Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/08/21 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Hi, my name is Marcell Nikolausz. I’m a hobby underwater videographer originally from Hungary, living now in Germany. There was a recent discussion about the underrepresentation of videography topics at wetpixel. I also missed discussions about the lower budget video solutions. I’m very much interested in the latest and greatest tools the professionals are using, but those equipment are way beyond my budget and it’s true probably most of the readers of wetpixel. So I thought, I initiate a discussion about low-budget videography. Is it possible at all? I started with underwater videography already during the film era using a Minolta dynax 7000i in an Ikelite housing. That time the acceptable video quality was really expensive, while I could easily afford the same film David Doubilet used (but my photos were still crap in comparison but not because of the “sensor quality”). Especially wide angle video and proper lighting was achievable only for bigger film crews. Today, a cheap action camera has a better quality at a fraction of price what was available 20 years ago for professionals. I get into videography when I purchased a sony nex-5 and I explored that it has a video record button but I was not really hooked at the beginning. The real change happened when I got a GoPro HERO (entry level version of HERO 4, approx. 130 Euro) and started to play with it and decided to get more into videography. I watched many videos on youtube and vimeo but most of them were really bad with lots of shaky camera movements causing sea sickness on land. The other major problem I recognised was the bad colours but somehow I expected it. So I wanted to make completely different underwater films. I watched also many BBC documentaries and films from professionals. I especially liked the work of Howard Hall and it was clear that he used tripod a lot. So my first suggestion is to use some kind of tripod or some other kind of stabilization for your camera. My first solution was a flat rock. I glued a GoPro mount on it and attached my camera. I also tried joby gorillapod but it’s too light for such small cameras. My second solution was a modified aluminium tent-peg. (see picture below). Not much later I invested into a second camera. Instead of a top GoPro I bought the much cheaper Yi 4K (around 200 Euro that time). (It fits better to the low-budget videography). The camera choice will be the topic of a next post. Overall, it was really fun to use these cheap cameras and I created a short film that I entered to the actioncup video competition. It’s a German video competition focusing mainly on small cameras and it has a category for action cameras. My movie won the freshwater category. See the movie below (Sorry but the text is German but I hope you will watch it anyway): Overall the budget of this movie was around 400 Euro. One short footage from this was even used in a bigger TV film (broadcasted in Slovakia) Next post will be about low-budget but relatively good quality cameras.
  2. 5 points
    Wolfgang sent me a PM and asked me to comment on my experience with the AF performance of the Sony A7RIV and Sony 90 macro and the Canon 100 macro on Canon dSLR. I was a long term Canon dSLR user (20D, 40D, 50D, 7D, 7DMkII and 5DMkIII) all with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. Just over a year ago I changed to Sony A7RIV. Initially I used the Canon 100 macro on the Sony with a Metabones adapter but changed to the Sony 90 macro after 3 months. My wife still uses my 7DMkII with the Canon 100 macro so I was able to compare all combinations of camera/macro lens possible just now. Room was dimly lit. Results varied based on what focus point setup I used on each camera/lens. With all focus points in play and cameras set to AI Servo (Canon) AF-C (Sony) the winner in grabbing focus quickly was the 7DMkII/Canon 100 macro with the A7RIV/Sony 90 macro a very close second (it was occasionally faster than the Canon). The A7RIV/Metabones/Canon 100 macro was a distant third (Which is why I got the 90 macro 12 months ago when I did the same test). When I changed to my preferred mode of shooting with each camera - AI Servo with Expand AF (Canon) and AF-C and Tracking Flexible Spot (Sony) - things changed. The A7RIV/Sony 90 macro was first grabbing focus fastest and holding it better than the 7DMkII which came a close second. The A7RIV/Metabones/Canon 100 macro came third. Points to consider: Before I switched to Sony the 7DMkII was by far the best low light focussing camera I had ever used. Depending on how you set up the autofocus system the A7RIV is better than the 7DMkII with their respective native macro lenses The effect of the Metabones adapter on focus performance will differ from lens to lens. While the Canon 100 macro is slower on the Metabones adapter my Canon 8-15 fisheye (for which there is no Sony equivalent) focusses much faster with the Metabones adapter on the A7RIV than it did on the 7DMkII.
  3. 4 points
    I would like to see more video related contents. I think the platform is given, we, video content creators should just put more effort to share our experiences and discuss video-related topics here at wetpixel. I was not that active so far, but I'm planning to start a new topic on "Low-budget underwater videography".
