Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/22/22 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    Hergen here. Phil let me know about this thread. The article I wrote is still up: https://www.nauticam.com/blogs/news/halmahera-with-the-na-a7iv With every system there is an optimum configuration based on what's available and what you want to do with it (video/stills/reefs/blue water). My observation was that with the Sony A7IV (and other A7 models such as A1, A7SIII), the current combination of WWL-1B and the 28-60mm is extremely compact and is able to deliver real wold results that are difficult to differentiate from WACP-1 with the added benefit of being a wet-lens, meaning you also have 28-60mm behind a flat port or throw on CMC-1/2 for macro. It's also smaller and lighter weight than WACP-1, great for travel and situations where a smaller rig is beneficial. If you are moving between systems that may not have an ideal option (or any option) for WWL-1B, the WACP-1 may be a better option. I have not yet used WACP-C so cannot comment on that.
  2. 3 points
    Hergan and I have known each other for several years and I respect his opinion regarding how well WWL-1/1B works with the Sony FE 28-60mm. It is a very compelling kit because it can also be used with closeup lenses like the CMC-1/2. With cameras like A7s 12MP and A7 IV 24MP I agree that you would be hard pressed to see a large difference V. WACP-1. With higher res cameras like A7R IV 61MP and A-1 50MP the gap begins to widen especially at the 28mm 130 degree end of the lens. I also think 121 missed the part of the Edward Lai interview where he described the Sony 28-60 "kit" lens performance as being I believe the word he used as astounding and explained that mass production reduces cost but not always quality. Just to assume that a "kit" lens is always going to be low quality is wrong.
  3. 3 points
    I can vouch for the WWL-1B + 28-60mm setup. It takes fantastic photos, and for pelagics (particularly when Freediving), the zoom through is really useful. Here are two galleries from recent trips using this setup: - https://www.shanesmith.photos/Recent-Adventures/Underwater-2022/Fiji-Highlights-2022/ (almost all of the wide angle shots here are with the WWL-1B, with the exception of the split shot and a few of the coral wide-angle landscapes, which were taken with the Canon 8-15mm). I used the zoom through extensively with the bull sharks on this trip. - https://www.shanesmith.photos/Recent-Adventures/Underwater-2022/Lady-Elliot-Island-August-2022/ (All shot with the 28-60 + WWL-1B, as it was the only lens I took on this trip)
  4. 2 points
    Sorry I think my post come across the wrong way many time What kicked this off was the discussion about corner sharpness vs a rectilinear lens None of those optics are rectilinear so the comparison is misleading. If you want straight lines you need to buy a wide lens and a large dome this is not changing any time soon. Then there is another trend about how much better are the WACP 1 2 C vs the wet lens which is also an interesting topic however this comparison is really only true for the Sony system as other systems do not have a wet lens And finally the argument of WACP vs fisheye zoom which is also not particular fit for purpose as the wet optics stop at narrowed angle but perhaps a better comparison than the rectilinear lens case It is great to have choice but sometimes there are some predicaments about this is better than that with no actual support data or even not comparable data and when someone then goes and does some measures like those german guys did surprises happen
  5. 2 points
    As others have pointed out, the optics of your equipment are extremely limiting once you move away from the center. I'll point out that should you actually go to the logical extreme of getting a big dome port and suitable lens/camera to put behind it, you will still have corner issues. I addressed that with yet more gear, adding a Sea & Sea Internal Correction Lens. Finally I had something that gave 'decent' corners. But the cost! Not just $$ cost, but the cost in portability, and ease of diving. I have a 230mm dome port that is a real pain to travel with, and it's a pain to carry (rig weighs 26 pounds out of the water), and it's big with lots of drag while diving. So - big dome ports are the answer to one problem, and the cause of 3 or 4 more. Here is a bit of advice to have better corners with what you currently have. You need to work around the weaknesses of your equipment. So... 1. stop down, a lot. Go shoot a scene, perhaps with a lot of lettuce coral from side-to-side, the underwater equivalent of a brick wall. Just take some test shots wide open, stopped down a stop, then 2 stops, then 3, etc. Find out if there is any appreciable improvement with some minimum f-stop, and start shooting stopped down at least that far. 2. Be careful with focus points. You may want to focus slightly closer than your subject to move the plane of best focus forward a bit to include more foreground. 3. Try to avoid foregrounds that are significantly closer than the plane of focus on the subject. This is where you corners probably look the absolute worse - focused 6 feet away, but with corner elements coming in several feet closer. 4. Shamelessly crop out the edges and corners. Plan ahead with your framing for this. 5. Wet lenses (small dome) might help. I'm not sure how much though. Don't ever expect much from the corners of a flat port with anything wide angle.
