Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/06/23 in Posts

  1. 5 points
    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
  2. 5 points
    To: Rabbit Fish, Alex Mustard and Phil Rudin, Sorry for my slow response as I don't always have the time to read posts here. The production WACP-C has a rear opening of 65mm, more or less the same as the "Dry Lens" prototype that has been with Alex. We have thickened the metal rim a little for production. Our team did have a serious overlook that a perfectly-matched Port Adaptor hadn't been built for using the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5, which should have to be a little shorter than 35 mm. We are working on the solution and should be able to decide the correct dimension by tomorrow. Edward
  3. 4 points
    Fun fact for those who own the Nauticam NA-A1 housing for Sony A1 if you remove the small stop on the camera tray (pictured) the A7R V fits perfectly into the housing and the back closes without the chance of damage to the new thicker LCD screen. All of the controls I use for the A1 seem to work on the A7R V as well. Resolves my dilemma about needing a second A1 as a backup.
  4. 4 points
    I was pleasantly surprised by Alex's enthusiasm for this mirrorless. Till now I imagined that Adam and Alex would still be discussing the advantages of the D850 for many years to come. Now I'm not sure any more..
  5. 4 points
    Just to follow up on this, my Nikonos 13mm to Sony E mount conversion appears to be a success. Autofocus and aperture work just like a native Sony E mount lens. Focuses right up to the front element. I still need to do some real world testing (I've been testing in a tub at home since it's winter), but hopefully I can start offering this conversion to others within several months. So it looks like the 13mm will live on into the mirrorless age!
  6. 3 points
    I fully agree with Adam, I know several folks that are still shooting Nikonos and Nikonos RS film cameras. I would expect the transition from DSLR to mirrorless to be about the same as the transition from film to digital, I know I went kicking and screaming from film long after many of my U/W photo friends went digital. On the issue of retirement this will be my twentieth year and I own the A1 and A7R V and I am not about to run to the end of any line. Just because you're old doesn't mean you need to act like it. I intend to try to have the best I can afford until I can't stand up with a tank on and then I will spend another decade exploring the wonders of shooting at the surface.
  7. 3 points
    I have tried everything suggested in these posts and finally found way to remove hard water spots and minor scratches from an old glass dome port! It took a LOT of work, but I was able to completely remove water spots and some very faint scratches from the port. When I hold it up to the light and look from the inside of the port, it is perfectly clear! The final test will be shooting a sunball or sunrays with it. I applied this product with a soft terry cloth, and rubbed vigorously. I had to repeat this 4-5 times and in a hour or so all the spots were gone. I found it on Amazon. Note: This is for a GLASS port!
  8. 3 points
    Hi, spent two weeks diving in British Columbia, North Vancouver Island. Because i felt a bit lazy and didnt want to became stressed i changed my lenses only once. The first week i kept the wide angle lense, the second week i only did macro with my EMWL setup. A good approach as i find. Moreover it was my second trip with my RED Komodo, but this time in a more colorful environemt compared to Greenland icebergs on my first trip. Enjoy watching!
  9. 3 points
    Nauticam should manage that instead of leaving it to end users Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. 2 points
    Phil, thnaks for this very valuable insight. Experience is appreciated. My 2 cents contribution : if you look at 1:2 macro , and not 1:1 to 1:2 range, you may then want to consider the Tamron series 20mm. 24mm and 35mm I am personally using the Tamron SP 20mm F/2.8 Di III OSD M1:2 Sony mount (at the moment around 250$US, super cheap) with a N100 100mm Dome port made for me by José at SAGA Dive (we have calculated the length of the port for best results). It offers SUPER fast AF, 1:2 Macro at 12 cm (the 35 mm version at 16cm) and a FOV of 95° Here an example (the crayfish) specifically chosen to illustrate low-light conditions (as we have here in the Lake of Zurich in Switzerland, very cold water, dry-suit mandatory), here with Backscatter MF-1 strobe/snoot The second is to illustrate Macro (1:2) with wide angle perspective, way much cheaper as with the EMWL from Nauticam.
