macro mode primarily.

Phil, have you used the new Nauti macro converter with the 60 or the 12-50?

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Actually the image size at 1:1 with the Olympus 60mm macro is closer to 1/4th the size of the 35mm frame than to 1/4, 36X24mm v. 17.3x13mm's. I will attach these photos again showing the size of the 35mm frame, 60mm macro at 1:1, 1:1 with a SubSee +10 C/u lens and 1:1 with a Saga +15 C/U lens (Saga and Nauticam SMC-1 are very close in magnification). So look at the size of the eye in the 35mm frame and then in the 60 macro at 1:1 with Saga +15 and you will get an idea of how small a subject you can shoot. With this type of magnification it is all about selecting a subject of the correct size and keeping it in a flat plane so that you can get focus. Depth of field is paper thin at such magnification.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Wow, that's something. Time to start saving (again) . . . .

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

This is what I consider to be real macro and the reason that the 12-50 does not impress me as a macro substitute.

Image is 60mm macro at 1:1 with the Saga +15 C/U lens. These are Clown Fish eyes about to hatch.