  6. 2 points
    I think you are not understanding what I said First the 28-60mm is a cheap lens made of plastic in China and is slow that does not mean it lacks sharpness. On land lenses are praised not just for sharpness (almost any lens is sharp enough) but because they operate at wide aperture and perform better in certain conditions those are made of metal and in most cases made in Japan or in other authorised factory with higher quality standards. When you look at how this lens does at 28mm and compare even with the 16-35mm 2.8 the resolution figures at f/5.6 are very similar there is no gap to be closed However there are other cases like the canon or nikon where the cheaper lens falls way behind the most expensive 16-35mm lens with sharpness falling around 20-30 in the centre and a bit less but still enough in the sides Which means that when you look at the curve that Alex Mustard has put there your starting point for the better lens is 30% upper in terms of resolution and the curves meet at more than 30-40 degrees away from the centre So it is not possible to generalise that in all conditions even in the centre a water contact optics beat a superior wide angle optic and moreover the water contact optics does not make a lens sharper it just corrects certain chromatic aberrations better than a dome which is in effect a lens made with a single element as you move towards the edges. Finally I do not buy the idea that Adam seems to suggest in the video but actually Edwards does not mention that a dry solution is much better than a wet solution because in most cases the wet lens is extremely close to the port and that thin layer of water is thin enough not to make a major difference anyway. So I am not surprised that perceptually someone may try the WACP and WWL-1 with the same lens and conclude that the difference is not that much. The fact is that for certain format there is no wet lens option therefore generalised comparisons are not possible.
  7. 2 points
    Glad to be of help. The biggest and most expensive is not always the best for every situation. Sometimes a certain combination just works extremely well together and deliver results.
  8. 2 points
    having owned and shot the wacp-1 and shot the wwl-1 for several months, if a lens could use both options, I'd not even consider the wacp-1 considering both size and price. I personally haven't seen anything compelling about the wacp over the wwl in terms of image quality, looking at images of mine side by side from both, good luck finding a difference. Perhaps wide open there is an advantage for the WACP but realistically, how often are the majority of us shooting wide angle at apertures that wide? This is not to dump on the WACP, it is a phenomenal optic, but is it worth 4 times the price of the wwl...well...
  9. 2 points
    Stunning pics Shane! Great to see your recent pictures in Fiji ! Alex (from Maldives)
  10. 1 point
    Thanks, I run with retras as well but for shooting. I guess I'll go for some powerful wide beam lights for shallow bonfires. Hopefully enough to attract some life. Thanks!
  11. 1 point
    All you're doing is getting me excited to get back into the water. I'm hoping to finish up my DM requirements in Oct then I will be getting back into diving for photography. Thank for these photos. Also, how close are you to these creatures I feel the octos would be skittish but I haven't dove with them
  12. 1 point
    Nobody bothers measuring them as it is very difficult to measure a flash vs continuous light. If all flashs were equal there would not be a reason why cheap ones product ugly light and expensive ones nice light The same that happens on land goes underwater Users are fixated on the bulb and do not look at the whole system, it is the combination of bulb, reflector, front port that makes the beam not just the bulb I think a perfect example of this is Ikelite they have circular bulbs however I think the design is a bit dated and falls way behind some of the newer strobes but also some of the old strobes. The Sea and Sea YS-D250 being the first large scale Japanese product that were indeed very well designed but heavier and more expensive to make. Seacam first and OneUW and Retra later show how the end to end design can turn into a better outcome but there is more than the shape of the bulb I also agree with David Hicks that technique is far more important and you can get good results from the Z330 and from any strobe for that matter if you know how to position the strobes I would urge the op to try what David and I have recommended which is to use inward lighting and forget about the color temperature for a moment as that is not going to change the subject as you correctly pointed out
  13. 1 point
    It was your comment that made no sense as ‘large pelagic’ and people do not hang on the reef but are midwater so the corners don’t matter If you see some difference may be down to you wanting to see them as opposed to real differences being there It happens when you make a large investment to want to believe it is worth it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. 1 point
    It should be noted, however, that a WWL-1B will not fit the SeaFrogs threaded port, as it uses Nauticam's proprietary bayonet mount, and the wide front flange on SeaFrogs port interferes with Nauticam's M67 to bayonet converter. The same goes for WWL-C. The original WWL-1 in M67 mount can be used.