  11. 2 points
    As ColdDarkDiver and fruehaufsteher2 said there are benefits to compacts, especially any 1" sensor cameras from Canon and Sony (the most popular.) I've used both and today use a Canon G7X II in Fantasea housing. I left the SLR housing / strobe(s) / larger travel footprint behind in 2016 for many reasons. Compacts are cheaper (I routinely see clean used Canon G7X II for $350 USD or less) and the housing and any accessories are smaller and lighter making travel much easier. Battery life isn't as much of a problem. I can change a camera battery between dives in about 60 seconds even on a boat once prepared with a dry towel, etc. Depending how many shots per dive I can get a couple dives usually. If shooting all ambient I've got over 800 shots such as with whale sharks in Philippines as an example. I've made large prints from compact images underwater and surface and they look fine. Post processing even as simple as Apple Photos I use works fine. As others in this thread posted many times people could never tell the difference in well exposed post processed photos. Obsession on corner sharpness plus people zooming in to 100/200/300% means little in today's imaging world, especially for typical UW photo enthusiasts. I spend my $$$$ on travel and experiences these days David Haas Random Indonesia shots, some ambient light and some using two small Inon S2000 strobes on S-TTL.
  12. 2 points
    I have provided the exact calculation. The cut is almost an hemisphere is will support up to 175 degrees The image that you provided is more dramatic in reality the line is very close to the diameter
  13. 2 points
    Here some examples (thenks to Lightroom and search tools). Not the shots i am most prpoud of (on the contrary, but just to answer your question). Not talking about cornes, you see also that at f/8, the the depth of filed drops dramatically. 3 photos at 100 ISO. 1/40th (f/9) or 1/60th (f/8), 15mm Fisheye behind 140mm DP
  14. 2 points
    Gentlemen, we all are gentlemen on Wetpixel forum. Let's go back to the discussion. We were talking about A7rV and A1. Not mentioned yet, but this was also published a few month ago on DPG : https://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-special-features/article/review-sony-alpha-1-a1-nauticam-housing/ "A Dependable Workhorse No Matter How Tough the Task". Cannot agree more as I am using the A1. for now 14 months. Here an example of the combo : Sony A1, Nauticam NA-A1, Sony 12-24 F/4 here at 20mm , Nauticam Dome Port 230 ISO800, f/16, 1/60th . Photo is uncropped. Purpose is just and only to look at the corners as there was so much debate on this topic from all you guys.
  15. 2 points
    I think Pacific Housing Repair is great. I've been shooting YS-D1s since 2013. I've had PHR do 3 repairs over the years (Including the one he's currently working on - flash tube). I keep thinking that I'm going to upgrade to newer strobes, but Devon is still able to fix them for a pretty reasonable price (Far less than I could buy a used one for). He pressure tests the strobes before returning them, and he's an authorized S&S repair shop so he checks them against factory specs before returning them. He's quite knowledgeable. He usually asks a few question and asks me to maybe do a simple test, and he's been very good at immediately knowing what the problem is and if he thinks it will be economically feasible to fix it. But expect it to take 2-3 months. I have and travel with 3 strobes so if one needs repair, I still have 2. https://www.pacifichousingrepair.com/ P.S. If you decide to upgrade, I might be interested in buying yours.
