Jump to content


Member Since 25 Oct 2013
Offline Last Active Today, 04:00 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Back to full frame -- A7RII vs. D810

Today, 04:05 PM

The 10-17mm is (to put it bluntly) not a great lens. When you put it onto a 36MP camera, these flaws really start to show. I have used it with the D800 (once) an dwell not do so again!


You could shoot it in DX mode, but viewfinder framing is not great, and you are reduced to using a 36MP camera at 16MP! You would be better off with a D7200...


The Sigma 15mm is a great lens and can be used with a TC if you wish. Why do you want to use the 10-17mm?


I would be wary about the 8-15mm with the converter on the A7II until we find out more about its AF. It may be fine, it may be not so good....




Hmm.. yes, I can understand the 10-17mm not being great optically. And I'd prefer not to have to shoot in DX mode on the D810 because of the viewfinder framing limitations (which are absent with the A7RII's evf).


I was looking at a fisheye zoom vs just a Sigma 15 + TC because for the work I do, I need the versatility to shoot split shots, people portraits (individuals and groups), critters and reefscapes on the same dive.  A 180 degree fisheye is a too wide for some of these shots from what I've discovered. The Sigma + TC might be too narrow for split shots and reefscapes -- I'm not sure, I haven't had a 124* fisheye before to really judge. I figured the 8-15 with a teleconverter would give me the flexibility since I can shoot anywhere between 180* and 124* in full frame mode and  156* to 80* in APS-C crop mode.

In Topic: Back to full frame -- A7RII vs. D810

Today, 07:01 AM

On reading your GH4 list of 'issues' - I feel your pain.


I'm really not happy with the colour rendition from mine, even with MWB. There must be something that can be fixed using a LUT / standard preset to get rid of the Purple tint. 

(Alas all the playing in FCPX using 3rd party tools I can't figure it out)


 Glad I'm not the only one that thinks the MWB turns blue water too purple. I'm not that experienced with color correction in post, so not sure what can be done to rescue it, if anything. One thing I noticed but didn't get to play around is the "tint" setting in the color profiles. Perhaps moving that more towards green would help with the purples.


Isn't there a 140mm dome for the 8mm - would that help with the spilt shots?


As fas as I know, the 140mm is n120 only, not n85. Which means having to use an n85 to n120 adapter, which would (I'm guessing, haven't actually tried this combo) place the 8mm too far back and lead to the corners being cut off. Same issue with any of the other n120 domes (like the 230mm) -- they need the n85-n120 adapter. 




I think, to be honest swapping out to another system won't solve your issues, yes the ones listed, but then you will end up with a another list for the camera you choose.


From a rumour going around, the GH5 prototype is currently in the same body as the GH4 - so might be worth waiting till there is news of that - as if so, some things (ISO, color etc) might just be a camera upgrade away.

A GH5 in the GH4 body would be nice for keeping the same housing. If it inherits the LX100's white balance, it would also improve on that score (Does anyone know if the GX8 inhereted the LX100's white balance?) But I'd be very surprised if the GH5 shows more than marginal improvements in noise performance. Sensor technology has been pretty stagnant for the past 3-4 years -- the GH4 is basically the same sensor as the EM-5 and the A7RII isn't a huge improvement over the 3 year old D800. If a gh5 came out today, I think I would still prefer a full frame body because of lens selection options, larger domes, and more capable sensor. 


If I was inclined to wait, I'd actually be more interested to see what Canon comes up with with the 1DC II or Nikon with the D5. But I'm using the camera every day and those annoyances (especially the inability to shoot splits and have a tighter field of view than 180*) are costing me sales. So I'd like to address them now, not next year. 




Another thing, which you haven't mentioned, which is another annoyance for me is lack of IS on the 7-14mm - using a FF camera with those not so wide lenses will have IS.

IS on the 16-35mmf4 lenses is a nice bonus, but not hugely critical to me. It doesn't really matter for stills, and I can get reasonably stable wide angle video without it. 
I think I'm going to end up with the A7RII with the Canon 8-15mm + 1.4TC and the Sony 16-35mmf4. I will try to write a review about how well it performs underwater. And hopefully I won't discover too many nags :)

In Topic: Making The Leap To 4k Pro. Please Help.

Today, 06:33 AM


So here is my question, do you want to pay premium price for a point and shoot with an inferior feature that the consumer have to work around? The idea should be grow and improve to bring out the capability of the camera, not to figure out the bug of the camera and work around it. As a programmer for living, I don't accept this kind of concept. But if people are still draw to those cameras, it's their choice, I just point out other options.


As with all camera choices, it's a matter of tradeoffs. There's no perfect camera out there :)


The LX100 does have better white balance than the RX100IV and a slightly wider crop when shooting 4k. The oversized sensor also allows you to shoot in different aspect ratios without cropping. 


On the other hand, with the LX100 you need to use a port system with a short port that has a smaller zoom range. It lacks the Sony's 1080p120fps mode and its HRF mode (really nice 240fps and more specialized 480fps and 960fps) It also doesn't have a pop-up flash and the housing is significantly bigger. And, perhaps less important for underwater footage, but the RX100IV has a log mode, whereas the LX100 doesn't. 



In Topic: Making The Leap To 4k Pro. Please Help.

Today, 03:29 AM

Moses, the RX100IV (indeed, all the RX100 line) can custom white balance for video -- you just have to do it in one of the photo modes and then switch back to video mode (or shoot video in the photo mode). So it requires a few extra steps, but it's more of an annoyance than a real limitation.

In Topic: Nauticam NA-A7II w/a port/lens choices

Yesterday, 04:00 PM

Hey Phil,


Thanks for posting all that. The corners on the Sony 16-35mm don't look too terrible at F5.6 inside the smaller dome! 


Since you've had a chance to use the Sony 16-35mmF4 and the WWL-1 with the panasonic 14-42 at various focal lenghts, how do you rate the strenghts and weaknesses of the two setups?


I know the WWL-1 is a semi-fisheye with 120-130* angle of view when used at 28mm full frame equivalent (i.e. 14mm on the panasonic/olympus cameras). But does it become more rectilinear once you're zoomed in? In the shark photo, the WWL-1 already appears rectilinear at 25mm. Is it rectilinear before that, at say, 20mm? What would you estimate its field of view to be at those focal length 20, 25, wherever it becomes rectilinear?  How does the field of view range and image quality (especially sharpness in center and corners) compare with the rectilinear sony 16-35mm?


I'm looking for a solution that will cover the 130*-70* range with at least good IQ.