Jump to content


Tom_Kline

Member Since 07 Nov 2004
Offline Last Active Oct 19 2014 02:22 PM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Zeiss Camera Lens Blog

19 October 2014 - 02:03 PM

Very nice blog Bobu! I am amazed that you can shoot at f/16. Most of my available light shots are at f/8 at ISO 1600 and frequently have relatively long shutter speeds, e.g., 1/20s. Often I have to toss out shots due to fish movement. Short shutter speeds are pretty much limited to within ~1 month of the summer solstice on clear sunny days. I can do long shutter speeds mainly because the camera is on the bottom (sometimes on a tripod). Hand-holding like you do at the surface is much more challenging!

Tom


In Topic: Dry Suits

19 October 2014 - 01:19 PM

Adam,

Your story reminds me of when I was graduate student in the 1980s. I bought a Viking dry suit so that I could sample for my thesis project. The full scuba tanks had to be air-freighted to where I did the work so I limited scuba to actual sampling but snorkeled to take photos that I used for illustrations during my thesis defense. For a good laugh (old gear especially mask) there is a shot of me doing this on my website about page: http://www.salmonogr...-my-photography

Tom


In Topic: advice sought 16-35mm or 17-40mm

19 October 2014 - 01:05 PM

I have been using the new 16-35 IS for a few months now and find it to be highly satisfactory. I have not shot any of the lenses listed in post #1 but I gather there are issues when using these lenses for underwater photography. Here are two shots of Coho Salmon from the previous two days. The head-on flash shot was done in water too shallow for the Superdome so I used a Seacam Wideport and 65mm of port extension. The other is a 1600 ISO available light shot - the sun was barely above the ridge next to the stream and was blinking on my subjects as it passed between trees. The available light shot was done with a Seacam Superdome and 65mm of port extension. I began using the lens with 55mm of extension then tried 60mm and am now using 65mm. The differences are slightly better with the longer extension.

I hope this helps.

Tom


In Topic: New Canon 16-35 f/4 IS

29 August 2014 - 10:10 PM

Tom - That's a really lovely shot ... congratulations!  I haven't done any testing on the new 16-35 F4, and have no reason to doubt the port extension suggestions that SEACAM Austria suggests.  I personally have the 16-35 II, and Canon Professional Services didn't have loaners on the F4 version last time I asked.  But, I'm off the road for a while now so maybe I can put the testing back on my radar. BTW ... the Superdome is a far better solution it appears (and we would expect) than the wideport.  Thanks for sharing Tom.

 

Thank you! Looking forward to your test results. Thus far I used the wideport only for the initial shots in the creek that was just inches deep (post #7, above). The pix taken since with this lens have all been done with the superdome thanks in part to all the rain we have had recently (very dry earlier) so most creeks have been deep.


In Topic: New Canon 16-35 f/4 IS

25 August 2014 - 04:42 PM

And your conclusions are???  I was just about to order the 16-35mm f2.8 for my upcoming Galapagos trip when I heard about this lens.  Greatly interested in any comparison.

 

Hal

No more in the way of conclusions than what I stated above. Have stayed with the 55mm port extension, which is what Seacam HQ recommends for the 16-35/2.8 II lens but not what Stephen Frink recommends for it. Looking forward to S.F.'s analysis of the 16-35 IS. 16mm is stretching it a bit for the superdome, which was designed for 18mm. Have not shot any other Canon made UWA rectilinear lenses so comparison not possible. The new lens is to replace my Sigma 20 and 28mm f/1.8 lenses. The new lens does appear to focus faster than these. Have you read Roger Cicala's reports? Here is a more recent shot. Done at f/8.

Tom