  4. 3 points
    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
  5. 3 points
    Split level videography (half over, half underwater) This was a sub-project for me in 2019. I wanted some interesting, unusual footage in my competition video, so I decided to include some split level shootings. It is extra challenging for videography especially at low budget. It requires a dry dome port attached to the underwater housing. I bought a Shoot dome port (around 50 Euro). The selection of dome ports for GoPro was much wider but I found that the quality of these ports is quite similar. They’re acrylic ports without coatings so the reflection is a big issue. Actually I had to cover the inner part of dome (flat part around the camera lens) with a self-adhesive black tissue to reduce the reflection. Still, filming is only possible with the sun behind (and reflection of the lens itself is still an issue). Another issue is the poor dynamic range of the small sensors of the action cameras. The underwater part was always underexposed in real situations. Maybe it works in a pool but rarely in a lake or a river (maybe in very shallow water with lightish ground). I tried my video lamps to light the underwater part but it has negligible effect. Even for photography you need very powerful strobes and better to do it late afternoon. Finally I used two sheets of linear polarization filters. Depending on the angle relative to each other they let various amounts of lights through. I cut then small rectangular pieces of the double layer covering the upper part of the flat surface of the housing in front of the action camera lens. In this way I can darken the upper part compensating to the light difference above and under water. Examples for the results you can find here: Meanwhile a bought a gradual ND filter set (Cokin, approx. 10 Euro) and cut rectangular pieces out of it (it’s not glass but optical resin, so you can use a fine saw to cut it) that covers the flat part of the underwater housing in front of the camera lens. It’s a bit hit and miss to find the proper one (The set includes ND2, ND4, ND8 but only the last two make sense). Such videography requires a sturdy tripod and proper levelling should be checked. I usually have a live view on my phone. Water droplets cause also problems.
  6. 3 points
    Colours, filters, external light sources Besides producing stable footages it’s also important to have nice vibrant colours and it’s a bit more complicated. The cheapest solution is to stay shallow and get close to your subject. In many cases I leave my cameras on a spot I expect fish traffic in the relatively shallow water. Many cases I just wear a chest wader mainly used for angling and I place the cameras with the help of a “reacher grabber tool” mainly used by old people. It’s very useful in cold water. It’s also important to camouflage your camera somehow. I observed filming parallel with a grey GoPro and the Yi4K in a white housing that the fish avoided the white object. So I painted all of my plastic camera housings (I stole some nail paint from my daughter). Black or dark green works well. The only problem is that sometimes it’s also difficult to find them. I tried only cheap filters and I was not that happy with the results. It cuts lots of lights so the shots are noisier and the colours are way off in the shallow. Good quality filters are expensive and the topic of this thread is low-budget videography. I would rather spend my money on a cheap light instead of an expensive filter. But maybe you have a different opinion. My first underwater video light was a Evolva Future Technology D02 (40-50 Euro, 900 Lumen). You can skip this level. It doesn’t bring much, maybe a bit of kiss of lights on the fish but it’s way to weak. My second light was Weefine Smart Focus 6000. I actually spent the voucher from my actioncup first prize on it. I think is a really good video light for the money (you can buy it between 540 and 600 euro. It has 6000 lumen, 90 degree (underwater), and colour temperature of 5000 Kelvin, cri (colour rendering index) = ra80. Light output is adjustable; you can add an optical condenser, so it’s perfect also for macro and close-up videography. But it’s not cheap. There are cheaper lights from China and I saw many divers use them, at least in Germany. There are many versions of these sub 100 Euro video lights and honestly, they’re not that bad. I also bought one. So now I have 3 different lights. It’s absolutely not recommended. Actually for my videography, the best would be a second Weefine, and in general the best way is to use two identical lights. Back to these cheap video lights. The light output is really good, not the claimed over 10K lumen but surely above 5-6K. The only thing is that the colour temperature is much colder (and probably the CRI is low). However, if you want to do wide angle videography, maybe it’s not a bad choice to use two of these cheap but powerful lights (the video light on the left).
  7. 3 points
    Hi Wolfgang, First let me say that I have no skin in the game and it makes no difference to me what anyone chooses to buy, I just try to report the latest news. Second I don't like many of the talking heads worry about theory and +/- this or that, I just shoot the equipment and then post my results. So my first advise is to say that everything in photography is a tradeoff. Smaller sensor more DOF at a given F/stop. Bigger sensor better IQ and on it goes. My testing process is simple. Second any new macro lens I test at 1:1 using the 35mm slide mount and an assortment of C/U lenses I many have in house. To test how well a lens and camera combo focus (accuracy, speed, settings to gain the best results and more) I go to Blue Heron Bridge which is near my house. Rather than to pour over the lux and the -EV and alike I just go under the bridge in close to total darkness and shoot. Second tidbit of advise more time in the water and less on the interweb. Third standard I can always find fish eggs in the same spot on a sailboat keel which is under the bridge, you can see the blue bottom paint in all of the photos. Here I test how well I can focus at 1:1 and beyond with added C/U lenses. I have also attached four images taken with the Sony A7R IV and 90mm macro, two of eggs and two of the same Jawfish. All four images are taken from the same distance the larger in full frame 35mm and the second switched to APS-C which I have set to my AF-ON button. It is faster for me to use this method which acts like a 135mm macro on FF than to add a C/U lens. I still get a 25MP image and better image quality than M43 or most APS-C cameras. File size for FF is 9504X6336, APS-C is 6240X4160. The slide mount images are with M43 starting at 1:1 and scaling down to a +15close up lens a very small image with very little DOF and shot at near mm's. Getting this small would require tons of magnification on FF and you would have no DOF and no working range. Up side for M43 but with 61MP files I can crop and get about the same amount of information in the frame.
