Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/25/21 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    I have been ask a bunch of questions about all things A7C and today my 4000 word review has posted in UWPMAG.com issue #119. This is a free PDF download and I suggest you read the review if you have an interest in the Sony A7C. I intensely did my review using only the Sony FE 28-60mm "kit" lens with the WWL-1, WACP and one and two CMC-1 lenses. Some of the macro is in this thread. After reading the review I would be happy to answer any questions. The attached image is with the 28-60 at 28 using the WACP. This is an A/V light shot at ISO-400, F10, 1/125th sec.
  2. 2 points
    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. 2 points
    Acrylic domes are generally very floaty, so moving to a glass dome will increase weight for travelling but improve handling underwater significantly. Generally, I think your pictures just demonstrate the age old of rule of getting closer in underwater photography. It's quite possible that with the Sony you will get better AF and also better image quality, but the first photos of distant dolphins and the shark will never look good even on the very best camera. The closer dolphins would probably also look pretty good with the WWL-1. In my opinion it is not really worth chasing after improvements on a type of shot, that will just never look good. On the other hand you should just do what brings you joy and if these are the type of shots you generally shoot, maybe it's worth it for you. Maybe also worth looking at the WACP.
  4. 1 point
    I moved from a Sony RX100 IV to an Olympus OM-D E-M1 II several years ago. I found the move to be a medium jump in quality, a significant jump in auto-focus performance, but also a significant jump in cost and size My gear has grown over time to consist of 3 domes and 3 flat ports to accommodate. Oly 12-40 PRO Pan 7-14 Pan 8mm Oly 30mm macro Oly 60mm macro Oly 14-42 IIR My photography consists of: 10% big animals close range (close dolphins, oceanic white tips, turtles) 30% big animals from 10’ to 40’ away (dolphins, sharks, pilot whales) 40% fish portraits 20% macro 80% of my dives these days are shore dives, so lugging big gear around is a chore. My go-to kit is the Oly 12-40 PRO, which works great for big animals (which are not too close) and fish portraits, but less than adequate for macro, or close in big animals. If I don’t know what I’m going to get into on a dive, I bring this lens. Auto focus is excellent. A great lens, but requires a large dome, which is very floaty. I had to secure a 1lb weight to the underside of the dome just to keep the nose down. The Panasonic 7-14 is nice quality, but I’m often disappointed with lack of range. I only bring this lens if I’m absolutely sure the subjects will be very close (turtles). I don’t seem to use the Panasonic 8mm fisheye. I rarely use the Oly 30mm macro since purchasing the Oly 12-40 PRO. The Oly 60mm is a joy for macro, but you are 100% dedicated to macro for the entire dive. I would like to improve my low light image quality, reduce the need for a large dome port and reduce the amount of gear I need. Since I already owned the 14-42 kit lens, I thought I would try it in the flat port + Nauticam WWL. For close focus and fish portraits, the combination works great and would replace my 12-40 PRO, 7-14, 8mm fisheye and 30mm macro. Unfortunately, I was disappointed when zoomed in all the way for big animals in lower light conditions where the animal’s background is dark blue water. Focus is slow, and hunts. A big percentage of the photos I’ve taken are out of focus, or even when in focus, they’re soft. Definitely not a replacement for my 12-40 PRO when zoomed all the way in. I assume that's a product of the quality of the 14-42 kit lens, and not the WWL The Sony A7C + 28-60 kit lens + WWL is the same size as my Olympus OM-D E-M1 II + 14-42 + WWL. My questions to the community are: 1. Will the Sony A7C (or A7 III) + 28-60 kit lens + WWL give better low light auto-focus and picture quality than the E-M1 II +14-42 + WWL when zoomed all the way in? 2. Will the Sony A7C (or A7 III) + 28-60 kit lens + WWL give comparable auto-focus and picture sharpness to the E-M1 II + 12-40 PRO in a Dome when zoomed all the way in low light conditions? 3. Would I see a significant jump in overall quality and auto-focus moving from the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (with multiple lenses, domes and ports )to the Sony A7C with a single lens, one port and WWL + CMC? Thanks for any guidance or experience anyone can lend. I’m trying to avoid buyers remorse
  5. 1 point
    I don't think I could be more clear, the A7C is faster and has better image quality across the entire range. I have owned the 12-40 and the 14-42 power zoom with WWL-1 has better image quality than the 12-40 even if you used it behind a 230mm dome port. Sony FE 28-60mm, at 28mm end (fish) and 60mm end of the zoom range (crab) with WWL-1.
