Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

First dive with the Canon HF-G10


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 textilet

textilet

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 05:34 PM

The housing for our new Canon HF-G10 finally arrived on thursday night, so my brother and I took it for a spin on friday morning at Veteran's Park in Redondo Beach. Here is the video. All in all we were very impressed with both the camera and the Light & Motion Bluefin housing. We didn't have a way to attach our light arms on such short notice so we just zip-tied a couple Nocturnal slx 800's to the bottom of the handles...it wasn't a great solution but it got the job done for one dive. Very excited to make some more video with this rig.

#2 uwxplorer

uwxplorer

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 06:00 PM

All in all we were very impressed with both the camera and the Light & Motion Bluefin housing.


Nice. This is using the flat port and flippable macro-lens? What format did you shoot?
*I* wouldn't bring my rig at Vets Park: too long a walk back up the stairs and too risky crashing with the housing in the surf and sand... :)
But the life encountered there can be quite diverse at times, as your video proves!
Music credit anyone?

#3 textilet

textilet

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 06:15 PM

Actually that was all through the wet mate 65 degree wide angle lens. We took it off once (that clip didnt make the cut) but it was stressful trying to hold on to that lens without scratching it so we just left it on the whole time and put the camera really close to the subjects. We shot in 1080 24p, with exposure set to shutter priority 1/60, Manual white balance. Shots were from about 70 ft depth. Conditions at vets were EXCEPTIONAL that day, 6 inch surf, 30 ft viz and almost zero surge. Backscatter tells me that the hf-g10 version of the bluefin doesnt include the internal flip up diopter because the space between the lens of the camera and the inside surface of the housing port is too tight to allow the diopter to fit in between. Music was "burden" by Opeth.

Edited by textilet, 13 August 2011 - 07:12 PM.


#4 sufur

sufur

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 06:27 AM

what were you doing your manual white balance against? a white slate? i have the same setup basically but its my first cam so i have a lot to learn.

#5 textilet

textilet

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 17 August 2011 - 06:52 AM

My brother and I took turns shooting, and the non-shooter would open their wetnotes (bright white pages) at what ever distance the subject was from the camera with two blank pages showing. The shooter could then zoom in on the white square, white balance, then shoot the subject. We are going to epoxy paint our tanks white so we can white balance off each other's backs just by having the non shooter swim in the vicinity of the subject.

#6 sufur

sufur

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 02:03 PM

was your setup particularly nose heavy? mine kept trying to flip forward on me and made it a bit difficult to control

#7 wydeangle

wydeangle

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:36 PM

was your setup particularly nose heavy? mine kept trying to flip forward on me and made it a bit difficult to control



Very interesting....

Mine's very nose heavy too. I even have the float but it's not enough.

Tom

#8 textilet

textilet

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 05:17 PM

Mine is quite nose heavy with the wide angle and lights. I can still control it, but it needs to be dealt with. Is the float a significant step in the right direction? I am thinking of making my own.

#9 sufur

sufur

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 18 August 2011 - 07:57 PM

Very interesting....

Mine's very nose heavy too. I even have the float but it's not enough.

Tom


Thats not good. I started out adding floats the ulcs arms i have on the housing. i tried four blocks which on the package said was equivalent to 1.6lbs of positive. it slowed the flip just a bit but didnt stop it. I bought the housing float later that day but never dove it again so i didnt get a chance to try it out.

I was only testing with the standard flat port. I have the fathom 90 on the way so im pretty sure it will get a lot worse with that attached to front.

Edited by sufur, 18 August 2011 - 07:59 PM.


#10 wydeangle

wydeangle

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 04:39 AM

Thats not good. I started out adding floats the ulcs arms i have on the housing. i tried four blocks which on the package said was equivalent to 1.6lbs of positive. it slowed the flip just a bit but didnt stop it. I bought the housing float later that day but never dove it again so i didnt get a chance to try it out.

I was only testing with the standard flat port. I have the fathom 90 on the way so im pretty sure it will get a lot worse with that attached to front.


I'm using the Fathom 90 port. Without the float it's a real nuisance. With the float it's almost tolerable. I think it would help to put the flotation material right on the Sola 1200 lights, or at least as far forward on the port as possible.

Where can one buy the flotation material?