  8. 3 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 3 points
    Regarding the idea that Sony APS-C cameras are a niche market for housing manufactures is perhaps misunderstood. Housings for A6300/6400/6500/6600 are available from most manufactures for all or some of these cameras. Manufactures include Fantasea, Ikelite, Isotta, Nauticam, Sea & Sea, Seafrogs and more. It would be more accurate to say niche manufactures like Seacan and Subal don't make housings for these cameras. Also Aquatica, Ikelite, Isotta, Nauticam and Sea & Sea have all listed an intent to support the coming Sony A-1 and I suspect Seacam and Subal will perhaps do the same. The Sony A-1 is surely more of a niche camera than the Sony A6000 series cameras. I fully understand the idea that a Sony user could show up on a vacation or workshop may be the only Sony user. I have been in that passion on a number of occasions and ended up helping others more than they needed to help me. Regarding size, most U/W photographers just like land photographers don't need or want to deal with large MP cameras in the 45-60+ megapixel range. I appears that 20-24MPs is the sweet spot for M43, APS-C and full frame for many cameras, including high speed sports cameras. It is also clear that FF cameras in the 20-24MP range out preform M43 and APS-C cameras in terms of image quality. It is clear that DSLR cameras will never be able to compete with mirrorless cameras in regard to size and the gap is widening. Take the new Fujifilm GFX 100S a 100+MP medium format camera which is 150X104X87MM and 900G v. The D850 at 146X124X78.5 and 915G. In addition Fujifilm has been able to reduce the size of the lenses v. past MF lenses. Lastly the new Sony A7c camera and 28-60mm zoom are just a glimpse into the future of mirrorless camera size. The full frame 24.2 BSI sensor camera that is smaller and lighter than the Olympus EM1 III, Comparing Nauticam housings the NA-A7C housing is smaller at 307/172/103 and 1.78kg v 305/175/116 and 2kg for EM1 III. I fully agree that the Sony full frame lenses are bigger and require larger ports. The system can however be used with the 45 port and WWL-1. The Sony 28-60mm zoom is the only full frame lens I am aware of that works with WWL-1, which is very well suited to the 24MP sensor. While the lens works great with the 61MP A7R IV and WACP realistically most users will opt for the WWL-1 simply because of cost just as they may select CMC closeup lenses over SMC C/U lenses. For macro the housing requires that same N100 macro port for the 90mm macro as is does for all of the Sony FF cameras. What is most important to come away with here is that the A7C and 28-60 zoom will likely not be the end of the story. I suspect that smaller FF lenses for this camera will be coming. I also see the ability for a future high res version of the camera. Images are of the already very small Sony A7R IV and Sony FE 28-70mm with the WACP and the A7C with the 28-60 and WWL-1.
  11. 3 points
    I have just downsized from NA-D800 to NA-Z50, a crop sensor mirrorless. The 9" glass dome I had is 3kg, the WWL-C is just over 1 kg. For fisheye I am using the Tokina 10-17 with manual focus in an 8" acrylic dome. Mostly I use it for over/under so manual focus is no disadvantage. I use f16 and focus at about 6m underwater. Yesterday I compared the 10-17 with the Nikkor 8-15 in a camera shop at f16, ISO 200 and a bean bag. I can't tell the difference. New eyes might be a better investment. I intend to get this whole process written up on UWP sometime, but here is a picture of the manual focus mechanism made from a toy helicopter main gear, some drainpipe, a pillar valve top and an Aquatica (with an A to N adapter) dome I didn't mind drilling a hole in.
  12. 3 points
    Night dives in the sandy beaches of Ibiza, in the Mediterranean sea are always a surprise, you can find species that it's imposssible to see during the daylight, this is why I love that kind of diving. SVF13022021083
  13. 2 points
    To be honest, I don't see any difference in quality between the shot of the dolphins and the tiger shark. One doesn't look more clear or contrasty than the other, and there's nothing to say that the tiger shark is in focus and the dolphins are not. I think what you're seeing here as others have commented is the effect of 10'+ of water. Water is an awful filter that will destroy all contrast and resolution. The more of it you have between you and the subject, the worse the results. Both these shorts have subjects that are so distant that no lens or camera is going to make any difference in terms of the perceived contrast and resolution. If you're using any lens at 50mm+ (full frame equivalent) zoom to fill the frame with a pelagic subject, that means the subject is 15'+ feet away. You're not going to get good results in terms of sharpness and contrast with that much water between your lens and the subject regardless of how high quality your optics are. Most cameras are going to struggle with focus in such circumstances because the water column removes contrast. To reiterate, I don't think those two photos show that one lens is focusing on the subject properly and the other isn't. I'd say the focus is probably correct in both. I've tried various 14-42mm lenses on m43 behind the WWL-1, including the Oly 14-42 pancake. Differences are miniscule. I also ended up using the Panasonic 14-42mm II. Don't spend money upgrading your camera or optics for shots of large pelagics more than 15' away. You'll be dissapointed when your results do not improve. The only reason for using a focal length of 50mm+ underwater is to fill the frame with a smaller subject within 10' of your camera. Any further, and the results will be equally disappointing.
