Olympus E-330 images from this w/e

[AUTiger]

I like the mermaid's purse. I think that if I had found one, I would try to position a dive flashlight to shine through from the back side and then take a frontal picture with mininal flash to try and get a silhouette of the baby shark inside. I hadn't been lucky enough to find one when I had my camera.

Your's looks like it might be mostly yoke - not much shark there to see.

David

 

[jlyle]

I like the mermaid's purse. I think that if I had found one, I would try to position a dive flashlight to shine through from the back side and then take a frontal picture with mininal flash to try and get a silhouette of the baby shark inside. I hadn't been lucky enough to find one when I had my camera.

Your's looks like it might be mostly yoke - not much shark there to see.

David

I agree, whole heartedly. Even with only the yolk, I should have back lit the egg case. I don't think so well at eighty feet anymore - too much diving? What makes it even worse, I now have a rig (Ikelite) that lets me easily disconnect one of the strobes! Oh well, next time...

 

[ianw2]

Mornin’, Jim!

As usual, outstanding shots.

I love seeing your shots, especially when you share little tidbits such as exposure, F Stop, shutter speed, etc. Having made my first dive this past Sunday with a UW camera, all this really matters to me.

I’m still trying to figure out when Laura and I can get to the Old Marineland Pier in the hopes of being able to dive with you and hunt nudis.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

Mathew,

What four-thirds lenses do you own?

Are you thinking about the Ikelite housing, the Olympus housing, other housing...?

Jim

Probably just gonna go for the Fantasea/10Bar housing w/Insurance since it comes with a port and still priced cheaper. My budget is very tight, I wouldn't even be doing any of this had I not had insurance on my flooded C5060.

I have the Zuiko Digital 8 Fisheye, 11-22, 14-45, and the 50 Macro. I also have the Sigma 55-200.

I HAD the 40-150, but sold it despite it being a better optic than the Sigma. The reach led me to use the Sigma more and I plan to pick up the Zuiko 50-200 to replace it later, so the 40-150 becomes rather redundant. I sold my original 14-45 from the E500 kit and later got a second with the E330 since it fits in the standard Fantasea/10Bar port. I'm not sure if the 14-54 fits in the standard port :/ Sold the E500 as well.

Keeping the E1 and the E330

 

[jlyle]

Probably just gonna go for the Fantasea/10Bar housing w/Insurance since it comes with a port and still priced cheaper. My budget is very tight, I wouldn't even be doing any of this had I not had insurance on my flooded C5060.

I have the Zuiko Digital 8 Fisheye, 11-22, 14-45, and the 50 Macro. I also have the Sigma 55-200.

I HAD the 40-150, but sold it despite it being a better optic than the Sigma. The reach led me to use the Sigma more and I plan to pick up the Zuiko 50-200 to replace it later, so the 40-150 becomes rather redundant. I sold my original 14-45 from the E500 kit and later got a second with the E330 since it fits in the standard Fantasea/10Bar port. I'm not sure if the 14-54 fits in the standard port :/ Sold the E500 as well.

Keeping the E1 and the E330

I don't know about the ports on the Fantasea/10Bar, but the 14-54mm is physically longer than the 14-45mm and they don't work with the same Ikelite 6" dome ports. The Zuiko 50-200 is on my wish list for above water use. I'm waiting on the long overdue Zuiko 100 for macro work. I've borrowed a Zuiko 7-14mm - nice piece of glass; I wish it were cheaper.

I wonder what the update to the E1 is going to look like. I guess we will have to wait until March to find out.

Thanks.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

Did you see the concept? Its... unique.

The 7-14 is very nice, but out of my price range. The 11-22 is actually quite nice as well. I've used the 14-54 a few times and its on my 'want' list. I go back and forth on whether I want it or the 50-200 first. The 50-200 is quite a nice optic as well, gonna couple it with the 1.4TC for more reach on dry land wildlife. Even then, I'm really considering adding the Sigma 50-500mm later on - LOL.

Probably picking up the 35mm for xmas for underwater use.

I haven't hadn't any experience with it, but the Sigma 105mm seems to get decent results. They also have the 150 coming out soon enough for our mount(available already for other mounts - as all the Siggy lenses).

I'm thinking the 50mm will be enough of a macro for the water I dive, only time will tell.

 

[jlyle]

Probably picking up the 35mm for xmas for underwater use.

I'm thinking the 50mm will be enough of a macro for the water I dive, only time will tell.

The optics in the 14-54mm are very good; I doubt there's any advantage to getting the primes (35mm/50mm).

If you get the 1.4 teleconverter, you might be happy with the 50mm, but I like the extra working distance you get with a 100/105...

Big sigh, underwater photography is a hole in which to throw money.

 

[SuPrBuGmAn]

Water isn't generally clear enough for working distance here 2x magnification factor puts it at 100mm, which is pretty common in the underwater world.

The primes are close focusing(even closer than the already close focusing 14-54) and incredibly sharp.

I've used the 50mm as a walkaround in urban environments with success. The 35mm should be even easier and even less obtrusive. Primes end up being quite a fun challenge as well

^Really wish I hadn't chopped some feet off^