Tom

#11 textilet

textilet

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 09:52 AM

http://www.marinefoa...g...w&lcode=AB6. Im thinking of carving a float out of that.

Edited by textilet, 19 August 2011 - 09:57 AM.


#12 sufur

sufur

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 10:35 AM

I'm using the Fathom 90 port. Without the float it's a real nuisance. With the float it's almost tolerable. I think it would help to put the flotation material right on the Sola 1200 lights, or at least as far forward on the port as possible.

Where can one buy the flotation material?

Tom


which float do you have the light and motion one or the one made by Stix? Im starting to wondering if the one from stix is more bouyant. It seems bigger in its photos.

#13 wydeangle

wydeangle

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 19 August 2011 - 01:07 PM

which float do you have the light and motion one or the one made by Stix? Im starting to wondering if the one from stix is more bouyant. It seems bigger in its photos.


I have the L&M float. I was blissfully unaware there were any others available. I'll go looking for Stix!

I don't want any more buoyancy, or at least not much more. I like to put the camera down on the sand where possible for steadiness. I'm looking at getting the Gates tripod, so maybe if I can mount it a bit toward the rear, it'll cure the nose-heaviness. I have the L&M tripod adapter which can be easily slid forward and backward.

Possibly a float like the old Amphibico 108* lens had would be more effective. It was mounted directly on the lens, not the housing, which put its effect all the way up front. That's why I'd like to get some material to see if I can fabricate a collar for the lens.

Tom

EDIT: Just ordered the Stix belt with up to 12 segments of flotation, meant to go around the lens, so it'll be in the right place. I'll report after I dive it, which likely won't be until next month. I may try to rig it in the tub before I go so it'll be in the ballpark.

Edited by wydeangle, 19 August 2011 - 02:30 PM.


#14 kkfok

kkfok

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hong Kong

Posted 23 August 2011 - 02:06 AM

Thanks. I think its low light capabilities is really impressive after watching your new video. Is that possible to have some tests on its manual white balance with and without filter under depth?
Many thanks.

#15 textilet

textilet

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 23 August 2011 - 03:43 PM

We're going out again Friday; we may do more tests then

#16 Bintang2009

Bintang2009

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:never at home !

Posted 18 December 2011 - 02:13 AM

Actually that was all through the wet mate 65 degree wide angle lens. We took it off once (that clip didnt make the cut) but it was stressful trying to hold on to that lens without scratching it so we just left it on the whole time and put the camera really close to the subjects. We shot in 1080 24p, with exposure set to shutter priority 1/60, Manual white balance. Shots were from about 70 ft depth. Conditions at vets were EXCEPTIONAL that day, 6 inch surf, 30 ft viz and almost zero surge. Backscatter tells me that the hf-g10 version of the bluefin doesnt include the internal flip up diopter because the space between the lens of the camera and the inside surface of the housing port is too tight to allow the diopter to fit in between. Music was "burden" by Opeth.


Hi Everybody !

Just new to Wetpixel, and my apologizes if my english is not very correct.
I am going to buy a L&M bluefin pro with Canon HFG10 and the WM 65 plus it's dock on top of the housing. I am doing mostly macro. My actual Sealux UNM 190 and Sony HDR HC9 plus internal housing macro lens are getting old and I am going to update and change the all system.

Please, will you confirm that L&M Bluefin pro and a Canon HF G10 is not working with the L&M internal flip macro dioptre. Is the macro diopre really bigger than the color filter ? Did you invest the possibility to use a UW removable macro lense ? Is it finaly useless to have a macro lense with, as the video you made was with the Wet Mate 65 and looks good. How close to the subject did you get to make it ?

PS: a real nice video, and very good image quality! Congratulations !

#17 uwxplorer

uwxplorer

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 308 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:45 AM

Hi Everybody !

Just new to Wetpixel, and my apologizes if my english is not very correct.
I am going to buy a L&M bluefin pro with Canon HFG10 and the WM 65 plus it's dock on top of the housing. I am doing mostly macro. My actual Sealux UNM 190 and Sony HDR HC9 plus internal housing macro lens are getting old and I am going to update and change the all system.

