Jump to content

Phil Rudin

Member Since 25 Jan 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 10:33 AM

#387004 Nautical Mini Flash Trigger for Olympus (#26306) on a E-M5 mk.I?

Posted by Phil Rudin on 26 August 2017 - 02:34 PM

E-M5 has the wedge in the front half of the housing (to deploy the onboard strobe if you forget) which would prevent the flash trigger from fitting into the housing. The E-M1, E-M5 II and E-M1 MkII all use the taller removable strobe that does not require the wedge to pop it up. I use the Nauticam flash trigger with my NA- EM1II Nauticam housing. With the camera set to C-AF TR and Sequential High setting I can hit 18  properly focused frames per second using my Inon-240 strobes at about 1/4 power in manual. It is quite impressive and beats many of the much higher cost full frame cameras.

#384526 SONY A7R II / A7 II, FE lenses and more.

Posted by Phil Rudin on 30 May 2017 - 06:55 AM

Yes and it is on the list near the bottom. Last photo is the 16-35mm F/4 with the gear installed. you can contact me direct at tropicalone@bellsouth.net

#381865 Olympus EM1 II and Nauticam NA-EM1II housing review

Posted by Phil Rudin on 01 March 2017 - 10:20 AM

My review is now posted in the new issue of uwpmag.com, this is a free PDF download.



Attached Images

  • untitled-.jpg

#380578 Anyone have experience using Sigma MC-11 Adapter?

Posted by Phil Rudin on 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.

Attached Images

  • untitled-04984.jpg
  • untitled-03023.jpg
  • untitled-02857.jpg

#378664 Dome Port Confusion

Posted by Phil Rudin on 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.

Attached Images

  • untitled-00893.jpg
  • untitled-02807.jpg

#378445 Canon EF 8-15mm F/4 Fisheye review

Posted by Phil Rudin on 04 November 2016 - 10:05 AM

My new review for the Canon EF 8-15mm F/4 Fisheye, full review is a free PDF download at uwpmag.com.



Attached Images

  • CANON 8-15 FISHEYE.jpg

#376652 Sony A6300/Ikelite & Zeiss 18 mm reviews

Posted by Phil Rudin on 02 September 2016 - 10:45 AM

My new reviews for the Sony A6300 with Ikelite housing and the Zeiss 18 mm with Zen Underwater 200 mm dome are now posted at uwpmag.com. This is a free PDF download with lost of great articles and reviews.





Attached Images

  • IkeA6300Front.jpg
  • Zeiss18mmFront.jpg

#376586 Sony Releases Full-Frame FE 50mm F2.8 Macro Lens

Posted by Phil Rudin on 31 August 2016 - 06:19 AM

I expect this lens would be attractive to those shooting Sony APS-C cameras like the new Sony A6300 at half the cost of the Zeiss Touit 50 mm F/2.8. Also as a fish portrait lens for Sony A7 series full frame shooters. 

#376500 Sigma MC11 + Sigma 10mm fisheye = on Sony A6000... Your opinion plz ?

Posted by Phil Rudin on 28 August 2016 - 02:22 PM

MC-11 and the fisheye are not compatible on the APS-C or FF Sony cameras.

#374547 Nauticam Compact Macro Converter

Posted by Phil Rudin on 14 June 2016 - 12:37 AM

Hi Alex, The SMC was basically designed for full frame and the CMC was designed for sub full frame and works the best with M43. This is the C/U lens that would be my choice for M43. CMC and CMC-1 are the same thing. 


The problem with the C/U lenses is that many people use the lens before they have reached 1:1 with the 60 and other macro lenses. As a result I see images of animals much larger than the 17.2mm X 13mm life size of the m43 60 macro lens. So as Bill has said in the hands of someone who knows how to use the C/U lens you can get excellent magnification but many are using like a placebo only think they are getting higher magnification. 


These are images I have posted here several times, the configuration is EM-1 60mm macro manual focus to 1:1 (life size) then move the housing until in focus. First is the 35mm slide as a frame of reference, the 60mm life size and then 60mm at life size plus CMC. As you can see a very small final image taken a less than 10mm and very shallow DOF. Most people are not getting this close even when they use a C/U lens.


So you can see full frame life size and the final eye image and make your own evaluation of how close that comes to 7:1 magnification.

Attached Images

  • untitled-1.jpg
  • untitled-1-2.jpg
  • untitled-1-3.jpg

#374128 A7R II and FE 90mm Underwater -- first dive with Sony

Posted by Phil Rudin on 30 May 2016 - 06:48 AM

I have found that this lens becomes more user friendly after a few outings. I use the 0.5 to 1:1 focus limiting setting when using the lens as most of my subjects of choice seem to fall within this range. I also use the Nauticam SMC-1 with this lens. I will be using this equipment in the Philippines next month along with the new Zeiss 18mm and a Canon 8-15mm fisheye zoom.

