Those are very nice pictures.
Jump to content
Posted 18 January 2014 - 08:58 AM
Scott, if you already have the lens and housing yes, try it out. If you liked the lens with your S95 I suspect you will like it with the RX100 II. If your S95 had 65mm threads you will need to purchase an adapter ring for the Fix UWL-04 to fit the 52mm Nauticam housing.
Slightly off topic...
I just got a Sony RX100 II / Nauticam housing and was hoping to use my FIX UWL-04 from my S95. I assume with the similarities of the RX100 and the RX100 II that I will get the same results. Seems like the results are mixed, some think they are good, some bad. Should I just try it out and see what quality I get? My concern is the camera/lens may not be the problem it may be the user :-)
Edited by aviddiver.her, 18 January 2014 - 09:00 AM.
Posted 18 January 2014 - 11:59 AM
For the UWL04 you need the same adapter of the UWL28 which is a step down ring F52-M67
The UWL04 has less field of view (130 degree) than the UWL28 however from some test shots I have seen it is sharper in the corners this could be due to the fact that with extreme wide angle of the UWL28 you have too much distortion at the edges
Edited by Interceptor121, 18 January 2014 - 12:01 PM.
Posted 18 January 2014 - 03:57 PM
Thanks for the replies. My lens did come with an adapter so I lucked out there. I did try it out of the water and the shots seem crisp all the way to the edge and I did not see the sun shade in the raw shots so bonus there too. I will have an opportunity to test it out in the pool on Monday so we'll see how it looks underwater with my models (my 7 yr old daughter).
Posted 18 January 2014 - 04:10 PM
Edited by aviddiver.her, 18 January 2014 - 04:11 PM.
Posted 21 January 2014 - 06:54 AM
So I did try out the UWL-04 in the pool this weekend. Unfortunately the sun shade is noticeable in every shot unless I zoom in to 35mm. I guess its not that big of a deal but I just have to remember to zoom before I start taking shots. Any reason its a bad idea to take all my fisheye shots slightly zoomed in? I'll have to admit the shots were disappointing but the pool was very cloudy and was just shocked so the water clarity for a pool was terrible.
Edited by sfaatz, 21 January 2014 - 06:55 AM.
Posted 21 January 2014 - 08:03 AM
By zooming in your lens, you loose some F-stop, and the camera is more sensitive to shake. How about just take the photo at the wides, and crop out during processing?
Posted 21 January 2014 - 01:30 PM
I could do that but the reason I prefer to not do that is I don't want to post-process every picture I post online. Most of the pics I post are "good enough" without Photoshop so I just post them as-is. I take my really good shots from a trip (usually just a handful) and post process those. Maybe there is a automated or batch way to do this but I am still pretty new to post-processing too.
Posted 21 January 2014 - 02:13 PM
Posted 21 January 2014 - 05:46 PM
No. I just post the jpeg right from the camera. Some sights like FB resize the images automatically. I do know that Photoshop can do a batch resize though. I have used it in the past when I was posting to a site that had a file size limit.
Posted 22 January 2014 - 12:42 AM
Edited by aviddiver.her, 22 January 2014 - 12:47 AM.
Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:44 AM
I believe Scott is talking about the lens hood showing in his images.
Scott, did you try rotating the lens hood to see if there is a position where it doesn't show? If a lot of the hood is showing it may even be 90 degrees out of place . And, as Interceptor says , sample images would be helpful.
He is talking about the sun shade. Does that mean the lens hood or flare or ghost from the sun?
Posted 22 January 2014 - 06:24 AM
Sorry. Here are a couple shots taken with the fisheye lens. The turtle was taken zoomed out and you can see the sun shade on the left side. I did rotate the sun shade 90 deg and 180 deg. It must be slightly out of round because the other side of the image was effected when it was rotated. This image is about average, some of them depending on the lighting show darkness on the other edges as well. Maybe this is something else? Not sure.
The picture of my daughter was taken zoomed in one click. No issue there.
Posted 22 January 2014 - 06:41 AM
What it looks like is that the lens basically has vignette. Is quite common that the camera lens or the housing have small tolerances so the black bar comes more on one side.
However I am surprised as this lens is not as wide. Probably the rear element is a tad too short for the RX100 front lens
I have tried my Inon UFL165AD with the RX100 Mark I and though I had to zoom to 34mm I had no fringing as the lens quality is spectacular however from those images I can't really say if zooming will introduce aberrations or not.
The best is to shoot a test slate in the bathtub as I do and check the corners
In general it would seem that lenses with larger rear element like the UWL-H100 vignette less
Posted 22 January 2014 - 11:28 PM
Edited by aviddiver.her, 22 January 2014 - 11:33 PM.
Posted 23 January 2014 - 06:43 AM
Scott, did I understand you correctly that the same vignette we see in the turtle shot was on the opposite side when you rotated the lens hood (sun shield) 180 degrees?
Correct. It was definitely from the sun shade. I played around with it again last night and I can get it to the point where it doesn't show in the pics but not sure how long that is going to last bumping it around on the boat, dive, etc.
The 4 corners still seem to exhibit darkening in most shots (this was just in a bath tub though) which I did not get on my S95 setup. Maybe this was a better lens for the S95 then it is for the Sony?
Posted 23 January 2014 - 07:39 AM
Posted 23 January 2014 - 09:15 PM
I read that you mentioned the UWL-10028AD works without vignetting, do you suppose it will work with the Nauticam RX100 II housing?
Posted 24 January 2014 - 12:56 AM
Edited by Interceptor121, 24 January 2014 - 01:14 AM.