Please, will you confirm that L&M Bluefin pro and a Canon HF G10 is not working with the L&M internal flip macro dioptre. Is the macro diopre really bigger than the color filter ? Did you invest the possibility to use a UW removable macro lense ? Is it finaly useless to have a macro lense with, as the video you made was with the Wet Mate 65 and looks good. How close to the subject did you get to make it ?

PS: a real nice video, and very good image quality! Congratulations !


This is an excerpt from an email answer by Paul Barnett from L&M (August 17) regarding the flip macro diopter:

"Correct, the flip macro diopter system does not work with the Canon camcorders."

So, there you have it. The macro diopter makes a HUGE difference (I am starting using it with my Sony CX550V and have obtained amazing -to me- footage of invertebrates with it). The flat port allows full zoom through (as does the Fathom WA90 lens) but the magnification is still 10x at most. I think the diopter add a x2 capability, but most importantly, it allows you to get VERY close to your subject (which for instance allows you to fill your field of view with your subject). There might be options for a wet macro lens (check this for instance).
If you have not made your purchase yet, you may also want to wait a bit. WP had this link recently, indicating that it may be possible to use the new Sony camcorders in UW housings. And the macro diopter, I assume. But check with L&M.

#18 wydeangle

wydeangle

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 12:13 PM

This is an excerpt from an email answer by Paul Barnett from L&M (August 17) regarding the flip macro diopter:

"Correct, the flip macro diopter system does not work with the Canon camcorders."

SNIP



Is there problem with allowing some space inside the FLAT port to accommodate the diopter(s)?

Could the flat port lens be moved forward 1/4" or so?

Or is this oversimplifying the solution?

Tom

EDIT: Just did a quick experiment. Tried removing the flat port and putting on a +7 Century Achromat which is 3/4" tall, then replacing the flat port. It was about 5/16" too tall. The flat port would not reinstall.

The +4 Achromat is about 13/16" tall so not even close.

As a result, I'd suggest moving the flat port lens forward by a good 1/2", maybe a touch more. Are you listening, Paul?

Anyone know of a comparable optical quality diopter that is significantly thinner?

This would require the diopter to be in place the whole dive, but hey, the still photo guys do it all the time!

SECOND EDIT (last one for this message, I promise): The +2 is even thicker than the +4 which most of you probably already knew, therefore 1/2" isn't enough. Probably 3/4" extension of the flat port is needed.

Edited by wydeangle, 18 December 2011 - 12:41 PM.


#19 Bintang2009

Bintang2009

    Starfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:never at home !

Posted 19 December 2011 - 12:16 AM

This is an excerpt from an email answer by Paul Barnett from L&M (August 17) regarding the flip macro diopter:

"Correct, the flip macro diopter system does not work with the Canon camcorders."

So, there you have it. The macro diopter makes a HUGE difference (I am starting using it with my Sony CX550V and have obtained amazing -to me- footage of invertebrates with it). The flat port allows full zoom through (as does the Fathom WA90 lens) but the magnification is still 10x at most. I think the diopter add a x2 capability, but most importantly, it allows you to get VERY close to your subject (which for instance allows you to fill your field of view with your subject). There might be options for a wet macro lens (check this for instance).
If you have not made your purchase yet, you may also want to wait a bit. WP had this link recently, indicating that it may be possible to use the new Sony camcorders in UW housings. And the macro diopter, I assume. But check with L&M.


Many thanks for your advices.

After using those Sony cam "TRV33E, HDR-HC9, XR550", i am a bit desapointed as they failled after one or two years of (may be too intense) use. Their WB in UW conditions is a too tricky opération to get goods results (they look pinky). I am going to Canon, following advices from other divers.
I'll check also for external wet macro lens and i have already found this : http://reefnet.ca/products/subsee/ . Anyway, thanks for the links. I will discuss of this with my retailler and also visit manufacturers during the French "Salon de la plongée" (Dive Show) in Paris from 13 to 16 of january. If something interresting on macro lenses, i'll post it.

Edited by Bintang2009, 19 December 2011 - 12:28 AM.


#20 wydeangle

wydeangle

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:57 PM

Here's an excerpt from an e-mail from Paul at L&M:

There is no other flat port available for the Bluefin.

I use the Subsee macro lenses and highly recommend them.


So guess what I want for my birthday? LOL

Tom