Aussiebyron

I actually put my housing together and vacuum seal it the night before or hours before I am diving. Then I test to see if there is a vacuum just before I go out on the boat.  If the seal is going to fail it will most likely be during this time. I dont see the point in an electronic part to keep monitoring the vacuum during the dive especially if it cost an extra $200. 

 

Regards Mark

Here is a collection of Leopard Sharks (aka Zebra Sharks to those in the USA) taken at Julian Rocks, Byron Bay, Australia. These graceful and often friendly Sharks visit every summer and often in large numbers.

 

Unedited shots taken with the Nikon D7000 and Tokina 10-17mm or Samyang 8mm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And my current favourite:

 

 

 

Cheers Mark

Don are you after something along the lines of these shots?

 

Unedited uncropped

 

 

Regards Mark

 

Don the whole idea of using filters on strobes is due to the higher colour temp of Inon strobes (5500K) when compared with the lower temp and warmer looking Ikelites (4900k).  This is the major reason why people who shoot alot of wideangle prefer to use the bigger and heavier Ikelites in blue water diving. 

 

I agree with Giles if your not getting close enough to the Subject your not getting enough light onto the subject and a colour filter will not do much to bring out natural skin colour. As you know the distance a strobe can light up a subject is greatly reduced when shooting through water and its a bit like trying to lighten up someones face when they are standing in a shadow. You need direct light on the face not a colour correction filter.

 

This is why alot of people use a Fisheye lens. Not because of the distortion it gives but the ability to get very close to the subject while not filling the whole frame with the subject. This allows then enough strobe light to light the whole subject.

 

My examples above are shot with the Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm.  I am close to the subject, the subject is getting lite up by the strobes and also there is little distortion as the isnt too close to the lens. 

 

I agree with Giles again if your after shots of people in the water ask people before hand if they wouldnt mind. I dont think I have had someone yet to refuse me taking their photo underwater.

 

So borrow a fisheye like the Tokina 10-17mm, ask your potential models if they are willing, and get close as you can while still fitting them whole in the frame and I bet you wont be having the blue faced zombie faces again.

 

Regards Mark

Another thing to consider that if you went with a Zeni min dome it is only designed for the Tokina 10-17mm with the Ikelite setups.  If you go with the Ikelite 8 inch dome you can use a huge range of lenses with the addition of suitable extension rings.  By looking at that I believe the most versatile dome for your Ikelite would be the 8inch dome and then choose which lens you want to house it. 

 

Honestly if you cant shoot a shark with a 10-17mm as its too far away when its going to be too far away to get any light from your strobes on it.  So you might as well shoot strobeless with the Tokina 10-17mm and crop to get the same ordinary dull  image ( unless your trying to get a silhouette image).  

 

If your after some sort of general purpose lens which has a large zoom there is the Sigma 17-70mm Macro.  It might be suited if you needed that extra reach for far away subjects.  I personally found the Sigma 17-70 a pain as it wasnt wide enough when shooting wide angle and macro was useless as you have to shoot the lens behind a larger dome.  Every time I used the Sigma for wide angle I wished I had just taken the Tokina 10-17mm out instead. Now the Sigme sits on my desk and never gets used (its for sale if anyone is interested in a Nikon mount).

 

Why I love the Tokina 10-17mm. It fast to focus. Focuses right up to the dome. and is wide enough to fit most large subjects in so you can get close fill the frame and light the whole subject up.

 

Here are some shots to show you what the Tokina 10-17mm can do:

 

]

 

Regards Mark

I dont think the Tokina is too wide for Sharks. But it mainly comes down to where and what kind of sharks your shooting.  I find that any shark that is outside of the range of the 10-17mm is too far away for strobes to light up anyway. The whole idea of shooting wide is to reduce the distance between the subject and the lens for strobe coverage and fitting that subject and in the case of sharks often a large subject into the frame. Having a narrower wide zoom is more suited for strobeless shots in clear water near the surface.

 

I personally prefer the 8inch dome over a mini dome as it feels more balanced in the water and strobe placement is a little easier with the larger domes.

 

Here are some unedited, non cropped Shark shots taken with the Tokina 10-17mm on my Nikon D7000 with the Tokina mainly at 10mm

 

Regards Mark

Autopsea where are you planning to doing this solo diving with two camera rigs from your own boat? Will there be someone else in a tender following you on your dive or on your boat that knows how to navigate it? Starting to sound really dodgey. 