  6. 1 point
    This is a no brainer to me, first I used the Olympus line for years including the EM-1 II and also the WWL-1with EM1 II you can find those reviews in the back issues at uwpmag.com. I am also probably the only one on this site that has used the Sony A7C, FE 28-60mm zoom and WWL-1. The only real question here is do I want to stay with a smaller format sensor or go to full frame with its added issues. Bottom line is that the A7C is faster, smaller and has noticeably better image quality as most FF cameras do when compared to sub-full-frame. I have heard all the arguments for both formats but the bottom line is that if your top priorities are speed and IQ the Sony A7C is just better. While many DSLR users will argue that size should not be a large issue when selecting a U/W camera I believe they are forgetting why many of the older ones left film cameras in large housings and went to the Nikonos RS system. My spell check does not even recognize the word Nikonos but I would venture to say that more than half of the published U/W photo pro's were using the RS system before they went to digital. I would also bet that one of the top reasons for using the Nikonos RS SLR camera body and lenses was reduced the size and weight of the system. I would guess the top reason was the quality of the water contact optics which won out over AF speed because they were more than a bit slow.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 1 point
    I don't know about other cameras, but mine keeps the aperture fully open while focusing, stopping down to set value when it's ready to take a shot. The actual shot is done with strobes, so it's got all the light it needs.
  10. 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?
  11. 1 point
    Get closer. Those distances are ok for video perhaps but photos will have no contrast no matter the camera Autofocus is not an issue with the WWL-1 or any wet lens in fact I focus at the beginning of the dive practically
  12. 1 point
    I was watching WetPixel Youtube channel: about 360 videos of which only 2 are dedicated specifically to video-making (two on Keldan).Then in the bunch there is some about gear that may be of interest to videomakers but they are still products made with the photographer in mind. Evidently WP's core business is photography. It has always been in the past but more for a physiological percentage sharing of users than for a specific editorial choice. In fact in the past within WP survived a small but fierce base of users dedicated to underwater cinematography with many important names who used to post here. Now there is no one. The only sub-forum dedicated to video has been almost dead for quite some time now. Who knows where all the videomaker who used to frequent WP in the past have gone. Maybe they selfishly opened their own Facebook page? Maybe there is nothing to do. Social networks have hit hard all the specialized web communities and their forums. I'm only sorry to see that WP with its new editorial line has decided to save the salvageable (photography) and consider video as a terminal patient. Hence my rant just to share my feeling being the poor relative here
  13. 1 point
    They do look like the same fish from the markings around the eyes, but I wasn’t aware that they were taken so many months apart. The behaviour and algae growth on their surfaces can change a lot in that time. The description in Fishbase is quite good - thank you ChrisRoss, especially about the warty tubercles and pectoral fins (stargazer’s point backwards a bit more and can have spines on the gill covers). The white-ish coloured fish in diggy’s first photo is more likely a scorpionfish actually. I suspect maybe a relatively juvenile S. diabolus, although sometimes called a Devil Stonefish or False Stonefish. You can see the spine on the gill cover in the two photos of the stargazers.
  14. 1 point
    as you say difficult to compare but 12-40 without wet lens looks fantastic
  15. 1 point
    do you have any details comparison in term of size and weight including pictures? I'm very curious about it
  16. 1 point
    In the UWPMAG.com issue #119 released today I have reviews on the Rokinon 18mm F/2.8 prime and Tamron 17 to 28mm F/2.8 zoom. I included several images taken with the Nauticam 180mm port and in the case of the zoom with the Sea & Sea correction lens. The idea is to present budget options for full frame. uwpmag.com is a free PDF download.
