Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/04/21 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    While I agree with 121 that lots of useful info can be found in reviews you need to read them thoroughly. I this case of lenstip while the Sony FE 90mm lens has excellent image quality they say the lens is slow, seems I have heard that somewhere else before. That is because it was tested on a Sony A7R II camera. We all agree that the lens on that camera was slow.
  2. 1 point
    Just to be clear WWL-1 came first and was designed for full frame (Sony 28mm F/2) even though it works very well with sub full frame cameras. Second WWL-1 can be fitted onto Nauticam flat ports in N85, N100 and N120. WACP was also designed for full frame and it can be purchased with N100 and N120 mounts the obvious difference is that WWWL-1 is a wet lens and WACP is a dry lens mounting directly to the housings port mount or port mount adapter. Both water contact lenses work with the new Sony FE 28-60 zoom and retain the full range of zoom. WWL-1 also works with Sony 28mm F/2 (130 degrees) while WACP works with the 28-60 and the older Sony FE 28-70mm which also zooms through the full range. Last the Sony FE 28-70mm works with the Nikon A line using the Teckart adapter and the WACP. This is the only lens that works with the Nikon Z line and allows for the full zoom through from 130 to 59 degrees. WWL-1 and WACP are close to rectilinear and would not be at all like a fisheye lens, just not apples to apples.
  3. 1 point
    Hi Wolfgang, To respond to your original post I have used I have used all of the Sony A7 series cameras from A7 II on up and including the A7R IV and new A7C. I have also used the Canon ESO R but not the newer R 5 & 6. I have also used the 90mm macro and Canon macro with the adapter on the latest Sony cameras and to me the native Sony lens is faster and more accurate than the Canon combination. I read the Backscatter review and I respect Jim Decker and his findings. The problem is that the Sony AF system can be complex to dial in and not all of use set it up the same way so AF results can very. I have also used the Canon 100M with adapter on Canon with mixed results. Canon"s AF has greatly improved since my EOS R test in 2019. Regarding the Sigma I tired out the 70mm macro and it was lacking in several ways, speed, extension (not able to fit in a macro port) and more. While I have not tested the Sigma 105mm macro the company CEO has stated that they placed the emphasis on IQ rather than speed, so I would expect it to be slower. While the Canon RF 85mm F/2 macro is a reasonably priced and fastens, it lacks the full 1:1 life size and is a 1:2 lens. This may very well work for many but most full frame macro shooters will prefer the 1:1.
  4. 1 point
    Why does it matter if there is a native fisheye available? If there is a fisheye option that gives just as good performance as you'd expect from a native option (i.e. equal IQ and AF performance), what does it matter that it doesn't say "Sony" on it? I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Are you being specific to Canon? You said "on full frame it is not possible to have alternative to the WACP". But, any Sony FF (i.e. a7 or a9 series) can use the Sony 28-60 lens with the WWL-1 fully and effectively, yes?
  5. 0 points
    They use the same camera for all the lenses test so that when they say it is slow it means it is slower compared to other sony mount So this is useful to assess lenses on a format. In our case the op wants to compare across formats this is much more difficult to do and there is no reference data handy
  6. 0 points
    read it again. Even with your lens fully open at f2.8 the EV of the scene is 11 which corresponds to 2200 lux this is more that you get on a surgeon table. Your camera has to focus before your strobes fire. So there is not plenty of light if there was focus lights would not be needed would they? I realise most people do not actually understand why cameras have issues underwater by reading the answers I get in this post Anyway as I actually don't need or use tracking either on land or underwater I leave it to you the experts to wonder why your cameras do not focus!
  7. 0 points
    Tracking works on the assumption that the frame is still and the object moves. It is called motion prediction. If the frame moves and as result the subject moves tracking fails you can see this yourself on land swaying the camera while you point at something. Some systems like Nikon 3D tracking (which works differently from mirrorless tracking) are effective in the 'swaying' mode. Is almost the only one the others all fail miserably
  8. 0 points
    Because you are using the camera at negative exposure numbers (most cameras AF refuses to work when the exposure meter is below -3 unless you are in manual focus) you are effectively in low light. The example that I provided is based already on wide aperture and goes to show that even at f/2.8 1/250 a typical macro shot the camera is expecting a level of brightness much higher of what it gets underwater. So the ability to focus in low light in fact matters because you are not exposing for middle grey as you use your flash to provide light This may be difficult to understand but this is the reason why cameras fail to focus underwater. If all was bright you may occasionally focus on something that is not what you wanted but rest assured the camera will focus. Try some garden macro and see it for yourself. With regards to tracking as a proxy of the diver moving this is resolved by the diver NOT moving not by the camera tracking. I know some people rely on those features but those are designed for the camera to be fixed and the subject to be moving as they are based on motion prediction so something has to be still relative to the other. The Olympus tracking Wolfgang mentions on land on a bright scene is mediocre at best. I would really like to see the hit rate of this shots. Nobody shooting a bird uses tracking today Cameras are moving in the direction of subject detection (i.e. identifying what is the subject in the frame) to then focus on it. This method has got the highest success rate. Unfortunately fish are not an animal the camera will detect The traditional tracking with motion vector on a mirrorless camera requires analysis of the frame which means it is operating exactly like in video mode. In the above f/2.8 example assuming a frame rate of 30 fps we are looking still at 9 EV which is still very very bright and nowhere near an underwater situation UNLESS you have a focus light. A modest focus light with a narrow beam of 60 degrees and 180 lumens at 1 foot provides 2292 Lux which is 9.8 Ev at that point the camera will be very happy to focus track and do whatever it needs to do Once light is provided almost any camera on the market can do the tracking job or any continuous autofocus A comparison like the op requested does not exist and it will not exist until someone goes in a pool and scientifically tries all those camera under constant illumination. Nobody does those things in the world of underwater photography so we are here to discuss things at libitum However who understands the mechanics of a camera usually takes the right decision in less time and ends up with all the shots in focus.
  9. 0 points
    It is in the port chart so I would say yes all lenses that are tiny in size and have a nodal point quite recessed can work When I said full frame I meant cameras with N120 port which Sony is not part of as they have N100 The WWL-1 however is not a fisheye and is just an alternative to WACP for those who want something like that
  10. 0 points
    Macro photography is low light by definition as you use small aperture fast shutter and low ISO If you put a focus light in the mix any camera can focus easily all the ideas you need tracking for macro etc for me are more wishful thinking and a proxy for the diver not the subject moving



  • Newsletter

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