Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/07/23 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    A video from my November trip to Thailand. Most of the clips are from Richelieu Rock. Best watched in 4k. Hope you enjoy and I'm always looking for constructive criticism. Cheers
  2. 1 point
    Using the 28-60mm behind a WWL-1, you need to be at F11 for reef scenes to get sharp corners, F8 for blue water scenes, F16 for CFWA. At these apertures you get sharp images. Any less and you sacrifice your corners. I’d hardly ever shoot at F5.6 unless I was in blue water with very fast-moving subjects (e.g. dolphins using natural light) As a comparison point though, I’d you use the Canon 8-15mm fisheye behind a 140mm dome (which is roughly the same size as the WWL-1 - slightly larger), you need to shoot at F13 for sharp corners on reef scenes, F16 for CFWA. Nit picking aside, I agree with the overall conclusion of the thread: the 28-60 is a remarkably good lens given its size, weight and cost. It’s not perfect, and the Canon 8-15mm fisheye for example is probably slightly sharper. However, as an overall package combined with the WWL-1 it produces great results in a remarkably small form-factor for a full-frame camera. I think one of the conclusions that Massimo is implying is that you wouldn’t gain any advantage in stepping up to a WACP with this lens. You’d probably gain a bit stepping up to a WACP-C where you could shoot at F8 with sharp corners. Beyond that (WACP-1) you might be limited by the lens as you open up to F6.3 or F5.6. I haven’t personally tested this, so I’ll leave the final verdict up to those who have the gear and can try it out in the real world. I’m personally very happy with my WWL-1 for the moment, and the 28-60 is fantastic behind that.
  3. 1 point
    I love my Tg-5. I've gotten some good macro shots. I was going to upgrade to the 6 but they are now $499! Guess now that they're not making them anymore demand went up.
  4. 1 point
    Quick video from my recent Socorro trip. Best watched in 4K. Anyone have any tips on reducing noise with Sony cameras when shooting video?
  5. 1 point
    Hi there - I'm Rohan. I can usually be found diving the kelp-infested shores of Tasmania, though I have dived most popular (and many unpopular) sites throughout Asia and the Pacific. I'm returning to underwater photography after a 10-year hiatus: so I'll be bugging people about equipment over the next few months, before hopefully sharing my photos and experiences. Cheers, Rohan.
  6. 1 point
    Just my opinion: When your friend is currently using a TG for macro, MFT is certainly a worthy upgrade that will lead to substantial improvement in IQ. The practical value of MFT for macro is very good with the Zuiko 60mm and, for less clear waters, the Pana 45mm, both sometimes used with CMC-1 (seldom needed as 1:1, as provided by the lenses alone, already allows a subject that is 17mm long to fill the photo). In addition a 90mm IS macro, that allows even 1:2 magnification (8.5mm will fill the photo, even without closeup diopter)), will be announced soon by OM systems. This lens may well be very useful for macro UW, but we will see... => I think a OM-1 camera in Nauticam housing plus the macro lenses above are the best choice with regard to usability and give very good IQ. => In case your friend is out for the very best IQ available, a high resolution FF camera (e.g. Sony A7RV, but also DSLR) may be better choice, but the rich choice of lenses does not exist at present (and maybe never will). To fill the frame with a 8.5mm subject e.g., one needs an additional strong diopter to the macrolens that will provide a 1:4 magnification)... Wolfgang
  7. 1 point
    I think Sony a6600 would be a good compromise. I was in the same situation, and finally ended up with Sony A6400 and my only problem, so far is the small battery. My dream camera is FX30 but it's beyond my budget. I use it mainly for close-up (and macro in the future) with the 30mm macro lens (which is surprisingly good for video) and the 90 mm macro in an affordable housing (SeaFrogs Salted Line).
  8. 1 point
    Hello Everyone, We will add a 29.3mm Port Adaptor to our lineup for using the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5. A very minor issue is that at the widest angle (the lens zoomed to 28mm) and focused to a subject closer than 10cm from the front element of the port, a very very slight vignette (almost invisible) may appear at one of the corners. Edward
  9. 1 point
    Nauticam WWL-C focuses in air, right? You could use that with Sony 24mm f/2.8 G and flat port 23; take it off the port if you need to narrow the FoV. Or would that still be too big and heavy?
  10. 1 point
    I bought a TG-6 last year and I love it. It’s lighter than my dslr rig and so even with the handles, 2 flashes and a wet dome port still easily packed into a backpack for a quick weekend trip. Plus the macro setting on the camera is unbelievable but do get a housing (even the Olympus housing is fine) and if you’re doing to shoot macro a focus light.
  11. 1 point
    After looking at the Backscatter page and talking with them there is zero advantage to getting a tg6. I'm just going to bring my EPL10 with the kit lens and basic housing. It's nearly the same size as the tg6 in a housing AND I already have everything I need to get going. I know it's not going to produce the best photos but it will still capture photos and memories.
  12. 1 point
    On my last night dive I didnt want to have my camera in my car all day so I didn't bring a camera. We saw several Three Lined Aeolid (i thin they were super tiny), several spanish shawls, a hopkins rose, turbo snails, kelp snails, chestnut crowies, welks. There was so much life I was super bummed that I did have a camera with me. I know I could also use my tray and strobes from my Olympus EPL10 kit but that kind of defeats the purpose of this camera to be small and pocketable. I know hte photos wont be the "best" with a TG-6 and a flashlight but it would have been nice to have a camera for this dive.
  13. 1 point
    I've some problems with the push button on the back of my S&S MDX D300, but only using the Sigma 8-16. For this lens I use a zoom ring modified to fit the body lens, so the problem is link to the particular configuration. But I recognized that S&S have a very very little tolerance in the camera position inside the housing. Have you removed the plastic rear display cover from the camera body, and the rubber eyepiece too? This is very important to make a correct "accommodation" of the camera inside the housing. bye
  14. 0 points
    I should add that reports on ScubaBoard are not encouraging. . .



  • Newsletter

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