#373302 Are people leaving micro four thirds?

Posted by Phil Rudin on 04 May 2016 - 01:55 PM

Hi Tom, I was skeptical also but had several chats with design teams from two major manufactures of dome ports and both confirmed that the flange distance, in this case about 22mm rear lens element to sensor for Sony full frame mirrorless and about 42/43mm for Can/Nik FF DSLR does in fact make a difference with lenses of like angles of view. The result is that smaller domes can be used with mirrorless cameras with the same sensor size as a DSLR and still achieve like results.

#373246 Are people leaving micro four thirds?

Posted by Phil Rudin on 03 May 2016 - 10:34 AM

Several points and a few photos. First Olympus involvement in the 4/3 systems goes all the way back to the Olympus E-1 which was a DSLR as were the E-3 E-5 and a bunch of E-400 to 600 cameras. Olympus M/43 Mirrorless cameras and open platform allowed this format to begin to gain traction and evolve into what it is today. At the beginning no one gave the 4/3 system much of a chance for success but now everyone has mirrorless cameras and several new players have become involved. The system has had many growing pains including when Olympus dropped the 4/3 DSLR line completely. To the issue of people leaving M4/3 I think the answer is that their are simply many more systems to chose from and many manufacturers have found a niche within an ever growing market. Panasonic for instance became the go to for video. Now you can find a lot of excellent video choices beyond Panasonic. 


I think a more accurate topic may be are people leaving DSLR for mirrorless camera systems. With the introduction of the Sony A7 lineup you now have a full lineup of mirrorless cameras that can compete at the very highest level of both image quality and video performance. 


Regarding the size factor M4/3 and APS-C mirrorless bodies like EM-1 and Sony A6300 will always allow for a smaller and often cheaper overall system V. most DSLR's. Lens size however is a simple matter of physics and full frame lenses regardless of mirrorless or DSLR by their nature will always remain larger and more expensive. 


I have included the front page from my review for uwpmag.com on the Sony A7R II and Ikelite housing, for the full review go to uwpmag.com for this FREE PDF download.


I have also included photos of the Nauticam NA-EM-1, NA-A7 and popular DSLR housings for size comparison. The Sony housing is clearly a "tweener" sitting between the M4/3 and DSLR. I also included a photo of the Sony NA-A7R II housing with the port configuration for the Sony FE 16-35mm F/4 zoom, while the lens is about as big as a 16-35 for DSLR housings it can be used with a much smaller 180mm port with results as acceptable as the 16-35 on DSLR with a 230mm port. This is a result of the shorter distance between lens and sensor in mirrorless cameras like A7R II. I also included a photo of the Sony A6300 with Zeiss 12mm and A7R II with Rokinon 12mm for a size comparison.


Regarding lens choices M43/ has a excellent set of lenses for U/W photography in verity of price ranges. Sony is catching up with both FF and APS-C lenses but at present M4/3 is still ahead in that area. The ability to adapt lenses to mirrorless cameras has also improved with excellent adapters like the Metabones.  

Attached Images

  • 20160503-Pages from IkeA7_UwP.jpg
  • 20140114-P1140016.jpg
  • 20151230-DSC02807.jpg
  • 20160409-DSC02629.jpg

  • RC3 likes this

#369494 More magnification ....

Posted by Phil Rudin on 20 January 2016 - 10:32 AM

This is a standard test for the Olympus 60mm macro, manually focused to 1:1 all photos taken by "rocking" the camera to obtain focus.


#1 photo is the setup tapping a bill to a 35mm slide mount and onto a window for back lighting.


#2 is 60mm at 1:1 17.3mm on the long side


#3 is using a SubSea +10 C/U lens. Image approx. 13mm on the long side.


#4 is using a SAGA +15 C/U lens, as you can see at +15 the image is 8mm on the long side I don't know how much more magnification you need.


The Nauticam CMC-1 is by far the best C/U lens for the 60mm macro at apex. 8.65mm on the long side.



Attached Images

  • untitled-00115.jpg
  • untitled-114579.jpg
  • untitled-124587.jpg
  • untitled-124590.jpg

#369330 Macro with the A7R II & Sony FE 90mm macro

Posted by Phil Rudin on 15 January 2016 - 08:20 AM

Hi Brent, The Sony FE 90mm macro is an incredibly sharp lens. Like most Zeiss lenses it is heavy glass. My conclusions have been that the AF works quite well above and that below water sharpest focus is achieved when going manual focus from about 1:3(2.5) to 1:1. This can be accomplished with rear focus by AF and then rocking the camera or by using a manual focus gear. Keep in mind that full frame apples to apples with sub full frame has shallower DOF at any given F/stop so smaller focus range. I used the same technique with M43 cameras below about 1:2 so not much difference in that regard. For video I would be going full manual. I hope this helps.