  16. 2 points
    1. When compact had 28-100mm equivalent and you could use a fixed port the key benefit was flexibility of use with wet lenses. When ports are required to use all lenses this benefit vanishes which is the reason why in the first place I moved out of the Sony RX system 2. Autofocus is generally weaker as most are contrast detect and have slow lenses with small physical aperture, however those cameras due to crop have lots of depth of field so you don't need to be as accurate 3. Actually not as long as the flash syncs at 1/1000 and faster you can overcome most limits This is a now vintage album with my RX100 https://flic.kr/s/aHsjZczii3 I was one of two compact cameras on the boat and my images were on par wit some larger formats I lacked compositional technique otherwise they would have been better
  17. 2 points
    It makes it look like current e-mount macro choices are not good but that is definitely not the case The camera market is driven by top side not underwater use cases The Sony 90mm and the Sigma 105mm are excellent macro lenses with resolution that is unprecedented in DSLR For reference the resolution of the Sony 90mm on a A7RIV is almost 3x the Nikkor 105mm with the D850 and the sigma is even better on the Sony E-mount The sony 90mm being optimised for topside has a very nice focus clutch for manual focus and has OSS all those features have incredible value if you are shooting what a topside shoooter uses a macro lens for which is NOT bugs, flies anything that moves very fast Things that move fast topside are normally shot using a telephoto lens and extension tubes or close up filters There used to be much longer macro primes 180 200 or 300 mm for shooting bugs but those have gone a bit in the backburner The primary issue with the 90mm (the sigma is worse) is when it changes from infinity to 1:1 this is where it can hunt but to say this is a lens that is lacking is a bit harsh considering this is one lens that will actually resolve the 61 megapixels the A7RIV/V are capable of Maybe is more a case that concidentally some DSLR macro lenses also focussed a bit faster than you would expect than to say that Sony E-mount is sloppy Full disclosure I have the lens and it does hunt at time and it is not fast to go through a full range scan but I would not think this makes it a show stopper for any use case. Yes would like it to be better but I am not sure this will happen in any mirrorless format
  18. 2 points
    Youtube destroyed all the dark details, but I can't embed Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/793095943 shot on RED KOMODO, Tokina cine 11-20
  19. 2 points
    I successfully used a Boomerang carnet for travel with 2x Nauticam housings from my home in WA state to Baja (SJD airport) in April 2022. My cost was just over $500 for about $21k of gear. No problems. But you need to schedule your flights to allow enough time to deal with the customs' inspections/stamps/paperwork. I will be traveling with the same gear to SJD again in March 2023, and if all goes as advertised, will be able to use the same carnet again. But not again after that, as it is valid for 1 year only.
  20. 2 points
    This was the question from Rabbit Fish back on page eight, Has anyone used the WACP-C with the Nikon 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 + D850/Nauticam? The lens is listed in the port chart as having a reduced zoom range (34-70) over the WACP-1 when used with a 35 mm N120 to N100 35mm Port Adaptor that Nauticam recommends. I would hate to loose 13 degrees on the low end. I was hoping this issue can be fixed with a slightly longer extension. This was my suspicion and the explanation for the reduction in the zoom range. I think I can shed some light on this issue. When Alex Mustard first commented in this thread he described a WACP-C like lens he has been using for several years that was a prototype for what is now call the WACP-1. If I understand correctly and Alex can correct me if I am wrong, he was able to use the Nikon 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5 with full zoom through. I have both lenses in house at the moment and made some quick measurements today. The rear element of the production WACP-1 is 73mm (give or take a MM) while the production WACP-C has a rear element that is 58mm (give or take). The approximately 15mm difference explained why the 28-70 is losing AOV over the WACP-1 and apparently Alex's prototype. I suspect that Alex prototype lens may have a larger rear element than the production version WACP-C. The Nikon lens has a 55mm filter thread while the Sony 28-60mm has a 40.5mm filter thread size which I believe makes it too large to work with WACP-C on Nikon DSLR cameras. On Nikon Z-cameras the adapted older Sony FE 28-70mm with 55mm filter thread gives full zoom through unlike the Z 24-70mm F/4s.
  21. 2 points
    My apologies for the belated reply. I was going to do some more pool testing on the RF 16mm and also the RF14-35 and see how they do in a 6 inch dome port as well ( the previous ones were in a 8 inch dome) but the diving didnt materialise. So I had to revert to the old laundry tub test. I am happy to say that the 16mm is pretty darn good even in the 6 inch dome port! I have included a tub picture uncropped at f11. The 14-35 at 14mm is great in a 8 inch dome at f8' but in the 6 inch dome you need at least f11. The housing manufacturers are all over the map with their recommendations for port extensions for this lens in smaller domes for good reason. I tried multiple length combinations without finding a particularly sweet spot. Needless to say, the more you zoom in, the less of a problem you have. To answer your question about the lens profile corrections, it helps for distortion and vignetting but does not help you with soft corners.
  22. 2 points
    I am also here in the PNW (with drygloves) and the primary selling point for me is the ability to switch between the WWL-1 to CMC-1 macro and back... I often switch at least once a dive, it isn't hard if you have good mounts for it; but it does take a good 30-45 seconds of concentration and isn't as easy as a flip filter, but still easy enough...