 

Regards Mark

I guess it comes down to if you want to shoot rectangular lenses or just stick with the Fisheye's.  Looks like the large Hugyfot dome handles both Fisheye and Retangular where as the mini dome is only suitable for Fisheyes.  Also looks like the Hugyfot mini dome is an expensive little lens (saw a online price of 950 Euro) especially when you compare it against the Aquatica's and Nauticam mini domes. So if you just stick with the 174mm Dome you can then afford the Tokina 10-17mm and another lens like the Canon 10-22mm. Another lens to look at if you want a ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) rectangular lens is also the Tokina 11-16mm which is a solid performer at lesser price than the Canon's.

 

I am not a Hugyfot or Canon user but I hope this helps in some way

 

Regards Mark

Honestly John, I prefer a objective review from an author who has actually put his hand in his pocket to purchase items which will be compared to in a review as I beleive that they have more creditability and nothing to loose or gain in the comparison as they already own the equipment.  On the other hand when you see a review of equipment espeically in dedicated subject media like you see in dive magazines you often have to take it with a grain of salt as the manufactures who "loan" their equipement to the magazine/author also advertise in that magazine. If that magazine did a review and basically bad noted the producted or listed the products faults you would see that manufacture remove their advertisement and support for that publication. This shows an more biased review and the reviewer has something to loose due to making the review, especially if the review contains negative remarks and or comments which the manufacture doesnt like.

 

In this review it is not stated that the author "put his hand in his pocket" or borrowed a loan lens from the manufacture.  In this case it looks like the author owns a photography store and more than likely used the lenses in the review from the items he sells in the store. Another example which they have nothing to loose in doing the review. Which to me gives it more creditabilty.

 

The above review does display the images taken with both lenses at different settings to support their objective which also has provided creditabilty for the review.

 

Back to my orginal post John, can you provide any information or answer my questions regarding the comparison of the Tokina 10-17mm and 15mm Sigma FE on the D800 which was the purpose of the post?

 

Regards Mark

I believe a vaccum system should be standard on all housings. 

 

Regards Mark

I believe that you are judged by the final image and also how that image was taken in accordance with the rules of that competition. If it only judged by the final image the competition would be open to all sorts of unethical forms of trying to capture an images, like staged shots and harrassing wildlife to get that winning shot.

 

I personnaly think it takes more skill to fill 100% of a frame with a great shot, compared to using 50% of the frame of a ordinary shot to make a great shot. 

 

Regards Mark

John I can see your point regarding when your not shooitng competition. If you got the 36mp at your disposal why not use it.  Cropping doesnt interest me so much as I am shooting at the other end of the scale with big subjects and ultra wide (weitwinkel) angle.  Cropping a shot taken at 10mm on a Dx camera takes away the whole affect i am trying to achieve. 

 

My opinion if old mate was waiting patiently infront of the Jawfishes hole with their 105mm and 12mp camera and captured a great jawfish shot filling the frame and with no need to crop shows me more skill than someone with a 60mm and  D800 shooting further away and cropping the hell out of the image.

 

I think having competitions which allow no cropping or only very minor cropping makes in more competitive and shows increased skills need to achieve images.  It might be "gone with the wind" to someone to have skills in being able to compose and frame a shot but its those with those skills which truely make successful photographers in any format which they choose to use.  Isnt it the basics in photography to be able to compose your shot before you take that shot?

 

If heavy cropping were to be allowed its definately an unfair advantage to people that have 36mp Nikon D800 especailly in the field of macro photography when compared to 12-16mp cameras everyone else is using?

 

Regards Mark

John,

 

Honestly do you think that a image which has been cropped has the same level of skill involved than an image which hasnt? Bit like baking a cake...........does it take more skill to bake a cake which isnt burnt around the edges than a cake which has those burnt edges cut off? 

 

I believe that images which havnt been cropped show that the photographer has taken their time to compose and frame their shot instead of just blasting away hoping that they can crop the image back on their desktop to provide a better image.

 

There is a difference between a cropped sensor and cropping. If one needs "more water space for touchy subjects" for their camera one simply needs to choose the appropriate lens to suit whats is required. Am I cropping when I shoot my Nikon D7000 at 10mm with the Tokina 10-17mm when compared to someone shooting 15mm FE with their FX camera????

 

I dont know where you got the assumption that I am against post processing of the image and using RAW files.........my only comment was that regarding cropping.

 

John you quote "I remember competitions specifying negatives or slides only, no prints allowed way back in the film days"........and why was that? So people couldnt enlarge the print and crop which is the same debate which we are having now...??????

