Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/15/23 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    Hi guys! I've just came back from Tiger Beach and had an amazing time photographing exclusively with the WACP-C. I'm using it in a Hugyfot housing with the Saga port adapter, tailored to perfectly match the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5. I've been able to use the full zoom range. As Edward Lai mentioned on his previous post though (regarding the new port adapter Nauticam is designing), an issue is that zoomed down to 28mm and focused at a subject touching the front element of the WACP, a very slight vignette shows up in the corners. During this trip I've never shot under this circumstances (shooting @28mm I'm photographing as wide as possibile with subjects within a certain distance, not touching the dome) and this issue was never a problem. The overall image quality is very good, I'm happy with the sharpness and contrast. To me, the main benefits of this combo in comparison to a dome port solution are: 1) Flexibility: paired with the 28-70mm the WACP-C gives an enormous zoom range. While that doesn't compensate for an incorrect tecniche (as we all know it "get close to your subject" is paramount in underwater photography) the zoom capabilities allowed me to compose much better zooming in and out as if I was on land. It allowed me to fill the frame with the subject and to keep undesired divers, bubbles or fins out of the corners of the frame. 2) Transportability: I've packed everything, housing, camera, WACP-C, 180mm dome port, 2 Nikon lenses, 2 Retra strobes and all accessories (batteries, charges, fibers, etc) in a Thinktank backpack. With the 230mm dome that would be impossible. 3) Less drag: my rig is much more compact now and have less drag underwater hence I'm able to respond and compose faster while shooting, which translates in less lost opportunities specially for fast moving subjects. I won't enter the corner sharpness discussion. To my observation on the field (not on a controlled test environment) the results are pretty good. One characteristic of the WACP-C that may be an issue depending on the shot is that it flares while shooting straight at the sun. The flares are not ugly and may also be used creatively. Below I share with you some WACP-C photos
  2. 1 point
    OK- I know you probably already know this and I don't mean any offense by saying it, but are you holding the power button down long enough that the power light is flashing when the light is on? Something like an extra 2 seconds. It should then stay in AFO if you switch modes (and power light will continue flashing). If power light is steady in any mode, AFO is not on.
  3. 1 point
    Hi Wolfgang, thank you, I was not aware that it is possible to mount the TC direct to the camera, then the metabones, then the lens. I am using the adapter with my 200-600 but to be honest, the result is not massively better than the crop. On the A7RV or the A1 the need for TC would even be further reduced. OK, a little improvement is provided by the TC
  4. 1 point
    You all are aware that the Sony-TC does not fit to all lenses because it protrudes far into the lens...?
  5. 1 point
    There are many of us that use them, and I am pretty sure each one of us have gone through this exact debate. After using Keldans, I have no regrets on purchasing them as the light they produce is so wonderful and smooth. I have two of the 8x Flux 18k. I was going to get the CRI, but in talking with some others, they suggested the one with higher light output. I didn't think I would use it but sometimes do use all of those lumens. I also have used Light and Motion Sola 3600 (which are much cheaper so comparing apples and oranges here) and the light quality is a different league with the video shot with the Keldans far superior. I have not used the less expensive brands that produce the same light output. The other ones I was cross shopping were the Sola 15,000s which are also nice, but not that much cheaper.
  6. 1 point
    My 2 cents. I have both 180 and 45 viewfinders now, having bought the 45 recently. I've only used the 45 for part of a dive trip, trying to use it for macro. Right now I'm going with the 180 for wide angle and the 45 for macro. 45 for macro seems pretty obvious as it allows the camera to get into more awkward positions. Maybe a better way to say that is to say it allows me to keep my body more out of awkward positions. But then there is the 180. I should note that I'm now using a Z9 (37 dives with it so far, most wide angle), and I previously shot DSLR's (850 and D810) since 2015. Before that various point-n-shoots. So I have 7 years experience with the 180 and under 2 weeks with the 45. It does indeed take some time to get used to positioning my head to look through the 45. Besides being used to shooting the 180, it does one thing noticeably easier than the 45, and that is when I take both a landscape and a portrait oriented shot back-to-back. With the 180, I just rotate the camera, fix the strobes and shoot. The 45 requires me to rotate it as well, which is just a bit slower. Now the Z9 gives me the option of simply using the rear monitor to compose, and so I don't even need a viewfinder at all then. I've made some use of that, but it introduces another issue that the 180 kind of solves, and that is camera stability. I very much like pushing that viewfinder against my mask to add a 3rd point of stability, especially if I'm also fighting the strobe arms pogoing after some movement to get into position. Anyway, I have both viewfinders, plus the monitor to use, so I feel pretty lucky. I intend to keep using the 180 the way I have for now.



  • Newsletter

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