  23. 2 points
    After the Ring Trilogy, the Coral Trilogy could not be missed! English Subtitles Available! In the summer of 2022, we were involved in a citizen science project collaborating with Dr. Martina Coppari of the Università Politecnica delle Marche on a study on the reproduction of the Mediterranean black coral, Antipathella subpinnata. It was an opportunity not to be missed for us to package a "trilogy" of videos documenting all the work done by teams of divers in the water led by university biologists. In the first of three episodes, after a lecture on the reproductive biology of these beautiful hexacorals, the technical divers dive on a black coral forest at 70-80 meters (230-260 ft) to take the samples needed to census the Antipathella colonies under study.
  24. 2 points
    I second what Isaac wrote. Using the N15 for CFWA is leagues behind new tools such as the EMWL. With the N15 lens one had to use as small an aperture as possible such as f/22 and use the depth of field scale to fit the subjects and then "guess aim" the rig at the subject(s). There were a lot of failures plus the DOF scale assumes only a modest final image size such as the size of a page in a book. Many N15 images would not make the grade with today's pixel peeing. I have a couple of shots attached that show the DOF on the side of the N15 lens (the second or N version that is needed for TTL bodies as well as digital sensors).
  25. 2 points
    Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't follow. The Nikonos 15mm has a close focus of around 8" from the front element, which I'm not sure even qualifies as CFWA these days (it's also not as wide as most people want). If you also consider the RS system then the 13mm can focus to around 2" from the front element, which is actually pretty good. However, nowadays we have the Nauticam EMWL (perhaps the best ever CFWA tool), the Nauticam WWL-1 and WACP-C that can focus up to the front element, fisheyes in minidomes that can focus up to the dome, the Laowa 24mm probe, and many others. Plus the Nikonos lenses can still be used on modern digital cameras if you want. So in my view we have much better CFWA options now than back in the Nikonos days.
  26. 2 points
    Are you referring to the Nikonos closeup kit where you had to persuade fishes to swim into the metal frame?
  27. 2 points
    In a similar thread on the WACP-1 several users were taking the storage cover with them into the water and using a verity of methods to clip it off on a BCD or other anchoring spot. I have used a 180mm dome port cover for WACP-1 with velcro fasteners and just anchored it to my BCD. With the WACP-1 on Sony you have the N100 to N120 port adapter with the wheel that holds one side of the port cover. With WACP-C on Sony you use an N100 30mm port extension so it would be harder to anchor the cover to the WACP-C.
  28. 2 points
    Thank you David for that walk down memory lane. Todays equipment regardless of what you buy is better than what we were using in 1990's. At the time I was using the attached Aquatica housing with a Nikon-F series camera and a 20mm which the sprites shot were taken with. Doubilet has two Nikonos cameras around his neck with different wide lenses and a housing with macro port in the second image. Now we will resume our assigned topic of discussion.
  29. 2 points
    Very well said.......Like many I came through the days of Nikonos, housed SLR film cameras (Aquatica and Ikelite) and since 2016 compacts for ease of travel and just plain enjoyable diving. I still enjoy reading about technology and the WWL / WACP developments are incredible. But as lambee01 stated a lot of discussion here is on "measurbating" specs versus impact of an image..... National Geographic photographers from David Doubilet, Jennifer Hayes, Brian Skerry, Laurent Ballesta and many more don't care about corner sharpness and neither do their publishers. Cropping any photo will improve the impact of a picture as I'm sure most who enjoy photography do anyway. If I ever went back to a mirrorless or SLR I'd simply use dome ports with a decent wide angle lens, fixed or zoom. I personally prefer a non-fisheye image but recognize post processing can correct mild curvature (like Canon 8-15mm at 15mm) in post. With zooms my last SLR years I never put a zoom gear on it. Set one focal length and go down and shoot a lot. My housing was easy to open the back, slide camera out and turn the barrel. Go back down at a different focal length all without disturbing the dome port and shoot some more. In 1990 Phil Rudin (a long time friend) and I spent 5 days with National Geographic photographer David Doubilet in West Palm Beach, Florida. We learned a lot! Although gear was a part of image creation the most important thing David said was something like this: "The most valuable component to imaging is time in the water. National Geographic has been generous allowing me to make images due to that benefit." I've been lucky diving 54 years this year (and still going.) Looking back on my pictures I was lucky for lots of time underwater and enjoyed myself immensely. I captured memories I enjoy looking back and sharing with friends and family and yes, I had a few published. Not comparing me to Doubilet or other greats of course....... Just one old guy's opinion and I hope you all get "more time in the water" to enjoy subsea image making David Haas
  30. 2 points