  17. 1 point
    When you look at how focus systems are defined you need to understand how the camera achieves focus Most cameras achieve focus with the lens wide open and the close the aperture when they need to shoot. This means that if you are shooting macro you are effectively at f/2.8 with typically a fast shutter speed say 1/250. This is a scene that has an exposure value of 11 EV at ISO 100 or 5120 lux in essence a sunny day. Your camera will typically have a -Ev rating for single AF (forget about tracking) which is usually something like -4.5 Ev In our case 11-4.5=6.5 the camera will refuse to focus at less than 226 lux which is not that dark after all. Increasing gain (ISO) does not change the camera ability to focus but helps you seeing the LCD and focus manually Looking at your examples Sony A7R4 EV -3 Canon R5 Ev -6 The canon R5 has 3 stops benefit For reference Nikon D500 -4 EV Panasonic S5 -6 EV Nikon Z7II -4 EV So Canon and Panasonic have an edge on Nikon/Sony probably due to the different nature of the autofocus system. Adapted lenses do not perform as well as native
  18. 1 point
    Just got back from Baja, got dinged cost $95 dollars for a housing for an OMD EM1 MkII. I made the mistake of not arguing it enough and not lowballing them enough, I was too worried about them looking up the actual price of the housing so I said $600. Tried to play dumb with Spanish and use "small camera", "GoPro", and had everything in my backpack, but they are getting very very specific and targeted with questions and honestly have enough staff that are excellent in English it didn't really work. Of note to anyone else traveling in this area, you also get fined for a second laptop ($100 for me). If you have two pass one off if you're traveling in a group or separate them into multiple bags at least, that's what got me the most. On the bright side, I never have to pay it again for this underwater system, will just get hit again if I come back after the upgrade.
  19. 1 point
    Maybe I don't have high expectations, or maybe it's lack of comparison points, but I've been shooting a Sony 90mm on an A6300 body for a couple of years now, and I find the autofocus speed to be quite adequate. So long as I can hold the camera still, it almost always finds focus within a couple seconds of me half-pressing the shutter. On a newer body like A7IV it should perform even better. I do, however, stay away from small, rapidly moving targets - something like a nudibranch on a hydroid that is swaying in a current, or a bobtail squid darting around, is basically impossible to focus on.
  20. 1 point
    A good article about the WACP-1: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port
  21. 1 point
    Generally the filter thread size is an excellent proxy for the non parallax point which is not published. In essence each lens has a filter thread that ensures vignetting will not occur. Smaller the filter thread less recessed the non parallax point. So a lens with a 62mm filter will generally have the non parallax point further away from the front of the lens for the same field of view of a lens with 40mm thread and will have more problemsThe WWL-1 works with lenses that have typically a 40-46mm filter thread you can safely use this as a proxy In addition it works better with lenses that are wider when extended The full frame and APSC zoom are all wider when retracted and have filter threads larger than 58mm you already know this is not going to work You can try a short port with no zoom but that defeats the objective On full frame is not possible to have alternative to the WACP on APSC fisheye zoom with teleconverter cover the same field of view but probably an APSC user would never consider WACP anyway Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  22. 1 point
    Nauticam has replaced me an old flooded Float Arm under warranty to the newer blue ringed one.
  23. 1 point
    The reason why the Sony 28mm full frame works with the WWL-1 is because the lens is very small and has 40mm filter thread which means the WWL-1 is ok with it When you look at APSC there are some lens that might work but full frame is not an option as all lenses are over 62mm so too big once you factor a zoom
  24. 1 point
    This is true, but when speaking of adapted lenses for which there is no mirrorless alternative it doesn’t really make a difference. It really just means that in theory a smaller lens with the same functionality or better is possible. But right now it really is just that. A possibility. If you are happy with the lens on a DSLR you might as well use it on mirrorless. It‘s going to be a long long time until we get a native fisheye, let alone a fisheye zoom for FF mirrorless.
  25. 1 point
    I spent a lot of time reading about the lights these past few days. Am gonna go for the 18XR just to have a little more power. Thanks for all your help!
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
    I have good enough buoyancy to go without but it’s still more comfortable to use one. I’ve done muck diving with and without a stick and I really think that it’s just a matter of preference. Some people surely use it in place of good buoyancy but I wouldn’t assume that’s the reason everyone who is using one is using it for. Also if there is a little current all the buoyancy skills in the world won’t help you stay in place, but you can easily anchor yourself in the sand with a stick.