  14. 2 points
    Good topic, thanks for sharing. As for myself, I first started on a cheap compact (Lumix TZ10), but quicly switched to a GoPro4Silver (HD instead of 720p, really nice) in 2015, as I liked the image quality and had, after having done both on the compact, found out that I was not really interested in shooting stills. I've been using GoPros ever since, starting with the GP4 silver, which was a really nice camera - if you do take the time to shoot in a flat profile and edit in post. I first had a nice tray setup (homemade, then a SRP tray https://www.diveactiongear.com/product/187/the-tray-by-srp-for-gopro-hero4hero3hero3action-cam ), but when I actually started working in diving, I ditched the tray and simply had the GoPro on a coil retractor in a BCD pocket, and going for fully hand-held: Turns out you can get quite stable shots, even on the non-stabilized 4, just holding the camera with both hands. I'd used a UR Pro filter on the Panasonic compact, and went for that on the GoPro, after watching "side-by-side"videos comparing different filter options, as I found it offered maybe less vivid, but also less "day-glo" like tones and more uniform results Our faithful GP4S cams with the UR Pro CY filter. While I wasn't teaching that much, I was still guiding most of the time so not that many opportunities to shoot - but with such a small camera always tucked in the BC when guiding, I sometimes had option of grabbing a few seconds here and there when it was possible do so so ( 10 to 20 seconds clips max, which works fine for editing anyway, when an experienced guest was taking time to shoot a picture, for instance) or documenting something unusual. And I also still could do a few personal fun-dives every once in a while where I could shoot whenever I wanted, so all in all this kind of action cam rig worked quite well for the short, storyless, video logbook type clips we're interested in. My wife was doing the same, and we collected some nice footage, advantages of being in the water everyday. Switching from the GP4S first to the GP6Black, then to the GP7Black in 2019 was a massive relief because the cam was now waterproof, which made it way more compatible with the type of heavy-duty usage it was getting, ie carried around in a BC pocket on-up to 4 dives per day liveaboard... Quality wise, I much prefered the old "medium" FOV that the GP4S had over the 6 and 7's "linear" FOV which had higher side distortion, and find the image quality / dynamic range had also dropped a little on the 6/7 (probably due to stabilisation?) but the 7 is still a very capable camera, offering an notable improvement in colour acquisition. I don't use lights, for practical reasons (bulk), and also out of personnal aesthetic preference. I'm well aware that this is far from a common opinion, video/photo being all about capturing light and all that, but outside of macro video, I actually prefer less vivid colours and/or a colour cast, but a more even spectrum, over the usual results given by a set of lights blasting away in the foreground - and ambient light is also more discreet... This is of course linked to the fact that I was diving in the tropics, where it is possible to get workeable results down to 20-25 meters on a good day, and where most of the "good stuff" is in the shallows anyway - unlike say darker waters or freshwater lakes... From the GP4S to the GP7S, I kept shooting in ambient light down to 20m, in a flat profile, with a UR-Pro filter (SRP Blurfix adapter), and working on the colours in post (FCPX, DaVinci). Some clips here, all shot on handheld GoPros 4 to 7, in ambient tropical light in various locations: For macro, I did buy a MacroMate-mini +15 diopter, but never really had a chance to use it. Nailing the focus distance is definitely tricky, and you get blurred edges on the 7's FOV, so I moved away from that, especially when my wife bought an Olympus TG5, which gives interesting results for macro video, despite the terrible battery life when filming. I do have a pair of cheap Archon DV11 supposedly 800 lumen lights for macro/night dive fundiives. I'd read about the lens hack you mentioned, but didn't try modifying the lens position as I only one one workable cam - but did recently change the lens on the GoPro6, switching to a MAPIR PeauProduction 3.37mm lens lens https://www.peauproductions.com/ which allows you to use the "wide" fov without fisheye distortion, I've played around with it on land in lockdown, good times. Interesting ideas for the tripod, I was actually planning on experimenting with the 3K Gorilla Pod that I have in the near future, on a tray. I played around in the pool with the lights + TG5, seemed to work ok. Maybe it needs to be weighted down for stability? I really like keep the tent pole idea, easy to carry around. I agree it's definitely possible to do nice things with GoPro-like cameras, despite obvious limitations. It's a shame theses cameras do remain action-cams to this day, with most recent functionnalities cleary aimed at the action-cam market rather than more "traditionalist" uses such as underwater video, but hey, if what sells is clearly people wanting to "be heroes", I get it ( which is where the Paralenz market positioning is quite clever in my opinion, advantages of the action cam setup without the focus on action and POV shooting...). As an example of great use of the GoPro, I'd like to add this promo video was shot by Alex Lindbloom exclusively on GoPro 5s and 6s (with the exception of the aerial drone shots), rather than his more common GH5. Lovely angles and creative use of tripod shots, lovely stuff. Otherwise there are a few really nice clips posted on these GoPro UW video FB group that I'm sure you're familiar with: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2347204708888086 