    @Interceptor121 @Alex_Mustard @Phil Rudin Dear fellow underwater photographers This is now weeks if not months that I am following up and reading all the posts on the three topics : - the Nauticam WACP-C, - the fisheye and - the recently launched Sony FE 28-60 f/4-f/5.6 These are great discussions and a lot of insight has been given in addition to my own private exchanges and communications to some of you. I am into underwater photography for more than 30 years having started with the Nikonos III then V, moving into analog (slides/positive) SLR into housings. Of course today digital SLR. FYI I'm today using a Sony A1 and a Sony A7rIV in Nauticam housings. For the last almost 10 years, if I have upgraded cameras and housings I am still using the same 230, 180, 140 and 100 mm dome ports depending on the lens that I am using ranging from 15 mm Fisheye, 14mm, 20mm, 28mm , zoom12-24 and of course 16-35 in addition to 50 and 90mm Macro . It happens to me that I am using also at 24-70 but very rarely. I had made progress in UW photography with the right mentors such as Jim Church, Michael Aw, Heinz-Gert de Couet, Martin Edge, Mark Webster. And I have even some book from Alex Mustard who has published under the 3 topics I mentioned before. I have been myself published in some diving magazines (i.e EZ-Dive, Tauchen, Oceans, Plongee) in addition to Travel or general purpose magazines for a total of nearly 60 publications. As I am getting older I have been looking at the option of WACP-C just for easier traveling, minimizing what we have to carry to live our passion. It is amazing all what the innovation and progress that Nauticam has brought to the field. Really fantastic. I have lived the huge leaps and jump from SUBAL or SEACM to Nauticam. However and this is the reason of this long message, for the last 25 years I have not heard anyone complaining about corner softness when using wide angle lenses behind a dome. It is a well-known fact, known since Dome ports do exist, simply because it's optical physics. We know about it and we know how to balance it. I have not heard in 25 years a single reader of any book or publication complaining about corner softness, but always being amazed by the beauty of the underwater world, which is what we want to communicate as underwater photographers. I have not heard of a single publisher refusing images because of corner softness. Not a single image in any competition is denied entry because corners are not sharp enough. At the end and this is my position today I have decided to not move into the WACP-C and keep my domes. We need to keep in mind that today such progress has been made on camera sensors that we should not have any fears going high on ISO, and closing aperture at F11 to F16, which ensure corner sharpness as we expect. If I could not do it at the age of films (VELVIA, PROVIA 100 or 400) , it happens to me many times today that I soot at 800 if not 1600 ISO with my A1. And images are perfect. Even for my publishers who might be the same as yours. I have reached a point today that I do not need a zoom underwater because before diving I almost know which picture I want to take and it drives the choice of my lens, a prime lens of course and not a zoom. If there is a direction that Nauticam or any manufacturer should take for the future, it is to develop third party wet lenses, that would mount directly on the housing AND the camera, exactly as Nikon did in the past with the Nikonos line of lenses. I am not personally dreaming of WACP-1 or -2 or -C, but of an auto focus, camera controlled aperture , prime 15 mm lens exactly as was the Nikonos 15 that I am still using on my Nauticam housings with the right adapters. This would be a real progress. Without any arrogance, I believe that zoom lenses for underwater use such as the 28-60 are for recreational underwater photographers, hence they don't care about corner softness or sharpness and would not be ready to pay the price very high of such wet lenses as WACP line. If you are much more into semi professional or even professional UW photography, you go for professional lenses and would apply what I mentioned above. Thanks everyone for all the discussions on that 3 topics on Wetpixel, and I am looking forward to any comments on the above. Eric
  31. 2 points
    To illustrate this, defishing a fisheye shot, using a picture in my catalog (manual distortion correction pulled at +100), from a 15mm (on Full Frame). Edit Original fisheye shot Defisheyed shot (manual distortion correction set to +100, rather extreme but it illustrates well what Wolfgang had mentioned)
  32. 2 points
    If I understand the problem correctly it is not a camera issue. The camera does not need to be recognized a Sony proprietary flash. I am using the one pin flash trigger on a Marelux housing to fire the A7R V at 1/250th using fiber optics. It also syncs with the A1 at 1/400th in full frame and 1/500th in APS-C mode. My tests flash is with the Backscatter MF-1 and 2 also with a pair of Inon Z-330's. I suspect your issue is with the flash trigger. For the Sony A1 to sync above 1/250th using a one pin flash trigger you need to go into the pink menu, go to flash #4 them, Flash Sync Spd. Pray and turn on. This will allow the trigger to Sony at 1/400th and 1/500th. Also I keep the Flash mode set to Flash-Fill at all times. Flash Sync Spd. Pray does not does not show in the A7R V menu.
