Jump to content


divegypsy

Member Since 07 Sep 2003
Offline Last Active Dec 24 2016 01:28 AM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Housing buttons that stick

24 December 2016 - 12:47 AM

Dear Vladimir,

As I have mentioned, I have three ND800 housings, two of which were purchased directly from Subal. Mr. Harold Karl can verify this. He can also verify that I had all three of the backs of my ND800 housings painted black, by Subal, to reduce reflections off the housing back when viewing the LCD screen under high ambient light conditions. Shortly after receiving my housings, I started having problems with sticking buttons, and communicated directly to Mr. Karl about this. I also mentioned to Mr. Karl that I had seen posts on WetPixel by other ND800 users having this same push button problem. I received no response from Subal on this. I use the same D800 camera body in each of my ND800 housings. I take two housings with me on all my trips so that if one is lost by the airlines or in an accident, I do not lose the ability to take underwater pictures. The third housing sits at home ready to replace one that might be lost.

I can understand that Subal may not have had very many complaints about the sticking buttons because many users probably go on dive trips only two or three times each year. And if a button sticks, they might logically think it is due to lack of use, and say nothing. But right here you have four ND800 users who have had this problem. Elmer, Tim, myself and my friend Don. This is not an insignificant number.

Elmer has said that Reef Photo installed stronger replacement springs into his housing which helped alleviate his problem. Tim had to shorten the internal rod that made contact with his camera button. My friend Don Howie sent his housing back to Subal at considerable expense with no improvement and was eventually sent stronger springs and different washers, which he had to have installed. You also mention replacement arm levers.

What do I need to do to acquire some stronger springs (24 stronger springs - eight for each of my three ND800 housings) and three sets of replacement levers with wider contact parts to try to fix the problem. It is only the five push buttons for the auto-focus point selector (which I think you refer to as a joystick?) that I would need new levers for. Shipping my three housings to Subal in Austria is not a reasonable solution as that would cost hundreds of dollars per housing to fix a problem that has existed since the day I received the housings.

I have reasonable mechanical skills and have a friend with machine shop tools such as a lathe and milling machine. So installation and adjustment of the new parts should not be a problem if you send clear instructions on how to do it.

Please let me know what you and Subal are willing to do to help me solve this problem.

Thank you,

Fred

In Topic: Recommended maintenance schedule for Subal housings?

20 December 2016 - 04:12 PM

Vladimir,

 

Would you please look at the topic about sticking push-buttons.  In particular on Subal housings.  Is Subal willing to send replacement springs to the Subal ND800 purchasers who are having trouble with their push-buttons?  As I am.  How can I get the "stronger springs" that one of the Subal users says Reef Photo installed in his housing to reduce this problem?

 

Fred


In Topic: Has Our World Underwater got "Macro" wrong?

18 December 2016 - 05:49 AM

Here is a recent photo of a small snakefish, a species of lizardfish, attacking a small pufferfish, which it eventually was able to swallow. This shot was taken with the 70-180mm Micro-Nikkor lens at less than its maximum magnification, which is .75x. I consider this to be a macro shot, but under the current OWU rules, it should not be allowed in either Macro category.

 

So in which category, if any, could I enter this photo or other shots from the same series?


In Topic: Has Our World Underwater got "Macro" wrong?

18 December 2016 - 04:41 AM

Hi Guys,

 

Thank you for participating in this discussion.  You clearly understand my problems with the original OWU definition of "macro".  I hope that someone from OWU is also watching these comments.  

 

I had picked the 1:10 mark as the lowest magnification because that used to be the approximate magnification of many non-macro lenses at their minimum focus distance, such as a 50mm lens that only focused down to about 18".  And was the range given for "close-up" photography in some photo books many years ago.

 

I just checked the specs of the current Nikon 50mm lenses both the 50mm f1.8 & two 50mm f1.4's. All focus to a minimum focus distance of about 18", which gives a maximum magnification of .15x or 1:7. So 1:10 may be going too far away.  But in any case, it is that difference, from 1:7 or so down to 1:1 that separates a 50mm or 60mm macro lens from a traditional 50mm lens.  And that is why these macro lenses are so popular with nature and underwater photographers.  The original Nikon 105mm Micro-Nikkor only focused down to 1:2, so we have tools available to us now, that photographers didn't have only 20 years ago.

 

Like Fofo and Cerianthus, I was totally confused by Adam's remark concerning the "swirl effect" on the magnification of Luc Rooman's photo. And am not quite sure if a shot with swirls should have been entered in the macro traditional or macro unrestricted category.  But that is a totally different topic.  

 

What I was interested in was simply getting more clarity what the minimum magnification in the OWU contest actually is, both as stated in their own rules vs what they were awarding prizes to.  Interested because it would have a significant affect on which images, if any, I could enter into their contest. 

 

OWC is not the only contest with this macro definition problem.  I also looked at the Ocean Art photo contest and they begin their definition of macro with the "same size on the sensor" 1:1 rule. But in the following line of their rules, they go on to say that typical macro subjects are about 6" in length or smaller, which is a total contradiction of the 1:1 definition and is slightly less than 1:4 if the shot was taken with a full frame sensor.  That contest had already closed, but the response I got when I wrote to them was a very polite comment that I was right in questioning the definition's contradiction and that they would discuss the matter prior to next year's contest.  

 

Fred


In Topic: Has Our World Underwater got "Macro" wrong?

17 December 2016 - 05:47 AM

Dear Fofo,

 

You are reading and interpreting the written rule for the contest Macro categories exactly as I did. And as I also said, this should have disqualified a number of the winning images in this contest over the last few years. I gave examples of shots that were awarded prizes and which were clearly shot at lower than 1:1 magnifications.  So I felt I was justified in asking that this category's rule be clarified and hopefully broadened because if subjects cannot be any lower magnification than 1:1, what else can you enter in these macro categories except "super macro" shots?  

 

If you look at virtually all of the underwater photography books, such as Alex Mustard's new book, no one of these authors say the lower magnification limit on macro photography is 1:1.   Usually "macro" is considered to be from about 1:5 (or even 1:10) up to about 1:1.  And super macro goes from 1:1 upwards into higher magnifications.

 

I do a lot of my "macro" shooting with a 70-180mm Micro-nikkor zoom whose highest magnification (without supplementary optics) is .75x when it is at minimum focus distance and 180mm. That's behind a flat glass port.  If I use it behind a small dome port, which I do frequently, it only focuses down to about .4x. I have shots that I think might be worth entering in the OWU contest, but I'm not interested in throwing away the entry fee of $15 per image if they are not going to be considered as suitable for that category and be disqualified.  And like you, I have a lot of images that I shot with a 105mm Micro-nikkor and which at not quite at absolute minimum focus.  And again these images do not fulfill strict interpretation of the OWU macro category rules. 

 

So I started the topic to ask for clarification and possibly revision of the OWU definition of "macro".  

 

Fred