https://web.facebook.com/groups/849303718445927 I reluctantly had to archive the GoPro4S rigs for luggage/mobility reasons last year, and will now just keep the 2 GP7Bs I have and the lens modified GP6B. I currently have no intention of upgrading these cameras to 8/9/10 as I'm satisfied with what I getting, and also recently bought a compact for video, for more flexibility (Lumix LX10 in a Nauticam housing see https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/65996-choosing-a-compact-for-underwater-video-only-lx100ii-rx100-vvi-lx10/). Given the current worldwide situation and the impact on travel and tourism, after some years of moving seasonally around mostly between Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand, we'll be settling down on a remote Japanese island in the near future, which might mean the possibility to dive more for myself ( lots of shore-diving options, and won't be working full-time as an instructor-guide), albeit in slightly colder and darker waters... If we like it and end up setting up a longer-term base there, this might lead me to invest in something bigger like a second-hand GH5 rig (once the GH6 is out for instance), and might be the end of the action cam adventure for me, but I'll definitely be keeping the "GoPros in the pocket" option as handy backups. cheers b
  15. 2 points
    Macro videography Is it possible with action cameras? There are many macro lenses for action cameras. The price is currently ranging between 10 to 40 euros but they are just single element close-up (max +10 dp) lenses and I expect that they introduce chromatic aberrations. In general, adding close-up lens works effectively with telephoto lenses and weakly with wide angle lenses. On the other hand, extension tubes are very effective with wide angle lenses. The solution is simple; the fixed lens of the action camera should be unscrewed a bit mimicking the effect of an added extension tube. It requires a slight disassemble of the camera and removing some glue fixing the lens in position. First unscrewing may require some tools e.g. a plier (and it means losing the warranty, so do it first with an older, cheaper camera). I modified first my Hawkeye Firefly camera, which has anyway relatively bad close focusing. Re-focusing made a miracle and it gave a unique look of the footages from this camera. These footages are usually sharper because you have to be closer to the subject, so the layer of blue filter (the water) is much thinner. You can find some examples in this video. All the close-up shootings in this short movie are with this modified camera. Later, I also refocused my Yi 4K and it’s even better for macro but the lens should be really close to the subject. I haven’t tried yet underwater but the first results are very promising. You can also find many videos on youtube also for GoPros. An example is here. The effect is a bit similar to the one you can achieve with a very expensive relay lens on bigger cameras. https://www.nauticam.com/blogs/news/emwl-explained
  16. 2 points
    Cameras When entry level videography is discussed at wetpixel the latest GoPro is usually recommended as the minimum. However, there are other cameras to consider. I used the following cameras so far: · GoPro HERO · Yi 4K · Yi 4K+ · Actionpro X9 · Hawkeye Firefly 8SE, 90 degree version · GoPro HERO 6 Black (from a friend) · DJI Osmo Action (from a friend) My first action camera was a GoPro HERO (an entry level version of HERO 4, approx. 130 Euro around the announcement). It’s not sold anymore but I wouldn’t recommend it. The maximum resolution is full HD, but in general you may choose an older model or the basic version (white) of actual model (until HERO 7). My second camera was a Yi 4K produced by a sister company of Xiaomi. Unfortunately they stopped production of action cameras but you can find them occasionally. The flagship camera of Yi was Yi 4K+. It can even shoot at 4K 60fps. Both Yi 4K and 4K+ uses the same sensor (Sony IMX377) but 4K+ has a better processor and I like the files from it better. However, it also depletes the batteries faster. I can film with my 4K for more than an hour while my 4K+ stopes recording after 40-50 minutes. I won my Actionpro X9, it sells currently below 200 Euro. It’s more or less similar to the Yi 4K in specifications; it uses the same Sony IMX377. The pictures are a bit greener from it but the quality is similar due to the same sensor. A test film I took at Marsa Alam you can find here: I purchased the Hawkeye Firefly 8SE, 90 degree version to have a different view for my videos. It has a not that wide angle 90 degree view angle without much distortion. I have a love and hate relationship with this camera. The close focus capability of this camera is not that good so you need a distance from your subject to record them sharp, which is really bad underwater. It also uses an older noisier sensor, the Sony IMX117. So my first footages were noisy and soft. I was about to sell it when I decided to try to refocus it. Now, I can use for close-up and macro filming, the quality improver a lot due to the less water between my subject and the lens but it will be the topic of another post. I used a bit a friend’s GoPro 6 Black and the quality of the footages were really nice but not better than the ones from my Yi 4K+. The stabilization and white balance of the latest GoPros improved a lot but I have not much experience to comment on it. I also used a DJI Osmo Action briefly. I was really happy with the results. Now it sells around 200 Euro, so if I would need a new camera it would be on the top of the list. I also considered SJCAM, Xiaomi Mijia Mini 4k. I think the minimum today is 4K 30FPS (60FPS preferred) and a reliable image sensor (Sony IMX377 or better) Do you have any other recommended camera around 200 Euro/USD?