  33. 2 points
    All is not lost for those that love the S2000. There is a sucessor to the S2000 in the pipeline, hopefully launching in the next couple of months, the D220 I think, guide number 22, with ? 3 or 4 different screw on diffusers, also the D200 is available. Problems with sourcing parts for Z330.
  34. 2 points
    Regarding the Canon 8-15mm fisheye I have been using it on Sony since A7R II with the Metabones and more recently with the Sigma MC-11 with A7R IV, A7C, A7 IV, A1 and now A7R V. My Metabones is third generation and I can't speak to later versions but I can say that it is much slower with A1 and A7R V than the Sigma. I suspect the issue is with the Metabones and not the A7R V. I have also used the Canon 8-15 and Nikon 8-15 with native adapters on Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras and I have seen no performance differences with native lens adapters. As Alex stated above the 28-60 is much faster than the older Sony 28-70. The 28-60 can do 30 AF adjustments per second while the 28-70 can only so about 15. This is the case with the 8-15mm's, they are slower in general caming from the DSLR era. I have used the Sony A1 underwater since March 2021 with the Canon 8-15 and a host of other lenses both Sony and after market and AF is still faster than the A7R V and way faster than A7R IV.
  35. 2 points
    I was starting to struggle with reading my computer. My first response was to buy a larger computer, so I purchased a Shearwater Perdix 2. My vision struggles continued, and I felt like it was turning into a safety issue. I sent my mask off to See the Sea and did my first dive last week. All I can say is wow, I can see again! If you have an HSA account, you can use the funds to purchase the prescription lenses.
  36. 2 points
    I had the opportunity to try the RF 16mm again recently at Sodwana in South Africa. The images are all uncropped and shot at f8.0. I still think my go to wide angle lens will be my 8-15mm as the corners are are definitely better. However the 16 is very acceptable imo for the center 80 per cent of the image. So for the dolphin dive it was great and very convenient being so small and light and not requiring any extensions. Throw in the very reasonable cost and you have a good reason to have it in your arsenal!
  37. 2 points
    Indeed, I love their overviews, but honestly I've never once seen an unfavourable "review" from them ☺
  38. 2 points
    I sent my damaged Nauticam viewfinder to Nauticam, they fixed it and now it is like new. To give you an idea of your possible cost, the repair was some $600, for an $1,800 viewfinder. Maybe first email them the photo and ask for an estimate. https://www.nauticam.com/pages/contact-us
  39. 2 points
    Yet companies provide MFT and technical data for lenses so if the test is objective this is not an issue Without the support of Nauticam or a shop this test cannot happen. There is no rental on this stuff normally and if there is it is expensive. I cannot think why anybody would fork it Nauticam has got 3 products there it would help if they would do those test and share them with the public so we don't have to entertain ourselves with theory and conjuctures I guess once you have a test there is still a decision from the consumer of which product is right for them. Not everyone would go for the best but it helps to know the definition Otherwise we will continue with our subjective evaluations which are also fine as many people consider budget or weight as priority over IQ
  40. 2 points
    I think Phil explains it pretty clearly. Underwater photography is a hobby for me. I purchased a WACP-C although I have no doubt that the -1 is better, but I spent a lot of time looking at weight, diameter, length, my packing preferences and the luggage restrictions of various airlines, and concluded the -1 was a no-go (I also added up the total weight of my setup with the WACP-1 and calculated the likelihood I would have the nerve to ask boat crews to hand it down and take back on dives and the chances of me not suffering medical issues from carrying the thing around a dive resort). I posted a picture some posts back in this thread of the WACP-C in my "personal item" bag that fits under the seat of any aircraft and I can also fit it in a cabin-legal carry-on. I don't check cameras or lenses and to me, the WACP is more of a lens than a port. The WACP-1 would simply not travel well for me and would be restricted to only specific trips. The -C can go with me anytime I want. I would think anyone without those space and weight concerns would be better served by the -1. If I encounter anyone with a WACP-1 on a dive trip, I would love to try it out for a couple of dives, and then give it back when it is time to pack and fly home.
