Olympus 5050 vs 5060 vs 8080

[Scuba_Vixen]

Ahhh~~

a wealth of info here.....priceless...

and thanks for all that, guys.

for me, though...i think the pt-23 may be all i need.....esp since i can use it right out of the box without a need for strobes, etc.

now...THEE question....where to get a pt23 for cheap???????????

thanks,

-dan

"was wondering, does your flash fire with supermacro mode????"

I put a pic of the 023 housing below (here's a link incase I don't get the pic right)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=330505&is=REG

Since you asked about the flash with macro, and super macro. Anything you get that close to the lense is going to be in the shadow of the port. Look at how the diffuser box sits so tucked in behind the port. Look at the pics of the Olympus lense cover a few posts back, see the shadowing of the lower portion. The built in flash will have a range of about a foot or so under water, and that's on a good day. Hardly out of the shadowed region. That flash was realisticaly made for land use only. .... Not to mention that if you have a decent sized memory card, it'll kill the battery before you run out of memory. If you're thinking that the 023 will offer the advantage of using the built in flash under water, .... the misnomer there is that the built in flash in that situation is of some advantage. Why use a single AAA battery miniQ light when what you need is a Light Canon to do the job.

As for prices, the Ike is $509 and the 023 is $329 at B&H. That's less than $200 difference. .... You spent the extra $ for the 8080 over the lesser models, choose a housing to compliment it, not strangle the bejesus out of it!

Cheap, and value, are usually mutually exclusive terms,


Darlene

 

[calypsonick]

As stated earlier in the thread, the 8080 internal flash fires in supermacro in slave mode.

I just went through the same decision process on the 8080 housing and it looked like this:

$300 for the PT023 with the ability to use the internal flash up to 2-3 feet from subject. You can adjust the inernal flash intesity depending on what you are shooting in the slave mode.

- or -

$500 for an Ikelite housing and another $500 for an external strobe since the Ike does not let you use the internal strobe.

Other issues -

I was concerned about the lens barrel shadow but it has turned out to be OK allowing me to get as close as 3" to the subject without problems.

I have more than 100 dives with the Oly housing for the 5050 and I think this is proof that value and quality are not always mutually exclusive. So, I decided to give the PT023 a chance too.

Here is a sample macro shot with the 8080 in the PT023 housing wit hthe internal flash in slave mode to show you what it can do.

Cheers,
Nick

 

[deputydan1]

wow! wonderful shot....thanks, nick....thanks darlene...

yeah, i just spent a grip on my 8080 and i think another $1000 for the ike setup would hurt......the pt23 may be the one i am looking for....

thanks to you guys!! valid points indeed.....

man, you gotta love our dive community...and this board...

have a blessed weekend, everyone!

i hope to post some pics soon!

-daniel

 

[deputydan1]

ps> thanks for the explanation, Al.....makes sense to me now...

-dan

 

[f3nikon]

You're welcome and good luck.

Al

 

[slowhands]

You can't compare a DSLR setup with a C8080 setup by just the price of the DSLR with/without a kit lens. Not only is the housing in a different price bracket but when you start adding lenses and ports for the lenses it's a totally different ball game.

I agree. This is my dilemma too.

I use the 5050 with PT-015 case for underwater shooting, and until recently for land shooting too. It's and excellent value for the money, but sometimes it drives me crazy. Underwater, what drives me nuts about the 5050 is the shutter delay, I have so many missed pictures taken late due to shutter delay it has become intolerable. Often the fish in question has left the frame or is has turned. And for close-up photography, the parallax problems bother me too.

I finally got disgusted and looked for and found a solution: digital SLR. For about the same money as a top level prosumer camera like an Olympus 8080, the low-end DSLRs give a lot more performance and flexibility. I went with the NIKON D70 because it had the best reviews in its price range (and because I have a ton of great Nikkor lenses from my film photography era). As with many DSLRs, there is no shutter delay and no parallax problem. It's the solution I was looking for on land, where I do wedding and close-up product photography. This camera will pay for itself there in fewer missed candids and quicker completion on closeup sessions.

But underwater cases for this class of camera are much more expensive. Ikelite's 6807 case is $1080, without lens port, while the newer 6807.1 case with iTTL support is $1260 without port (and you WANT iTTL support). (Sea and Sea, Aquatica, Subal and others make more expensive cases which are worth looking at.) But the point is instead of a $200 case, I need a $2000+ case, ouch! Plus probably new flashes, arms and so on. Double ouch! It galls me to spend 3-4 times as much for the case and flashes as for the camera.