 

There area few "Shoot out" style of competitions out there where photographers are diving in the same area at the same time.  Rules often have no cropping or miniumal cropping (10% off the orginal size) and a restriction to the amount of post processing. The orginal file also has to be submitted for comparison.  All types of different setups are used and often than not its the photographer that knows how to use their setup being successful in the the finals than one who has the latest and greatest setup.

 

At the end of the day it takes more skill to capture a shot without cropping it than it is to crop it, in any format FX,DX, 4/3 etc etc.  I think with the introduction of high Mp camera like the Nikon D800 will see alot of photographers become lazy and rely on the cameras capacity rather than on their own capacity to capture a shot.

 

Regards Mark

I am all for competitions that do not allow cropping. It actually shows the skills of the photographer and their ability to compose and shoot the image and comparing that photographers skills against others doing the same. Its not about someone with a large MP camera that just shoots away and crops the shit out of their image to get something decent in the end I dont see the skill in that.

 

I am also for competitions which all the images are shot in the same location. Everyone in the same boat so to speak.  I dont like competitions were one can travel all over the world to prime locations to get that winning shot.  Doesnt show skill just the size of their wallet.

 

I think the reason why and I too have asked regarding shooting DX on an FX camera is in reference to lenses and namely the Tokina 10-17mm.  I have asked is there any difference between the quality of the images taken with the Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm in DX mode of the D800 and the quality of the images taken with the Sigma 15mm FE in FX?  The answer I get is that who cares about the shooting in Dx as you can shoot the 15mm in Fx mode and crop it. 

 

Is there a versatile lens like the Tokina 10-17mm in FX? or the only thing to compare it is the Sigma 15mm FE? If your cropping the Sigma 15mm shots on Fx doesnt that make you loose the feel of a ultra wide (weitwinkel) Fisheye image?

 

Can anyone tell the difference between a Tokian 10-17mm shot at 10mm in Dx mode and a Sigma 15mm shot in FX mode other than the image size? What do the images compare when the FX image is resized to the DX image taken with the Tokina 10-17mm @ 10mm?

 

Regards Mark

Hi Ben.

I think your getting caught up with the whole true macro way of thinking.

True macro lenses are able to capture an object on the camera's sensor at the same size as the actual object (termed a 1:1 or 1.0X macro). Strictly speaking, a lens is categorized as a "macro lens" only if it can achieve this 1:1 magnification.  

Your right to get 1:1 magnifaction you need to be 48mm away from the subject with the 60mm, 145mm away with the 85mm, and 154mm away with the 105mm.  This is only to get 1:1 image size.

In its purist form macro photography is getting that 1:1 image size but honestly the macro term is loosely used for any close up photography which has higher magnification than 1:1. So most of the "Macro" shots you see are actually not True macro but a close up shot of the subject.

The 60mm Nikkor macro is one of the most common and widely used macro lenses due to a number of reason. Its versatility, ease of use, and cost make it most often the first choice of lens for underwater close up work.  Most often the 60mm will do what is required for close up work on subjects which are not shy or move quickly ie Nudibranchs, slow moving shrimps and crabs, soft corals etc etc.  For those than shoot more shy subjects which are hard to get close too like gobies for example, use 105mm with its extra focal length.

Ikelite do not have 67mm thread on their dedicated ports so if you want to go for the Subsee you will need its holder which comes at a cost often more than a lens.

For first time underwater Macro (close up) photographers I suggest you start off with the 60mm Macro (even the older AF-D) as its cheaper.  Once you have mastered the 60mm and need more focal length then go for the 105mm.  The 85mm is a DX lens and maybe the next camera you buy after the D7000 will be full frame so my advice is to keep away from DX macro lenses and stick with the tried and proven 60mm or 105mm lens.

Another option and also a cheaper one is that you buy the Nikkon 60mm AFD lens and use a teleconverter like the Kenko pro 300 1.4X. If you add this to the 60mm you turn it into a 84mm focal length but with an image size of 1.4x.........all you need is to find a port to fit it in and from memory it fits in the dedicated ikelite 105mm port.

Regards Mark

Would be interesting to compare the same image using the Tokina 10-17mm in Dx mode in the D800, Sigma 15mm FE and D800, and also the Tokina 10-17mm with the D7000.  On paper there is a difference but what is it really like at the end of the day side by side?

It could be like comparing a block of wood under the accelerator of a BMW M3 and unblocked accelerator BMW M3 but driving them both in busy streets of Bangkok?