  41. 2 points
    I can't speak for Alex but I have both WACP-1 and WACP-C and I have used both with the same camera and lens so I am able to access the differences between the two. I am guessing that Alex has done the same. My preference for WACP-C is based more on ease of use rather than the one F/stop difference between the two. Also Alex is a Professional Photographer supporting his family off of his work. While I am also paid for my work but I am a retired Professional Police Officer living off my pension and investments. The inference being that the very highest image quality may be more important for Alex.
  42. 2 points
    It appears that I am the first on Wetpixel to have used the Sony A7R V in the field and so I will try to answer a few more questions and make some observations. First I have used the A7R V with one lens the Sony FE 28-60 zoom for the purpose of testing the new Nauticam WACP-C. I chose the R V camera because high MP (61) cameras reveal flaws in lenses that lower MP cameras may not make so obvious. I currently have Nauticam and Marelux A1 housings in house and the A7R V would only fit the Nauticam housing because of the different design philosophies between the two housings. Please be aware that I review many of these systems for UWPMAG.com and other outlets, so my approach is different than many personally owned systems, Lets start with apples to apples, I see no upside to making a comparison of the A1 to the A7R V any more than comparing the A1 to the A7 IV or the Ikelite A1 housing to the Nauticam A1 housing. Most folks buy gear with a fairly narrow price point in mind. They also often buy equipment that exceeds current skill levels in hopes that better equipment rather than time in the water will improve results. This is true for terrestrial photographers as well bashing manufactures for not releasing an F/1.2 lens rather than a F/1.4 lens when many will see no difference in their results. Regarding the Sony A7R V it has several improvements over the A7R IV and R III and several other cameras at the same price point. One thing that Sony does more than other manufactures is trickle down new tech to lower price point cameras. The new A7R V and A7 IV have the same basic AF tech as the A-1 but with a big difference. The A7R V and A7 IV both have BSI-CMOS sensor while the Sony A-1 has a Stacked-CMOS sensor. What this means is that apples to apples, the A-1 is always going to have faster readout speeds than any camera without a Stacked sensor. This means that all data including AF speed will be faster. So no the A7R V will never AF as fast as A-1, it does however have updated AI technology that allows it to acquire some subjects more easily. They have also included in addition to people eyes, bird eyes, human body movement, insect detection and much more. Insect detection is about as close to U/W animal detection as we have seen so far. This is something I intend to test with a macro lens when I get a proper housing. Other tech has been added to this camera not found in the A7R IV/III models. Some of these things may influence you to buy and others may not matter to you. The A7R V can use the CF express type A cards which move data faster, if you are using older cards your performance will lag just as it does not having a stacked sensor. This tech has trickled down from the $6500.00 A-1 to the $3900.00 A7R V and the $2500.00 A7 IV. The 5.76M-DOT EVF from A7R IV has been replace by the outstanding 9.44M-DOT X0.9 EVF from the A-1. IBIS has gone from the 5.5 stopsR IV to 8 stops R V. As Alex pointed out above the A7R V has a sync speed of 1/250th of a second with mechanical shutter while the A1 has a 1/400th FF 1/500th APS-C sync speed. To be able to reach 1/400th on full frame with a mechanical sensor has nothing to do with the stacked sensor. Sony had to completely redesign the mechanical shutter by in the simplest of terms adding springs to accelerate the shutter movement over 1/250th of a second. This complete redesign did not make it into the much less expensive A7R V. This will also never make it into a camera like the Z9 with which highest sync is 1/200th sec. This is because when shooting stills with flash and an electronic shutter speeds much above 1/200th how a distortion similar to rolling shutter. As Alex pointed out you can equip the A7R V with a flash trigger that will work with HSS strobes like the Retra's or the new Backscatter MF-2's to get above 1/250th with mechanical shutter.