  28. 1 point
    I did some testing today, and got very odd results. The UWT trigger functions fine in LO (3fps), HI (8fps) and HI+ (11fps) camera modes, but in MID (6fps) mode, it flashes a few times, and then stops working - I can hear shutter clicks, but there is no red coming from the LEDs. Worse yet, even the few times that it does flash in the beginning of the sequence are not continuous. This looks like a software bug; I will need to contact Pavel about it. As far as burst power goes, in LO (3fps) mode, with supercharger and eight brand new (right out of the package, one testing cycle on a charger and two dives) fully charged Eneloop Pro batteries, it can go as high as 50% power continuously. At 75% power, I got one good shot, then a skipped shot (strobe did not fire), then a sequence of reduced power shots. In HI (8fps) mode, 6% power seems to be the sustainable maximum - at 8% power (it's not labeled, but that's the click between 6% and 12%) I got four bright exposures and then sustained flashes at reduced power; at 12% I got two bright exposures and then sustained reduced power.
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
    Hi Wetpixel, my name is Zac Macaulay and I have been following you for years and don't know why I haven't joined before now. I hope you will allow me to join. Thank you. Zac.
  31. 1 point
    Hello, just graded some test footage from Bonaire (November 2020). Sony A7SIII, 4K60fps 422 10-bit, ISO 12800 for all shots, Keldan ambient and spectrum filter. Graded in Adobe Premiere with a Phantom Arri LUT:
  32. 1 point
    San Jose Del Cabo . I just landed at SJD (Cabo San Lucas, Mexico) I thought it would be beneficial to the group to share my experiences. First off I am very a very experienced traveler and have cleared Mexican Customs at least 30 times. This time was just a bit different and not just because of Covid-19. At my check-in in the US I was directed to fill out an online questionnaire about my Covid-19 possible exposure. It also asked for what seat you were in and contact info (email and phone). I assume that this was for Contact tracing. I filled it out and took a screen cap of the QR code generated at the end of the questionnaire (thinking I might need it later).Waiting for the flight was uneventful. There was a whole lot of plexiglass up everywhere and not may stores or restaurants open in the terminal. There was a disturbing amount of single use plastics being utilized in the airline club (I asked the bartender to fill up my water bottle with her beverage gun and instead sh gave me 5 small plastic cups of water to pour into my bottle. Mask use was a high priority on the American Airlines flight that I was on. The person behind me was reminded twice to where his mask. Once off the plane we we all put onto a shuttle bus for the short trip to the terminal. The Bus was not as packed as some others I have been on, but there certainly wasn't any real attempt at social distancing. Prior to getting into the Immigration hall we had to fill out a form asking us if we had knowingly been exposed to Covid-19. This form asked me the same questions that I had answered on the online questionnaire. I filled it out and handed it to the agent. He looked it over, signed it, and handed it back to me. No one else ever asked for it. It wasn't scanned in or anything....so I'm, not really sure what the point was, but as a frequent traveler to Mexico, I am not surprised by this. After collecting my bags I headed to the Customs hall. When I handed in my customs form the agent asked me about my bags (3 checked bags and 2 carry on). She asked me what was inside the bags and I answered, truthfully, saying "1 is scuba gear, another is clothes and the last is for my camera." She asked how many cameras I had and I told her, truthfully, that I was traveling with 2. She then specifically asked me if I had a housing. I said "yes" (no point in lying about it). I was directed to a separate table in the hall where my carry-on bag and my UW camera bag were inspected. The Agents seemed only to be interested in my housing (a 4-5 year old Subal). They asked me very specific questions. They asked me how old it was and how much I could sell it for (not how much was it worth or how much I paid for it). When I was asked about how much I could sell if for I laughed and said that IF I could find someone to buy it I wouldn't expect to get more than $450USD for it. I asked them about what was going on and they informed me that since the value of what I was bringing in exceeded $500USD I was subject to a 19% duty. I told them that it wasn't for resale and I was going to be leaving with it. They said that it didn't matter. In my mind I see the dollars adding up (we all know how much a full UW photo kit costs). The agents stated that "it's not that much, don't worry". He went on to say that they just assume that the rest of the gear is valued at $500 and so I would only be responsible for the 19% on the housing (valued by me at $450). When i pushed back on this He changed the value to $350USD and informed me that I would have to pay around $57USD for the duty. Doing a quick time vs. money evaluation I agreed. I was then led into an office where a woman charged my credit card the $57USD. She also recorded the serial number off of my housing. I was given a receipt and a form (on which was a description of my housing and the serial number) that had both been stamped with some sort of official looking seal. The woman expressly told me to retain the receipt and the form as this was a one time fee and that as long as I had the same housing and the form, I would not be charged again. I repeated it back to her just to make sure that nothing was lost in translation. I then collected my bags and went outside the arrivals hall to brave the gauntlet of taxi drivers. Throughout the the entire experience the Mexican Customs agents were professional and polite. I have travelled in Mexico for years and am have had experiences with the "mordida" (bribe) and this had none of the feel of that. While I didn't like having to pay more money, it is their country and their rules. I felt the agent worked with me a bit and wasn't trying to take advantage of the situation; I travel with 4 strobes that are at least $800 a piece, never-mind the multiple dome ports and all the rest of the stuff that goes along with this crazy hobby. My advice to anyone dealing with a similar situation is to remain calm, remain respectful, and work with the agents to get to a reasonable number. Do not attempt to lie or conceal what you are traveling with...it won't end well for you. I hope this helps other travelers. Oh, I also asked my driver and the management at the hotel I am staying at prior to departure about what they plan to do about the upcoming Covid testing requirements for people returning to the US via air and they said that all of the hotels and resorts are working to have onsite rapid Covid testing for guests that conforms with the requirements of US health officials. I have faith that the Mexican toursim industry will be on top of this latest change. Stay safe.
