Jump to content

- - - - -

First dive trip with the D850

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 phxazcraig


    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 11:28 PM

After three years with a D810, I upgraded to a D850, mainly for improved autofocus.   Nauticam housing.   Moved dual YS-D1 strobes to the new camera and set all to manual.   Without the pop-up flash of the D810 or a TTL trigger, I can no longer do TTL.  With manual triggering I was able to use a slightly faster shutter speed (1/200th).   I generally kept ISO set to 64 for macro and experimented when shooting wide angle.


I used a Nikon 105vr for macro, a couple of times with a 1.4 teleconverter.  None of the teleconverter shots made the cut.   For wide angle I use a Nikon 16-35vr lens behind a 230mm dome port.  I have been unhappy with the corners from day one, but this trip I tried a Sea and Sea Internal Correction Lens (77 mm screw on), and my lens was transformed.   Huge improvement.  Never shoot without it again.


The D850's focus is indeed improved and more able to correctly lock onto an erratic subject, as hoped.


These are all thumbnails.   I linked to a 2K sized version underneath.









































Edited by phxazcraig, 04 April 2019 - 11:31 PM.

#2 phxazcraig


    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 12:43 PM

I tried to make the text under the thumbnails link to larger image versions, but about half of them just embedded the image in the page.

#3 diverbrad


    Sea Nettle

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Camp Casey, South Korea
  • Interests:Scuba Diving/ UW Photography / Motorcycles / Travel

Posted 13 May 2019 - 03:52 AM

Can you explain why adding the 77MM filter made such a difference ?   Im thinking of going to a D850, already have a 60 and 10 macro and the 16-36mm was on my hit list.  I have heard the 8-15mm is to niche and  not an everyday lens.

#4 TimG


    Sperm Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2438 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:Sunlight reefs, warm seas, good food and fine wine. And Manchester City Football Club.

Posted 13 May 2019 - 07:52 AM

Hey Brad
The 77mm +2 diopter is often recommended with the Nikkor 16-35mm lens
On the 8-15 v 16-35, they are completely different lenses and have different uses. The 16-35 is rectilinear and good for, eg, medium-big fish - dolphins, sharks; whereas the 8-15, a fisheye, is great for divers against the corals, divers on walls - or wrecks if you can avoid strait lines. I'd argue it's not either/or... buy both!   :crazy:
Having used the Nikkor 16-35 and a Sigma 15mm a lot on a Nikon D800, unless you are doing lots of medium/big fish shots, I reckon the 8-15 is more use. Certainly most of the best reef+diver shots I've got have all been with a fisheye - and having the fisheye zoom gives you just a bit more flexibility than a strait 15mm fisheye.

(PADI IDC Staff Instructor and former Dive Manager, KBR Lembeh Straits)
Nikon D500, Nikkors 105mm and 8-15mm, Tokina 10-17mm,  Subal housing

Latest images: http://www.shutterst...lery_id=1940957

#5 ChrisRoss


    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney Australia

Posted 23 May 2019 - 06:05 AM

I believe the 77mm filter is the Sea and Sea field flattening "filter", it corrects the issue with poor corners with wide rectiilinear lenses by bringing the corners more into focus - it is not a diopter.  There has been some discussion of the S&S lens on here, here's a link to S&S website talking about the lens:  http://www.seaandsea...cessory/lenses/

#6 adamhanlon


    Harbor Seal

  • Admin
  • 2306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lancaster, UK

Posted 24 May 2019 - 06:35 AM

Just to echo Chris's words. Using a 77mm +2 diopter with the 16-35mm will be horrible!


The OP is using a Sea&Sea correction lens that is specifically designed to correct the lack of corner sharpness with full frame cameras and the 16-35mm. To be blunt though, with the D850, the lens of choice is the Nauticam WACP or a Nikonos RS13mm conversion.


I would also disagree about the 8-15mm being niche. Fisheye images are very common underwater (there aren't many straight lines!). They also avoid many of the corner sharpness issues. The 8-15 is a very good lens.


All the best



Adam Hanlon-underwater photographer and videographer
web | Facebook

#7 phxazcraig


    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 27 May 2019 - 10:57 AM

Can you explain why adding the 77MM filter made such a difference ?   Im thinking of going to a D850, already have a 60 and 10 macro and the 16-36mm was on my hit list.  I have heard the 8-15mm is to niche and  not an everyday lens.


I'll call it a filter, because it's easier to type, but it's much more an add-on lens than a filter.   It works by flattening the image to better match the lens.   Supposed to be equivalent to stopping down by two stops, but it seems much more effective than that.  it just plain works really well.


My +2 diopter?   I never noticed it making any difference pro or con.   Images looked the same with it.  However, I've recently talked to another diver with similar equipment, and he had a 70mm extension while I had a 90mm extension (behind the 230mm dome port).  He said the 70mm used to be the recommended extension.  I have a suspicion that the length change eliminated the need for the +2 diopter.


My gripe with the 8-15 would be twofold:  a) it's too wide for me, and b) I don't care for fisheye after fisheye after fisheye shot.    I find the 16-35 too wide most of the time.   (Really I just find the 35mm end too short.  Overall I'd be much happier with a 24-70 except for wide subjects.  I don't shoot wide that much.)