  43. 2 points
    Out with the old battery pack, in with the new! The 3,300 mAh NiMH batteries I purchased via the WalMart website fit in the casing perfectly.
  44. 2 points
    This is the translating from the Inon.co.jp site. It confirms the Z-330 has been discontinued and that a new flash is being developed. "Production of the underwater strobe "Z-330 Type 2" will be discontinued. After that, please note that only the stock of each dealer will be sold. 「Z-330 Type2」 ¥75,800-(excl. tax)/¥83,380-(tax included) JAN code:4570018120572 Z-330 Type2 We are diligently developing a successor strobe to meet your expectations. As soon as the sale is confirmed, it will be announced on this website. We look forward to your continued patronage of our products." December 21, 2022 Inon Corporation
  45. 2 points
    In manual mode everything looks normal. There is no ambient light on the images, the light on the 1/400 is less due to longer flash duration. The maximum power flash duration is about 4ms. This is more or less standard on any flashgun with a circular flash tube. With a linear flash tube we can usually get shorter times, about 1-2ms. It seems that with Sony A1 they allow the slightly higher sync speed only by using the later. As Adam explained with a practical example there is plenty of light available from the Retra Flash Pro X to light up large reefs. I am not sure why you are not getting that much light in your image. Please write to us at: info@retra-uwt.com We will go through more testing and find out!
  46. 1 point
    example #2.: Inside SS Thistlegorm. I apologize for the backscatter that I did not remove in the example images, but is irrelevant for the comparison. In the image that I normally show to the others, backscatter has been removed in PS, but I am not able to adjust fisheye correction in the final image version... ISO 200, f 9.0, 1/200s uncorrected image (For my taste the front wheel and the face of the diver appear, just a little bit, too "bold"): 40% correction (this version, with backscatter removed, I show to others): 100% correction (too much for my taste):
  47. 1 point
    I'm more a fan of a independent review of a third party with no close alignment to the vendor. People like brand ambassadors are to close to related to the company and won't be able to present all good and bad points...
  48. 1 point
    Nikon and Canon have started later on autofocus at present Sony is still the leader not sure when and if this gap can be closed especially as mirrorless autofocus relies on sensor read is not a separate architecture The 90mm lens hunts it does it also on land you don't need to go into blackwater diving to find out. I don't have any other lens that has this behaviour but comparing other mirrorless systems it can happen When it comes to Sony the alternative Sigma 105 is apparently even slower to acquire focus so this remains a challenge in the sony eco system I do not know how the new RF and Z macro lenses perform but a lot will depend on the lens not just on the autofocus of the camera The other challenge of mirrorless cameras that in dark conditions they will need to start dropping frame rate to focus and pump up gain which means you could have trouble seeing what you are trying to focus if this moves and if you don't let the camera drop the frame rate it may not focus at all It has always been obscure to me how nikon 3d tracking works but I suspect this is an off sensor mechanism specialised in tracking RGB patches that may do a better job in low light than a mirrorless camera that has phase difference pixels on the sensor
  49. 1 point
    Hi Shane, Not sure if you have seen this discussion that is active in the Beginners Forum (largely involving non-beginners): But it discusses a lot of this. I went the reader route for a while when my eyes started to go and found them to be annoying. That wasn't part of my view that I used for photography or reading and so ended up getting a mild prescription mask instead - so much better. In my opinion the readers/bifocals are good for reading dive computers/ air levels but not for image/video collection. Yes to what you are saying though, super annoying not to be able to nail focus (or even read shutter speeds/iso any camera settings). Good luck finding a solution!
  50. 1 point
    I have one and shoot it with the nikon 60mm on full frame. For best results, I'd say f10-f14 on full frame is generally where I shoot it at. I quite enjoy it. It'll focus right onto the lens and I find because it sticks out a bit from the housing because its attached to the front of a macro port it makes it easy to light subjects right on the front element. A few examples below. Please don't judge IQ from these, they're downsized and there is a lot of compression

Sponsors

Advertisements



  • Newsletter

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