So... I have decided to keep using the old 5050 for underwater use. I've learned a few workarounds for some of the problems, such as using manual modes for reduced shutter delay, and composing with the LCD. These bandaid fixes will have to suffice for now.

 

[slowhands]

It's interesting how this thread has been so ongoing. I think you have to divide UW camera users into 2 basic groups and if you're contemplating getting into UW photography, decide which group you'll likely fit into. Those 2 would be: 1) The point and shoot, underwater tourist taking snaps to remember the trip and show the folks at home kinda users, (sorta like recreational divers) and 2) The serious type who can't imagine how anyone could be like those in the first type. (sorta like technical divers) .....

Also, I'm curious, does anyone think they have different results (good pics/bad pics ratio) based on complexity of use when doing a 120' wreck dive as compared to a shallow reef dive? Does the task loading of a more complex camera setup make it harder to get those good shots when you're narced?


Safe dives and Happy Holidays,

Darlene

Two interesting points. I do suspect there is a large third category of underwater photographers who want more than a simple point and shoot can deliver, and buy midrange cameras and housings which deliver pretty good performance. They can be used in full automatic mode, but have more capability than basic cameras when needed, at the cost of operating complexity, which means task loading underwater.

Which leads me to your second point, a very good one. I personally don't like to deep dive with a camera, for several reasons. One is the lighting is poor. Second, other than wrecks the subjects are limited. Third, deep diving is risky and you should minimize task loading down there, if you can. To me, that would mean setting the camera on automatic mode as much as possible, and practicing with it so I did not have to think much about using it. I would still be uneasy.

I know I get narc'ed on air at 40 meters, so I am very wary of getting down there on air. I personally think it is unwise for me to use a camera to that depth, until I get tech dive training and can use trimix down there. I do know people who have gone deeper (to 50 meters on air) to chase and photograph some hammerheads, but I think they must have been a little narc'ed to do it and hope I would have the sense to resist the temptation to chase a subject to that depth, absent trimix.

Still, I'm not sure I would have the sense, and so I try not to tempt myself. As I said, there are very few subjects that interest me at that depth, and the lighting is poor, so I don't see it as a big loss.

 

[gert7to3]

I traveled to Bonaire with a friend who owns the 023 housing. That big honking lens housing is held on by 2 little pins, cast into the mounting bezel. These pins are just a couple of millimeters in diameter. He found one of the pins was sheared when he unpacked his gear. IMO this lens housing mount system is a significant weakness. Olympus replaced the housing under warranty, but he still lost use of the camera for the trip.

 

[Wolverine]

Two interesting points. I do suspect there is a large third category of underwater photographers who want more than a simple point and shoot can deliver, and buy midrange cameras and housings which deliver pretty good performance. They can be used in full automatic mode, but have more capability than basic cameras when needed, at the cost of operating complexity, which means task loading underwater.

Which leads me to your second point, a very good one. I personally don't like to deep dive with a camera, for several reasons. One is the lighting is poor. Second, other than wrecks the subjects are limited. Third, deep diving is risky and you should minimize task loading down there, if you can. To me, that would mean setting the camera on automatic mode as much as possible, and practicing with it so I did not have to think much about using it. I would still be uneasy.

I know I get narc'ed on air at 40 meters, so I am very wary of getting down there on air. I personally think it is unwise for me to use a camera to that depth, until I get tech dive training and can use trimix down there. I do know people who have gone deeper (to 50 meters on air) to chase and photograph some hammerheads, but I think they must have been a little narc'ed to do it and hope I would have the sense to resist the temptation to chase a subject to that depth, absent trimix.

Still, I'm not sure I would have the sense, and so I try not to tempt myself. As I said, there are very few subjects that interest me at that depth, and the lighting is poor, so I don't see it as a big loss.

I would agree with u on the task-loading bit, especially at depth. I like the Camedia series becos they can set personal settings into memory so its easy to pull one up for say macro, one for portrait, one for wide angle. By setting the aperture at a certain stop, it reduces the need to adjust the strobe (I use a D180) reducing yet another task underwater. But I would not want to have to manage a fully manual system at depth, or even shallower levels (like20m). Simplifying camera operations underwater allows greater focus on composition, and of cse enjoying the dive.

 

[deputydan1]

good points indeed...

i for one don't really plan on "deep" diving.....my shots always come out best above 70' anyhow...

and as for the PT-023.....yikes.....why would oly do that? you would think it would be much stronger than that! thing is, the ikelite housing, at least from what i understand, can NOT use the internal strobe.....stinks...

i hope the pt-023 will be something i don't regret....i plan on buying one real soon...

take care, buddies..


-dan

ps> does anyone know another housing mfr that allows for the internal strobe to fire??