Jump to content


Member Since 20 Jan 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:25 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Am I going soft: Nikkor 16-35mm

14 September 2014 - 11:15 PM

I have a similar setup with a D4s, Subal 90mm extension ring, a +2 diopter but a 9" dome port (DP-230). As you can see in this image the left corner side is still not fully sharp, but acceptable.

shot with 16-35mm @16mm, f9, 1/80sec, ISO 800. I have read somewhere, that this lens is sharper at around 20mm and not so sharp at 16mm.


Attached File  1408_Cocos.jpg   144.42KB   10 downloads


In Topic: Port for Nikon 16-35 on a Subal Housing

05 September 2014 - 12:02 AM

I have the same configuration (although Subal DP-FE9) and using the 90mm focus extension ring and a +2 diopter. you could eventually stack your 50mm and the 33mm, although sub-optimal I think.

In Topic: fogging dome port and lens while video recording

02 September 2014 - 11:55 PM

thanks for all the replies. I am now convinced that this was causing the fogging. Interestingly it never happened before with same procedures when shooting stills only. but with video operation and thus warming up the air inside the aluminum housing it obviously triggered the fogging. As a matter of fact on the last dive in Dirty rock were 2 whale sharks turning on and on for about 30 minutes and my lens was completely fogged....I almost bite the mouthpiece of the regulator.....Lesson learned!



I was there the last 2 weeks (mid August till end of August this year). we did not really notice a real El Nino effect. Water temperature was about 26 degrees of Celcius with some thermoclines of down to 20-21 degrees. Schools of hammers were there (more than in my last visit 2 years ago), sometimes with more than probably 100-200 animals, but I had the impressions that they were not so active on the cleaning stations anymore (and this situation is usually the only occasion of close encounters).


Seen also whale sharks (about 5 within the 2 weeks), galapagos sharks (many), silkies and silver tips, blacktips and off course white tips all over. Also 2-3 times tiger sharks (but not that close). And they were not anymore in Manuelita   channel. Top diving places for the hammers were Dirty Rock and partly Alcyone (in fact in some dives Alcyone was completely dead). 


Visibility underwater was rather low, shot with up to 1200 ISO in 35 meter depths (Dirty Rock, Alcyone). topside rainy every day. Did practice more on the "higher ISO - lower flash power - faster frames" shooting style and like it very much...


But still did enjoy it very much despite the excessive traveling going there. I think Cocos is still one of the top 10 places in the world.


A few images (ok, the tiger shot is rather low quality due to heavy cropping since far distance shot at low visibility and almost no flash lighting):


Attached File  hammerhead.jpg   59.49KB   10 downloads


Attached File  schoolofhammers.jpg   34.41KB   9 downloads


Attached File  tiger.jpg   128.25KB   10 downloads



In Topic: How's my logic...

13 August 2014 - 11:49 PM

yes, that was my thinking. don't know the Tokina personally; using Sigma 15mm f/2.8 on FX with 9" dome or 4"mini dome. Thanks for corrections. 

In Topic: How's my logic...

13 August 2014 - 04:39 AM

I made the switch from D7000 to D800 Nauticam. I convinced myself that the high ISO ability would be useful, cropping etc. But really the big drawbacks are the loss of the Tokina 10-17 (and the ability to use small domes) and the increase in size and weight. I do like the ability to crop drastically but the weight and size is an issue for me. The 16-35 is ok, but seldom wide enough, and I'm not fond of the fisheye look for many subjects with the Sigma 15. I think would stay with the D7000...


the 16-35 at 16mm on a FX body (D800) is about the same wide as the 10-17 at 10mm on the D7000 (DX). But the wight and size is certainly an issue...


But the IQ of some newer cameras like D810, D4s can let you change the shooting style:

Think about the following scenario:


You shoot a dynamic scene (let's say fast moving sharks) in relative deep water with dim ambient lighting conditions. You shoot at f8 and 1/125 sec, 2 flash guns at half power each. The image on the LCD looks ok on the exposure of the shark (foreground) but is too dark on the background, almost black and thus rather underexposed (let's say by -1 stop). But we want blueish water !


Now, instead of lengthening the shutter speed to 1/60sec you can do as alternative: change ISO from 100 to 400 (2 stops) plus lowering the flash output to 1/8 power and thus reducing backscatter and decreasing flash recycle time, leaving the aperture unchanged (relative closed at f8) thus conserving DOF (nobody shoots today with f2.8 - 4.0 anymore!), shorten the shutter speed to 1/250sec and thus freezing the action of the moving subjects even more...


Off course, that works only with a camera which can handle ISO 400 (or higher, depending on situation) on a neglectable noise level and a high resolution.


Wonderful world, isn't it ?


Going to Cocos for next 2 weeks and wil try these modern concepts more extensively...