  15. 1 point
    Regarding the costs: I had asked for two different configurations at PanOcean in Germany: Nauticam housing with WAPC-C and Nauticam housing with WWL-1B, but especially including all necessary gear for the 28-60 The price is high but the difference is lower than expected: The variant with WAPC-C comes for 7k€ and the variant with the WWL-1B for 6k€ so the difference is 1k. With the less areas for failure (wet lens) and the possibility for split shots I decided to go for the WACP-C.
  16. 1 point
    For what it's worth, i've now shot WACP-1 on an the Canon R5 C with both the recommended Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 old kit lens and the new RF 14-35mm F4 lens (using a 30mm extension ring). The RF 14-35F4 is only listed for use with the WACP-2 on Nauticam's charts, not the WACP-1. However, to my slight surprise, the RF 14-35mm works perfectly in the 26-35mm range and produces slightly better results than the old 28-70 kit lens. Even at F4 (The 28-70 has very bad chromatic abberation at F3.5 that only clears up to an acceptable level at F5.6 in my view). So yes, ablosutely, the quality of the kit lens you have behind the wet contact optic matters. But as far as I can tell, there's little if any difference in the optical formula for the WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and WACP-2. Nauticam just scaled up the size of the glass elements, but it's the same geometries and configuration. So I'd suspect the quality of the lens you use behind the wet contact optic will actually have a bigger impact on the overall quality of your images than moving from a WWL-1 to a WACP-C or WACP-1 or WACP-2. (Oh, and for what it's worth, I again confirmed to that the Canon 8-15 behind a 140mm dome is superior to the WACP-1 for stills at F8 and above.. not only in the angle of coverage (and thus how close you can get to the subject), but also in perceived sharpness and resolution. At F4 or F5.6, the WACP-1 + 14-35 are more comperable (the corners of the 8-15 get mushy at these lower apertures). For me... I'd still choose the fisheye any day for wide angle photos, and the WACP-1 (or WACP-C, WWL-1, WACP-2) for video. I have shot the WWL-1 on m4/3 and WACP-1 on a 45mp full frame camera with different lenses, so the results are not exactly comparing apples to apples. That said, I'm in the camp of those that think the differences in real world images are not worth the increase in price and size. This comparison test (in German) also suggets the same conclusion: https://uwfoto.net/vergleich-domeports-vorsatzlinsen-und-korrektivports/ The WACP-1 is slightly sharper in the corners then the WWL-1, but it's not the drastic 2-3 stop difference Nauticam's marketing is suggesting. Maybe 1 stop. The improvement for the WACP-C should be even less. My conclusion? If you can find a modern lens that will work behind the WWL-1 for your system, that's probably your best option. As between the WACP-C/WACP-1/WACP-2, the difference in the lens behind the wet corrector is probably more important than the wet corrector itself. Modern lenses are superior to old kit lenses, and Nauticam's port charts aren't exhaustive. After my experience with the WACP-1 and RF 14-35F4, I wouldn't be surprised if the RF 24-70F2.8 or RF 28-70F2 actually work just fine behind the WACP-1 or WACP-C with the correct extension port, even though they're not listed on the official charts. Perhaps the zoom range you can use will be limited (because of the extension of the lens when zoomed), but they still may prove to be better solutions than the old Canon 28-70 F3.5-F4.5 kit lens.
  17. 1 point
    Here is another recent photo that I took in my home waters of Puget Sound, which is cold green and full of particulate on the best of days. I took this photo with the same setup as with the Fiji photo, but with lower strobe power as it is dark and very silty. This would be 1/4 power on the left and 1/8th on the right. You can get plenty of good light with an Inon 330, and without creating a lot of flare or backscatter.
  18. 1 point
    The sample photo was a close in diver. When using a very wide lens like a 15mm FE you don't take many photos that are far away. Here is a photo I took last week using the technique i described.
