Oly E-620 or Pany GF-1 or Oly EPL-1 ?

[Wisnu]

The background:
I have been using Oly SP-350 with oly housing and Metz AF58-1 flash housed in 10bar housing. Awkward set-up, since the housed strobe is bigger than the camera housing – anyway, I’m happy – it’s true TTL, very accurate, working well in camera manual mode and reasonable strong power. For back-up or if dual trobe required – I have Epoque ES-230DS.

I also have Canon G9 in canon housing with Inon D-2000 type 3 (mostly used by my daughter) – so I know how good and its limitation.

For topside – I use Oly E-620 with few their lens incl. macro 35mm and 8mm fish eye.
I'd like to upgrade my UW set-up since early of this year but not realized until now. I've read lot threads/review, posted thread, and discussed with experts – the problem is – the more in my head; the more difficult to make a decision.
Seem now close to the end – hopefully.

As far as possible I would like to use what I have and not to break the bank. That’s one of the reason why Nex-5 is not considered. And these what I consider:

1. Pany GF-1 with 14-45mm lens – don’t have too many choice for housing; although I hate but I have to consider 10bar w/ semi dome port. Other housing (Inon, recsea – not only expensive but does not have oly sinc. port ). Total will cost USD 1,600. Not sure but I expect I can also use my oly 35mm macro – the dia. Only 1 mm larger than pany 7-14mm.
2. Oly EPL-1 with 14-42mm lens – similar as above with 10bar housing – cost wise around USD 150 cheaper than GF-1. Cons- smaller LCD, and according to various review – slower shutter / lag time. Not 100% sure but may be possible to use the Oly PT-EP01 but I have to modify the remote sensor of Metz 58AF-1 in 10bar housing – to enable using fibre optic + RC mode. If I can use FO cable, this solution just cost me approx. USD 1000.
3. Just get Oly PT-E06 with std. port – cost USD 1250. Cons – no video, slow AF with live view (I’m not very comfy using small view finder) – seem the least expensive solution but I’ll spend more money for further development (dome ports, macro port, ext. view finder, ). Picture quality – probably better than above.

So – if you’re in my position – what you choose … and what else I’m missing in above comparison.

 

[davelew]

First, I'm a huge fan of the micro-four-thirds cameras, especially underwater.

However, if you already have some fantastic lenses like the 8mm FE and the 35mm macro in the Four-Thirds format, I would stick with that. Going with a new lens mount standard when you already have some good glass might be cheaper in the startup phase, but it will cost you more in the long run.

 

[under water]

I think the e-pl1 uses the same sensor as your e-620 and I expect, given comparable lenses, you will get the same picture quality from it. I do believe that you can get an adapter to use your 4/3rds lenses with the micro 4/3rds cameras.
Amazon.com: Olympus MMF-1 Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds Adapter: Camera & Photo

Performance in other respects is probably better on the 620.
Call me crazy, but I think eventually there may be dome options for the 4/3rds lenses with the e-pl1 and Oly housing.

 

[nudibranco]

Hi! If I was you I would check which manufacturer makes an port that fits your lenses and use your strobes... I think 10bar is the way to go but you may want to write to them and ask them for fitting etc... However the focusing is going to be a bit slower with 4/3 lenses. I could not try them but 10 bar allows you to use manual focusing. The 35mm looks quite interesting for underwater but it will not fit in my Olympus housing by 1 mm or so.. It may be harder to fit the fisheye though.

Ciao
Andrea

 

[davelew]

The background:
[*]Just get Oly PT-E06 with std. port – cost USD 1250. Cons – no video, slow AF with live view (I’m not very comfy using small view finder) – seem the least expensive solution but I’ll spend more money for further development (dome ports, macro port, ext. view finder, ). Picture quality – probably better than above.

I have one other point about the AF speed. AF speed doesn't matter with a fisheye lens, because you can lock focus and have everything sharp from 12" to infinity. In fact, that's how I usually dive with my 8mm fisheye, in manual focus mode without a focus knob. Also, most of the best macro shots are done without AF, where you lock the focus and move the camera to get the right parts in focus.

Autofocus is only really useful underwater for fish portraits, it's not needed for wide-angle and not effective for macro shots.

