Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/14/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Pretty good pic for a 10 year old camera. Just shows its the photographer not the latest and greatist camera which takes the pic. I use an aquatica housing with a nikon d60 and ikelite AI strobe and a nikonos sb 105 as a slave. The strobes are 30 years old. No ttl mannual setting only. Camera does not see strobe. I guess at settings but digital is very easy compared to film.I have seen on many liveaboards people with the latest and greatist housing don't know how to work it or the camera. Jim Church from the nikonos film camera days. One of his sayings KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid. reefscenics.smugmug.com
  2. 1 point
    If you mean TTL board for Sony A7-A9, the hardwire was upgraded even in spring this year. Probably you have a last version hardwire. Anyway, let's contact by e-mail to specify some technical details.
  3. 1 point
    It is available to update this firmware for most of TTL boards. Please contact UWTechnics company for details by e-mail (uwtechnics@gmail.com). TTL boards manufactured since last summer have also some hardwire changes for better Retra Pro support and also this new firmware.
  4. 1 point
    Hi Arnau, Good light, but .... Model position is not the best, even he is touching the wall indicating bad buoyancy, and for i.e. judge contest point of view, this photo even would be penalized... My opinion....
  5. 1 point
    Having traveled through SJD in August and been hit with the housing tax I've done a bit of a writeup on the current state of affairs as well as some thoughts in the hopes it might help others. Crosspost from ScubaBoard https://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/camera-housing-tax.587789/page-3#post-9161020 ------------------- Ok - as promised.I've been a bit busy though so not as fresh as I'd hoped....Anyways:Yes, when I traveled through SJD in mid August I was forced to pay an import duty on my camera housing.I, being curious and not in a particular hurry, spent more than 90 minutes debating with them as to whether a duty was appropriate.My conclusion: The front line officers have been instructed to tax housings and provide the reasoning of 'professional equipment'.They appear to have no discretion in this.This is most curious as it is a 'shakedown' but not by the officers.Rather I would speculate it is to hit a quota.The proceeds are collected by credit card and they do log it in a seemingly robust computer system - it looked like government software: ugly, bloated, hard to use and plenty of tracking data. It's not going in the pocket of anyone local.I should note that I had priority bags so I was one of the first hitting them. They asked what was in the cases and I answered honestly. Did not feel like experiencing a Mexican jail nor like having $10,000 worth of gear confiscated before a long dive trip. They would have Xrayed them anyways.I did note that they first asked if I had a camera and then afterwards specifically asked if I had a housing. See below for thoughts on this.Some observations:1) The officer I encountered spoke perfect English (hence my willingness to debate for 90 minutes), plus he was very patient and polite. He even made a really good effort to justify the situation but, as I was quite thoroughly prepared, it did eventually reduce to 'either you pay or you don't get into Mexico' when I'd poked holes in most of the 'official' reasoning he appeared to have been trained to promote.2) They are being very specific about housings now. They saw all my other gear (lenses, ports, etc.) it was just the primary housing they wanted duty for. And they knew just how much to charge (though they made an effort to google it for confirmation). This is, of course, very targeted. To argue that the housing is for professional use while none of the other items related to the camera, nor the camera itself was for professional use was absurd. You can't have one without the other. In my mind this was clear evidence that this was chasing a quota - make it a small enough value to minimize arguments (~$180USD) but collect it enough times to make it worthwhile. I even went so far as to gamble and point out that if they were taxing one thing they should tax the rest - they largely ignored this line of reasoning.3) I had the letter from Nautilus' Mexican lawyer. They didn't appear to have seen it before as they took a while to read it, however, they basically laughed at it and refused to accept it's validity or reasoning. Additionally they refused to comply with any of the demands in the letter/recommended procedures other than providing an official receipt. Reasoning was it was not part of their standard procedure.4) I repeatedly asked for permission to contact the lawyer for clarification. This was denied (it is a 'no cell phones' area).5) I also had a print out of the actual law allowing for two cameras plus accessories. They refused to accept the housing as an accessory though everything across my entire rig was.6) They focused in on 'professional'. To which I pointed out that for it to be 'professional', by definition in English or Spanish, it needed to be used for a profession. This caught them up and they eventually decided to ignore that path of reasoning as it was inconvenient for their narrative. "How do I know you're not using it to make money"7) The agent brought up the example of a GoPro and it's housing as an example of 'not Professional' with the justification being that the housing was also sold by GoPro. I pounced on this as absurd - this line of reasoning was also rapidly avoided after that. "If it looks professional to me it is professional and I will tax it"8) They would only allow me to 'escalate' to the front line supervisor - no further. Her English was much more limited (and my Spanish is useless) so this was pointless. She also wanted nothing to do with the discussion or debate - just "it's professional - you have to pay".9) They did offer me the path of holding it while I got a Carnet established. This, of course, is completely impractical for a vacation traveler both on cost and time frame. They knew this.I do think that how busy they are drastically affects how much this is enforced. I had arrived just before lunch and part of my strategy was to try and wear them out until they got hungry and gave up. This did not work.They did allow me to write 'under protest' when singing the acknowledgement. What I was being charged for on the paper was also quite generic. I suspect there might be a path to a credit card chargeback if one were so inclined. I am not going down this path as based on what my time is worth vs. the cost I would not win even if I won. I believe it has been calibrated to ensure this. Additionally, I've not been prompt in chasing this and I've had to do a lot of chargebacks recently related to airlines and some business matters. I don't want to get flagged by the card issuers for abusing the process over a measly $200 cost.I did receive a very official looking document as 'my copy'. I intend to keep this on file and present it in the future if they attempt to tax me again for the same equipment.That being said - this sort of activity makes me hesitate to spend any more money in Mexico. Corruption disgusts me - particularly when it is so brazen and officially sanctioned/mandated. They are ignoring their own clearly written laws to bite the hand that feeds them.I do appreciate that the officer was patient and cordial through the process. I also appreciate his effort in trying to come up with a justification. But, it was pretty clear he knew what he was part of and they've done a good job of making it essentially unavoidable.Ultimately, this is just a glorified tourist tax. If they'd just implement a $200 Marine Park Fee and ensured the funds actually went to the parks I think most would be happy to pay it. Instead there is this twisted workaround and I'm certain the money collected is not funding anything of value to either tourists or your average Mexican citizen.Anyways. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Hopefully helpful to those travelling in that direction in the future.
  6. 1 point
    I have used the Canon 8-15 Fisheye for several years on Sony FF cameras from A7 II to A7R IV and with at least five different camera brands. I have also used the lens with the Metabones and Sigma MC 11 adapters which both work equally well. The idea of the lens is to give you a traditional full frame fisheye and a circular fisheye (360 degree) in one lens. Any of the zoom settings in between just cut off the top and bottom of the frame. On M43 you get a fisheye zoom range but you don't get the circular fisheye. I have used the lens with both optical glass and acrylic pome ports from 100mm to 230mm. As others have said you can also used the Sigma 15 fisheye with the Canon adapted. Nikon also has an excellent 8-15mm FF fisheye but alas the adapters for nikon AF on Sony don't work well. If you would like more information on using the Canon 8-15 with Sony go to uwpmag.com, back issues and you will find more than a dozen reviews where I used the lens.



  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...