  17. 2 points
    I've spent the last few days profiling the YS-D3s with my custom TTL trigger board, on my Sony a7RIII. Yes, they're frustratingly less sensitive, even though I'm using the brightest Cree red LEDs on the market (C503B), overdriven to give ~88000 mcd output. My YS-D1, YS-D2, and YS-D2J all trigger just fine with a minimum pulse length of 23 usec. I can get 7+ stops of linear TTL response out of them. The Retras I tried last year would trigger with a minimum pulse length of 1 usec. I can trigger my YS-D3 with a minimum pulse length of 60-70 usec... about 95% of the time. Even with longer pulses, the YS-D3 will fail to fire every once in a while. I'll get a preflash pulse, but not a main pulse. I finally managed to get a working profile today, but to keep the LED pulses short enough I have to use TTL+1.0EV. That gives a working range of 1/1...1/32, but still has the reliability problem. At least when it fails to fire, it's still charged and I can take another shot. With the LED shoved directly in the YS-D3 sync port, it gets enough light to fire even at a 10 usec pulse. And that's bright enough to work with TTL (vs. DS-TTL) too, which would let me use the whole range of the strobe. But getting power to that LED underwater is going to be a bit of a problem. And if I'm going to run actual wires, I might as well just get a bulkhead and modify my trigger board to do electrical TTL. But the burst mode is phenomenal. I can shoot 6 fps at 1/16 power (10 shots), 1/8 power (6 shots), or 1/4 power (3 shots). That's going to be a huge help for black water dives, where it's hard to keep critters in focus. Short, controlled bursts... Oh, even more fun: One of my YS-D3s has already failed. It won't fire with either my RX100 or trigger board anymore. When I turn it on, the focus light flickers randomly, and the strobe tubes crackle with lightning. Which I guess is how the YS-D3 gets its name.
  18. 2 points
    Fred Miranda posted a review recently on his site of the Sony 28-60, comparing it to some well-known and well-liked prime lenses. It turns out that, even though it is inexpensive and lightweight, the 28-60 is very high in image quality. It actually bested some primes in most ways. At the apertures it can offer, of course. You can't compare the 28-60 at f/2.8 to a prime, since the 28-60 doesn't go that big. I was shooting an E-M10 with the 14-42+WWL-1 for several years. I upgraded to a Sony a7rIV last year and just got the 28-60 a couple of weeks ago (still using the WWL-1). I just got to shoot it this past weekend. It looks pretty good to me, so far. But, Phil is the man and, well, it's clear that he thinks the Sony/28-60/WWL-1 is going to be better than the Oly/14-42/WWL-1. LOL My agreement really means nothing next to his wealth of knowledge and experience (yet I DO agree). I know you are looking for compact, so you're thinking about the a7c. But, I would just throw this out there: The a7rIV (or a7rIII or an a1) has a lot more megapixels. I can switch my rIV to APS-C mode and still get a 26MP image while also narrowing my field of view to the equivalent of 1.5X focal length. I think all those extra MP really add flexibility to the setup. You can shoot in crop mode, or you just still shoot in FF mode and crop in post. Regardless, with that many MP to work with it's almost like having a close-up lens to use at will - without having to actually physically change the camera. The extra weight and bulk of a housing for an a7rIV (etc) may not be worth it to you for that extra flexibility, but it's at least something to consider. Also, regarding AF performance, I found that my E-M10 benefited from using a focus light and so does my Sony rig. If it's anything less than "good" ambient light, I'll turn my focus light on, just to make sure my AF has the best chance of getting a good lock on my subject.