  19. 1 point
    2 when the subject is far away will increase backscatter actually if the subject is further away from where the beams meet Generally you shoot inward as you get close the rule is very simple as you get close you close the angle as you go further you open it but pointing outwards as a proxy of not having longer arms does not really work well as it deprives the centre of the frame of light and normally there is where you have your most interesting things
  20. 1 point
    https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-intro-to-nauticam-optics At about 17:15 and again around 18:30...WACP has greater detail and contrast throughout the picture, according to Mr. Lai. Suggests a major difference compared to a dome port. Edit to add You may want to actually watch the whole thing.
  21. 1 point
    What you're seeing are some of the effects of refraction. Basically, because the speed of light in water, glass and air are different, when light rays pass the boundary between different materials at an angle, they bend and scatter, resulting in optical distortions and loss of sharpness. You can't easily see the distortion when shooting natural life, but if you take a photo of something like pool tiles underwater, it will be quite plain. When shooting through a flat port, the further away from the center frame you go, the greater the angle at which the light passes through the port glass becomes, the greater is this effect going to be. Dome ports counteract this to a degree, although they introduce their own issues. They fix the distortion, but corner sharpness remains an issue, although it can be countered to a degree by closing down the aperture. I've done some testing in a pool with SeaFrogs 4-inch, 6-inch and 8-inch domes and 16-50mm and 10-18mm lenses on my A6300 camera; you can see the results here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AupWSggdlFYKjtRFXM2KS9gqFcyRpQ?e=0mJLGM Another option would be to replace the basic flat port (which, I presume, you're using) with the threaded short macro and use a wet lens such as Fantasea/AOI UWL-09 or a Nauticam WWL-1 (not WWL-1B or WWL-C; those will not fit the SeaFrogs port). This generally provides better corner sharpness than a dome port, although I don't have any sample images to post.
  22. 1 point
    If you want to solder I would suggest buying the batteries with the tabs already attached. That way you solder the tabs and not the batteries. Heating the batteries enough to get a good solder connection can damage them. I believe Amazon sells the same batteries I used with the tabs already attached.
  23. 1 point
    You can solder the tabs on, but it is not very pretty, at least when I did it. I rebuilt 3 or 4 batteries years ago, and if I knew about availability of spot welders, I would have bought one. The soldered battery packs worked just fine, no issues with them for the couple of years I used them.
  24. 1 point
    @Matt Sullivan Am I really going to disagree with you here? (maybe just a little a bit...) Also owning both and diving both, I think there is a difference between these two, but it's not super evident where you might notice this. For me, it's fairly evident when shooting larger subjects, like people or larger pelagics. It's a subtle difference, but it's there (at least to my eyes). Having said this, I'll travel with the WWL-1B often, however I only drag along the WACP-1 for special occasions.
  25. 1 point
    So, here is the follow up to my post. I was able to get the required O-Rings from Ikelite for the battery packs. 0114 is the 2 on the toggle shaft 0128 is the larger one behind the switch 0136.04 is the very small one that goes behind the switch screw. Using some silicone grease I lubricated the O-Ring that goes behind the switch. They call this an X-Ring as it isn't round but has ridges to it like a gland. It is hard to see in the picture but you have to install the small plastic bar that engages the notches and makes for the clicks as you turn the switch. There is a little nub on it that should face in towards the shaft. Getting this to stay in while you install the knob can test your patience. One this was installed I rotated the switch a number of times to be sure I seated the X-Ring into position. Next up is the small O-ring that goes behind the screw that holds the knob on. This one was tricky and required a few tries. Once I would tighten the screw and look down in the hole I would see the O-ring had squeezed out around the screw head. It took a couple tries but I was able to get it all seated. Next up was installing new O-Rings onto the toggle lever shaft. Not too tricky. The final install requires you to put the cover plate over the back and then install the toggle. The cover plate needs to go on so that the toggle can still twist counter-clockwise. It will only fit one way. You then place the first spring on in the recess, followed by the first washer and then the second spring and second washer. The locking lugs go on last and you have to wiggle them around until it sits down over the keyed end of the toggle. Then the 1/4 nut goes on the end. You just have to work at this until it gets started and you can thread it on. Everything is all together and I just have to test them out in the water. You could do a test in a bucket of water but you would have to remove the plate to see if any water got in. Not sure if I will do this or just jump in the water and see how they do. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I'm no expert in this but I thought this might inspire someone who was on the fence.
