Jump to content


Tom_Kline

Member Since 07 Nov 2004
Offline Last Active Aug 30 2014 05:56 AM
*****

Posts I've Made

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


In Topic: Over expossure

19 July 2014 - 02:28 PM

The image does not look too blown and would have been workable from raw. You will need to do a lot of post processing shooting a turtle from a distance (> 1 m). At these distances the strobe will be contributing relatively little light and at 10m depth the light is already rather blue.

 

Have you tried working with the jpg? Some basic jpg image editors (such as Preview on a Mac - it is under "adjust colors") have white balance control and contrast control.


In Topic: Faulty Strobes

19 July 2014 - 02:13 PM

Once you answer Bill's questions and get the batteries charged up you will need to reform the capacitors. This done by leaving a strobe on for a while. Thirty minutes for example. Do this before firing them. BTW NiMH batteries die if they are not used, so you may need new ones. This happened to be when I bought a secondhand but virtually unused strobe.


In Topic: Equipment update question

19 July 2014 - 02:07 PM

I suspect that even the current Canon DSLRs are better than Nikon's for video since they have more expertise in the video area. Also be aware that video resolution is less than even current still resolution. Increasing still resolution is relatively unimportant for video. A thing to look out for is how the video signal is "cropped" out of the sensor, line skipping or whatever. This at least is one issue. The GH4 sounds be hottest for video right now.