  19. 2 points
    First I chose to move to Palm Beach County over fifty years ago specifically for the diving and I have been diving at the bridge for the entire 50 years, well before it became internationally known. Second I have been teaching U/W photography most of those fifty years and have always stressed spending time in the water as one of the best ways to improve your photo skills. I also stress to my students who don't get a chance to dive as much as I do that the techniques can be learned by shooting on land as well as in the water. I am very aware of the covid issues both in the UK and around the world, I work for a UK magazine. The point I believe I was making is that using your camera is always going to be of a larger benefit than talking about how it may work. Some of the first images I show in my macro class that could be done in your backyard. Learning how to get a black background and a balanced ambient light background. Macro shots of marine life are like shooting people, eye contact and slightly upward angle. Also just to clarify my "day job" for over thirty years was as a Professional Police Officer and Public Safety Diver. I am blessed to be in good enough health to pursue my passion for diving and U/W photography, this is not a job for me.
  20. 2 points
    Regarding the A7C review it was for the purpose of talking about the camera and housing. However I made it clear that I only used the one kit 28-60 lens with both WWL-1 and WACP. I also used one CMC-1 and two CMC-1"s stacked. None of those photos were included in the article which is the editors choice not mine. I am not ask to do side by side comparisons for the reasons reasons I have articulated above your post. I will attach two images, the portrait was shot at F/10 at ISO-400 and the landscape was shot at F10 at ISO 640 on a different day. For the UWP article I cropped the landscape a bit to make the water a bit more level. I have removed the crop so both images can be viewed full frame. The idea with the A7C and Nauticam housing review is to show how small the package can be v. using a W/A lens and 230mm port. If you are going to add a large port the upsides to the small system begin to go away. Regarding the comparison of WWL-1 and WACP my takeaway is that the W/A lens I own, 12-24 F/2.8, Tamron 17-28 F/2.8, Sony 16-35 F/4, Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 and more don't produce better corner sharpness with the 230mm port than either of the water contact lenses. Second to get the corner sharpness with the 230mm port my starting point is F/13 and even with the S&S correction lens sharpness is not as good as either of the WC lenses.
  21. 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.
  22. 2 points
    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
  23. 2 points
    Hi Horvendile, I dive a lot in the Red Sea since the 80ies and can comment generally on the focal lengthes and lens types (that I personally like), but cannot talk specifically about Nikon FX lenses (I have a MFT system). First, autumn is a great time for seeing and photographing sharks, but on a one (?) week Safari it may happen as well that you do not see any of them and/or just very far away. So it is advisable to make plans for other photography as well... "Nikon 14-30/4 S, with Sea&Sea correction lens, to be used with a Zen 230 mm glass dome. I guess this would be the default lens for the entire trip." => great for longimanus, big reef scene and caves. Too wide for other sharks as e.g. thresher or hammerhead that do not come close (the sharks must not be baited/feeded in Red Sea)... "Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, behind the same 230 mm dome, manual focus only. Could be fun to try, but could also be too wide for skittish sharks and manual focus could be difficult. I have not had an opportunity to try this lens when diving." => As above, even better for reef scene and caves. When longimanus come close they not seldom come very close. Optimum for longies will be with 1.4x Kenko TC, in case you have it and this lens/domeport combination gives good results... "Nikon 24-70/4 S, also behind the 230 mm dome. Normally I would expect you to say "meh" about this lens, but what about the sharks tho? An oceanic whitetip may come close enough for the 14-30. Other sharks, probably not. On the other hand I'm not expecting to photograph sharks with good quality at very long range." As you suppose this lens will be very good for other sharks (e.g. hammerhead; but be aware that you have to be lucky and have a very good guide, who knows where to find them (e.g. on Deadalus there can be many dozens with good luck). This focal length range behind a domeport is also great for fish portraits and turtles, night dives etc. I would not want to miss this range on a trip to the Red Sea, I think this range is often underestimated... "Nikon 60/2.8 macro on FTZ adapter. When I tried it in Swedish water I thought it was difficult to use as macro, because of the short working distance. But I figure that on this trip it could work as decent macro and also for fish portraits. Possibly sharks but not always the whole shark." This lens I would leave at home. Too short for real macro and for fishportrait the 24-70 behind a domeport is much more flexible and probably (I do not know this specific lens) also offers better IQ... "Nikon 105/2.8 macro on FTZ adapter. In Swedish waters with no current I liked this for macro work (of course). I'm more skeptical for this trip. The currents I expect probably make close macro work quite difficult. For more distant, larger subjects it could work but probably not better than the 60 mm macro." Macro photography in the Red Sea is great fun and this is the lens for it (if you have, also a close-up lens on a flip adapter). Even on a Safari to the offshore reefs you may want to make one macro dive per day (out of 3-4 dives; Bad luck for the whaleshark in case it comes then, but we cannot please everyone ). Why not spend an extra week on a resort with great house reef (e.g. Mangrove Bay or Rohanou) and celebrate macro while housereef diving? The extra cost is almost negligible, you just need to have the extra time... Wolfgang
  24. 2 points
    Sold. Thanks. Glad to see it getting more use in the future!
