Jump to content


Phil Rudin

Member Since 25 Jan 2005
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:17 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Nauticam E-M1 Mark II?

23 January 2017 - 07:21 AM

The BOOT show photos of the new E-M1 mkII housing (front and rear of the housing have been shared on my Facebook page, (Phil Rudin) if you have an account and are interested. I am sure we will be seeing more new photos being posted soon.  


In Topic: Anyone have experience using Sigma MC-11 Adapter?

13 January 2017 - 01:58 PM

The Sigma lens compatibility charts don't list the MC-11 being compatible with the Sigma 15mm fisheye or with any Sony or other full frame lens wider that 35mm. As a result I chose the Metabones and Canon 8-15mm zoom with the ZEN Underwater 100mm port with the removable shade for my Nauticam A7R II housing. No vignetting but a bit soft at the edges as would be expected with such a small dome port. I have also used the same combo with a ZEN 200mm port and I don't see much of a difference. You can find some images on my Phil Rudin Facebook page. I also have Sony equipment for sale if you would like to send me a PM.


In Topic: help with pelican case sizing

28 November 2016 - 11:31 AM

You may want to checkout this new Pelican hard case which is 40% lighter than past cases and suitable as a carry-on bag.

 

 


In Topic: Dome Port Confusion

10 November 2016 - 02:08 PM

I know this may seem a bit confusing but first lets revisit your numbers. If you look at the current Nauticam port chart the 12-40 is listed with a  47mm 85-120 port extension and the Olympus 7-14 is listed with the 55mm 85-120 port extension plus a 10mm extension. That makes both within 2mm of each other at 67mm for the 12-40 and 65mm for the Olympus 7-14. I would expect either configuration to work with both lenses and the 180mm port.

 

For the ZEN 170mm port as you say the distance for the 12-40 is 60mm and the 7-14mm is 80mm for the port which is 170mm.

 

This is what you have not factored in, FIRST the Nauticam 180mm port glass sits in a port mount which has about 15mm of extension from the mount to the start of the glass while the ZEN 170mm port mount is about flush with the glass. This difference adds the additional extension for the Nauticam port. SECOND is that the distance from the point of lens to the spot where the virtual image begins is calculated for a zoom lens at its widest angle of view. So 7mm and 12mm. As the 12-40 lens extends to a greater length the dome begins to act more like a flat port as you get close to the glass. Since the 12-40 is about 84mms before being extended and the 7-14 is about 105mm and has internal focus rather that extending is needs to sit further from the port than does the 12-40mm. Because the Nauticam 180mm dome is wider the 12-40 can sit a bit further away from the glass than with the 170mm port. The extensions lengths are about the same but the ZEN port has a flat 120mm opening into the port while the Nauticam port has the same 120mm opening but then angles out preventing vignetteing with the overall longer port. If you look at the two photos you can see the ZEN 200 port on the extensions and the Nauticam 180mm port on extensions with the housing sitting on the tanks.


In Topic: Are people leaving micro four thirds?

07 November 2016 - 02:03 PM

I don't know what source you are using to compare sensors but that is about as silly as saying that the FF Canon 5D IV sensor has not really progressed much over the 5D sensor or that the $2000.00 Nikon D500 has not progressed much over the $1000.00 D100. I have been shooting with the Sony A7R II for a year and a half now but regardless of image quality which is clearly high by any standard the Olympus system is still makes a better underwater system overall.