 

[Wisnu]

Thanks for all your responses

Indeed, E-620 and EPL-1 use same sensor which also use for Oly high end DSLR E-5. The GF-1 sensor size is also same. Not sure (but hopefully) will produce same quality pictures.
No video with E-620 - not very crucial but certainly nice to have.

For topside - no problem to use 4/3 lens for m4/3 camera - both Pany and Oly has exchangeable converter.
For UW - may be different story as the diameter of 4/3 lens is bigger than m4/3. For 35mm macro, the dia. is 71 mm - may be okay for 10bar housing as their port dia. is 77mm.
I don't think will work for 8mm FE as the diameter is 79mm.

I don't check with the manufacturer - I don't think they will response my e-mail after the send me a UW flash housing with all three control buttons do not function. Sent 4 e-mails and no response.


Cheers

 

[bvanant]

Autofocus is only really useful underwater for fish portraits, it's not needed for wide-angle and not effective for macro shots.

Huh? That may be true (although I doubt it) for the OLY system but for most DSLR shooters shooting macro, I believe that they mostly all use autofocus.
All of the macro and super macro at
BlueViews | Home Page

were shot with autofocus on a variety of Canon DSLR cameras. Most folks I know shooting Nikon are the same.

Bill

 

[Mooseman1007]

I was kind of wondering the same as Wisnu. Except I have no topside SLR+lenses to push my decision either way. Im looking at any of the EVIL cameras (Olympus PEN, Pana GF1 or Sony Nex-5), as an afforable step up from the Compacts I am currently using (Fuji F100 and Pana TZ10). I would also consider a traditional SLR if the price is in the same range tho. Given my free choice, what are the pros and cons of each setup? Im mostly interested in macro work, but adaptability is a bonus.

 

[Larry C]

DSLR's are big, heavy and will take up all of your carry on allowance and then some. They have the advantage of being very fast (depending on the lens) and the large sensor size allows very large prints with less noise. You have a great deal of choice for lenses and port combinations, and with larger lenses you can artistically blur the background as the depth of field is shorter.
Compacts are slower to focus and meter, but getting better. They are lighter and their housings are much smaller, so they're easier to carry and fit in holes better for macro. The port is smaller, so there can be an advantage in getting light on a close subject, and many of them focus virtually to the port glass. The autofocus can be very problematic as often the assist light is outside the lens and doesn't adequately light a close subject for super macro or focuses on crap in the water. For close focus wide angle, the shutter delay often means getting a great shot of where the critter was right at the moment of the preflash, or the tail end of it and a cloud of silt leaving the area.
Compacts are getting much faster, though, and closer to the speed of a DSLR so the advantage is shrinking. The EVIL's seem to be in between, though I haven't used any so I have to depend on the posts from Phil Rudin and others who have advanced access and a point of comparison. If you look at some of the pictures taken by Gilligan or Ed_DMan with compact cameras, you might be hard pressed to see and advantage in a bigger, more expensive rig. The EVIL's may be a happy medium.

 

[davelew]

Autofocus is only really useful underwater for fish portraits, it's not needed for wide-angle and not effective for macro shots.

Huh? That may be true (although I doubt it) for the OLY system but for most DSLR shooters shooting macro, I believe that they mostly all use autofocus.
All of the macro and super macro at
BlueViews | Home Page

were shot with autofocus on a variety of Canon DSLR cameras. Most folks I know shooting Nikon are the same.

Bill

I first learned to shoot macro with a Nikon 60mm macro lens that was notorious for focus breathing (the field of view changed as you focused, especially at macro distances). With that lens, I was taught to always lock the focus with a half-press of the shutter release, then frame the picture, then take the shot. That worked pretty well for me. When I try to take macro photos relying on autofocus, as often as not I get the wrong part of the photo in focus.

For example, there's a photo in your St. Vincent section of a secretary blenny peaking out from some coral. When I try to get an image like that from just pressing the shutter release, I often end up with sharp and well focused coral, with a blurry blenny peaking out. By locking the autofocus, I can move the camera and get the blenny to be the sharpest and most well focused part of the frame.

Do you have a different technique for underwater macro? I realize that my technique might be a little dated (modern macro lenses don't focus breathe as much as my old 60mm), but I don't see many alternatives.