  33. 1 point
    I got my a7s3 and Nauticam gear just before a big dive trip in the Caribbean in late November. Shot three Sony Profiles settings, sLog3/SGamut3.Cine, HGL3 and No profile. File format:XAVC S 4K at 60fps10 bit 4:2:2 for all profiles. Customize the C4 function for white balance (So I could execute WB in right hand UW and hold Grey slate and later chip chart with left hand). I used official Sony LUTs and Leeming LUTs in post for evaluation of clips. Will edit in FCP and finish color in Resolve. It was a well balanced neutrally buoyant rig with Keldan 4x Lights, red and blue filters were consistently used. I was hoping because of the lowlight capability of this sensor to shoot with no lights so as to not scare off fish. In field evaluation I sensed that just a bit of light made a huge difference in color accuracy and saturation. So after a 3 dive and no lights I shot the remaining 20+ dive with light. My takeaways: 1- Love the setup, would choose sLog3 if time in post permits CC, If not post time then I would go with no profile. You lose 1 maybe 1.5 stops of latitude but generally clips were nicely saturated and accurate. I understand some people think the sony color science is to be avoided but I saw no issues. In also I preferred Sonys LUTs over Leeming LUTs for 90% of the shots. Whats my experience in Video color science? 40Plus years surface shooting and a successful life doing so. UW shooting is just my hobby, 2- I used SDHD cards for the XAVC s 4K file format and they bogged down a Late 2013 Mac Pro with 32GB Ram and top end graphics cards. Had to use proxy's to not go crazy in post. I did buy and have tested the new Sony CFExpress Tough card and "I think" it performs well enough to be able to avoid proxies in post. This is because the CPU has to do less calculations than with a codec that has more compression. I did a surface shoot yesterday (Birds in Flight) using sLog3 S&Q settings for 120fps with XAVC S I 4K and I filled a 160GB card in well, not very long. Luckily I had a laptop to download to continue shooting. Take Away 2.1 if you want 120FPS you better mean it! Or have lotsa expensive cards. Moving them into post and seeing performance will take place in a couple days (I hope). Apologies on long post, but a couple further observations. Cost, yea I'd say camera "May" be a1/3 of the get in the water costs. so, lights and floats, buy the best you can. Housings often are sacrificed if you go for a new camera, but odd note here, I have an a7R4 and it goes in the a7s3 housing. Most of the buttons on the top work but the only button on the back at seemed to work was the Disp button. I am exceptionally happy with this my 3rd rig. Should be able to last the rest of my life. Knock on wood!
  34. 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
  35. 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!
  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 0 points
    ISO is one of the most misunderstood concepts of digital photography and that is because a camera has only one sensor and therefore only one film. You can't go and change the film you can only proxy that with gain which is what ISO maps to You can't generalise concepts due to the different way sensors are constructed so one camera may be totally fine at 2500 and one be rubbish. Also some cameras are ISO invariant and some are not at all and this influences how you should shoot. Only one thing is for sure an image with too low ISO that is too dark on broad area is worse than one with a small clipped highlight in my opinion If you want to maximised performance in your camera I suggest you study not only DR charts but also input referred noise charts

Sponsors

Advertisements



  • Newsletter

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