  26. 1 point
    I will add my perspective as a long time Ikelite user. There is a lot of good information that has been given and I don't envy your decision as a budding UW photographer. My first Ikelite housing was for a Canon AE1 Program. It was a rather bulky and cumbersome housing. I never was able to actually use it much. My next was a housing for a Sony CD camera. That one I used a good bit and worked reasonably well. Next was a Canon Rebel XT. I got some good shots with that one. A bit better than the AE1 housing as far as usability. It worked just fine and I never had an issue with controls underwater. Deepest was maybe 80 or 90 feet. Next was a Canon 7D. Very similar to the XT housing and worked just fine. Next up was a 5D mark 3. The housings had evolved some at this point and had a different tray and handles. Just recently I picked up a new open box housing for my R5 from eBay for $400 US. A pretty shocking amount for a $1700 housing. So yes, resale isn't that great. But seeing as I still have my last two housings I'm not concerned about resale. The new R5 housing is advanced a bit more and comes with a vacuum port. The controls are a bit better but I still don't have controls for everything and some of them are awkwardly placed. It does have an easy to use back button focus trigger though. That is the nature of the plastic box. I find good cost to value ratio with Ikelite. They have great service although I am not sure about the UK. The TTL systems they offer work very well but that requires using their strobes, but that is ok as they are very good as well. I certainly would like a Nauticam and I have looked at them several times but as much as I enjoy taking pictures underwater I struggle to pay many thousands more for what will probably result in just slightly better photos if I could even tell. If you could find a second hand Ikelite system it may be a good way to get into the hobby and decide if you like it.
  27. 1 point
    I had a ikelite housing in 1983-knobs bound up at depth-it was to buoyant -I;m sure they are better now but after 3-5 aquaticas and a the same with Subals I would never go back to plastic. Just get a used aluminum housing and you will find it does it all very well and the cost is less in the used market. I consider ikelite entry level on the way to a better housing ,save yourself this step
  28. 1 point
    For a beginner you should have al look at RX100 VA + Isotta-Housing + Inon UWL-95 C24. This is an excellent combination and gives the possibility for image quality just below the usual mirrorless or slr-cameras. below one shot with this combi from Moorea.
  29. 1 point
    After using the lens a bit more, I have to say this is a very nice and solid choice for underwater. If I look in the corners, there is a bit of not sharpness but do not find it overly distracting. I have not used it with the S&S adaptor nor do I plan to. This is my go to lens. I have been using it behind a 230mm Marelux port on the R5. Here is a 16mm shot at f/5: I don't find the ice at the top distracting even if there may be some distortion from shooting so wide open. Going to 14mm is really nice too. What is remarkable is also the image stabilization. I have sharp eye's on other divers at 1/4 of a second exposure. That is ridiculous. As an example, I cropped this one to get rid of some black on top and bottom but it was F/4 at 14mm with 0.4 second exposure:
  30. 1 point
    Thought In would drop in a report form my recent trip as info for this destination is not too common Malpelo MV Ferox Liveaboard Summary (April 2022)A trip of a lifetime and well worth the effort, for me up there alongside the Galapagos and Raja Ampat it is that good, visibility is probably the poorest of the 3 at 15 metres but this appears to be down to the sheer volume of life in the water which perhaps explains why the schools of fish are so large in size Compilation Video with mainly natural light pics and video using my EM5iii and my dive buddies Go Pro 9 LogisticsMany options from London UK but by far the easiest is the direct night flights using Avianca from LHR to Bogota taking about 11 hours, food is so so but not really a problem as all I want to do on a night flight is sleep and ate in the airport before take off Avianca internal flights are frequent, cheap and extra luggage is good value, Avianca were very good, 4 out of 5 flights on time and the 5th was a 3 hour delay but they knew this when I got to the airport and quickly bumpned me up to an earlier flight 10 day trip, 3 days for the crossings and 7 days diving, 3 dives per day & 2 on last day Once in Bogota it is easy to get a flight down to Cali where the trip ends and starts, would highly recommend arriving a day early to acclimatise and in case your luggage gets delayed it has a day to catch up (one reason to use Avianca as they have daily flight from LHR) Trip booking is easiest direct with their company Columbia Dive Adventures (you can also pay park fees, 15 litre tank costs in advance too) Ferox Boat A fantastic boat for diving, 320 tonnes so it rides the waves well on the 30 hour journey and whilst moored at Malpelo, don’t expect high end luxury but if you want a boat is well adapted for diving which is what this trip is all about the Ferox is your vessel. Plenty of single cabins, I only wish more boats had these, air con and the showers were really strong and never ran out of hot water - something other boats frequently lack. Not a bad crossing but if you do get seasick or simply don’t want to take a chance then the patches behind the ears and/or the travel wrist bands are very good, just make sure you put them on when you get on the boat. A great crew and atmosphere, you can even have a go driving the boat - where else due you ever get the opportunity! Diving All diving is done from 2 ribs, small groups of 6 + a Divemaster (an added benefit as the boat only takes 12 people) your gear stays on the rib all week and the tanks are filled directly from the main boat to the rib. 32% Nitrox is standard & in reality mandatory if you want to maximise your safety and dive time, 15 litre cylinders are available for a little extra and a must really for any man (women are sooo much better on air generally) The extra gas ensures you can do a full hour, deal with the current / surge and deeper dives with no issues A 5mm wetsuit, 0.5mm skin plus thin hood and gloves were fine, water temperatures from 28 down to 22 degrees with only 1 dive below 20 degrees at depth (The Ferox shark). Gloves are a must due to the large number of barnacles and whilst you can reef hook we all simply held onto the bare rock where really necessary. Current was not bad at all and due to the number of sites where current was too strong then it is simply a matter of going to another location, surge was a factor more often that not to deal with and often down to 15 metres. 3 dives a day is about right, on some dives you get down or close ish to deco so the 2-3 hour surface interval really helps off gas. It goes like this Breakfast 1 (Cereals, Fruit, Bread) Dive 1 - 7.30 > Breakfast 2 (Eggs anyway and local food) Dive 2 - 11.30 > Lunch (Soup, Rice, Veg or Meat) Dive 3 - 2.30 > (nibbles) then Dinner 6.30 Food is not 5* but was tasty enough and kept me fuelled for the dives, perhaps too much rice. Safety is strictly enforced and poor actions will impact your whole group’s dive & experience, don’t forget you are 30 hours from help. Murco transponders are issued to every diver for the trip in case you are blown off into the blue but the dive guides here know Malpelo well and some have done 1,000s of dives here so don’t worry A very diverse group on our trip from across the world which for me made the experience more memorable, a great bunch of ghouls & girls. The Important Part - Aquatic Life The sheer volume and size of the fish life is second to none, I have not seen so many schools of fish anywhere else in the world including the Galapagos. All the fish here are at the top of the tree and reach their maximise size, 4ft Jacks, 2ft Leather Bass etc etc. Hammerhead sharks abound, saw a shoal below us 150+ strong but are certainly harder to see than the Galapagos as the visibility is not as crystal clear but I suspect part of the reason everything here is large is simply the large volume of nutrients in the water. Huge Galapagos sharks & even the Silky Sharks are huge in comparison, more Moray Eels than you can shake a stick at. Whalesharks in season but can turn up anytime and we saw a couple on our trip and a massive Swordfish which are not even really known in the waters here, Mobula Rays and on most dives we saw some Eagle Rays. There is even some really nice small stuff in the rocks, some corals and in tunnels but you tend to overlook these as the large life is so abundant. And if you are amazingly lucky (as we were) the chance to see the Small Tooth Sand Tiger Shark (Ferox) a pregnant monster at 5 metres for us. Colombia A wonderful country and doesn’t deserve the reputation is has, I did 5 extra days on my trip. 2 in Bogota (City tour inc Monserrat plus Zipaquira/Guatavita , 2 Cali (City tour and Park Fallones) & 1 Cartegena. I hired local guides to make the most of my time and ensure I took in all the sites, it helped they were bi-lingual too, they were all excellent Vibrant, scenic, lush, stunning Vistas and lots of ancient history to enjoy - 5 days was only a taster
  31. 1 point
    Hei I am quite surprise by the issues you have with the 90 macro and the EWML I have been using this combo on an A7RIV quite a bit and I have been very happy with the results. I have not had the problem with focusing neither using C-AF nor S-AF. Sharpness is good for me (coming for an m43 camera before) Here are some results : -100 degree (uncropped and 100%) with the 130 degree (this one has been printed >1m without issue): And with the 60 degree:
  32. 1 point
    it may also make sense to include a "waiting period" of maybe 1 week? Otherwise some "new" member could just quickly post some random posts and go straight to classifieds. Just a thought?



  • Newsletter

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