  25. 2 points
    I am a diving Medical + critical care Physician and Underwater photographer and would like to chime in on this topic. Firstly, please do not fall into the trap of news or facebook postings that are reflect the author's opinion. Only, peer reviewed Medical Journals should be referenced. In summary, based on multiple medical literature searches, there are multiple vaccines already out and others completing phase 3 trials. All of these trials did not look at asymptomatic (believed to be about 60% of all covid infections) so it is not known if the vaccines will prevent asymptomatic infections or if vaccinated people that are asymptomatic can transfer the disease and infect others. Until detailed studies are completed The ones that are out there are the following: Pfizer 2 injections with about 50% efficacy two weeks after the first injection, 3 weeks between injections and 95% efficacy 2 weeks after the second shot, this efficacy is against the original strain and the initial British strain, It has reduced efficacy against the Newer British, South African and Brazilian variants, efficacy against these strains are believed to be around 60% with the current vaccine.They are tweaking the vaccine in order to provide increased protection against the newer strains, a booster will be made available to those vaccinated with the original vaccine. Moderna 2 injections with about 30-50% efficacy two weeks after the first injection, 4 weeks between injections and 94% efficacy 2 weeks after the second shot, this efficacy is against the original strain and the initial British strain, It has markedly reduced efficacy against the Newer British, South African and Brazilian variants, efficacy against these strains are believed to be around 50% with the current vaccine. They are tweaking the vaccine in order to provide increased protection against the newer strains, a booster will be made available to those vaccinated with the original vaccine. Astra Zenica, 2 injections, better efficacy with longer than 4 weeks between injections with about 50% efficacy two weeks after the first injection, 4 weeks between injections and 95% efficacy 2 weeks after the second shot, this efficacy is against the original strain and the initial British strain, It has reduced efficacy against the Newer British, South African and Brazilian variants, efficacy against these strains are believed to be less than 60% with the current vaccine Johnson and Johnson, single injection, about 70% effective against the original strain, less than 50% effective against the new strains, not as yet approved by the CDC/FDA Novovax about 90% efficacy against all known strains of Covid-19 https://www.novavax.com/sites/default/files/2021-01/UK-SouthAfrica-Trial-Results--FINAL.pdf not as yet approved by CDC/FDA Testing: PCR Covid tests: about 10% false positive and about 10% false negative results depend on adequate sample Rapid testing: about 20% false positive and 20% false negative Hope this helps clear things up
  26. 2 points
    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:
  27. 2 points
    Here are a few more R5 sample videos, shot with the same settings as I had in the previous post. This time I used the EF 8-15mm fisheye lens. Depth this time was in the 55-60 ft range, sunny conditions.
  28. 1 point
    If your ports face forward, you can measure the relative brightness by putting a piece of regular paper in front of the sync ports and take a picture pointing into a mirror. The light shining through the paper should be equal brightness from both ports. If both are overexposed / saturated in the picture, stop down, or add a second sheet of paper. If your ports face up, tape a piece of cardstock onto your camera and fold it so it's at about a 45-degree angle, so the ports shine onto the cardstock where you can see it in the mirror. You can do the same thing to test sync cables; point them at a piece of paper and take a picture of it. - Randall
  29. 1 point
    I can generate arbitrary 1 us - 1 sec pulse lengths from my trigger board when I have it hooked to USB, accurate to 0.2 us, and I'm using a photodiode and 100 MHz scope to measure the strobe output. I'm also using about the brightest red LEDs money can buy. Red is the best wavelength for the combination of optical fiber and photodiode sensitivity (silicon photodiodes are twice as sensitive at 620 nm red than at green or blue). They're so bright you can't even look at them directly. I can't use a strobe in the housing, because there isn't enough space for me to put one that would cycle fast enough to use YS-D3 burst mode. About the only way to get more power to the other end of the fiber optic cable would be to switch to laser diodes. And then I'm worried I'd burn out the photodiodes (or my eyeballs). I'm using Sea&Sea's own multi-fiber cables, in good shape. And I'm still not getting consistent results from the YS-D3. With slave TTL, either (unless I move the fiber optic cable from the slave port on my YS-D2J to directly in front of the tube, where it makes a shadow on the subject). So I don't think it's the trigger board. I think it's the strobes. Either a design oversight or a manufacturing defect. I'm happy to share more detailed results and scope traces, or to look at anyone else's strobes (of any model) for comparison. It only takes about half a day to profile a strobe. - Randall
  30. 1 point
    Sigh, it's not just LEDs. Long story short, slave TTL mode doesn't work reliably, even triggered from a YS-D2J. I connected my YS-D2J to my trigger board, and then hooked my YS-D3 to the slave port of my YS-D2J using a Sea&Sea sync cable. Then held down the focus light button to switch my YS-D3 to slave TTL mode (cyan; backwards from YS-D2J colors...) Now I should be able to use DS-TTL on the YS-D2J, and the YS-D3 should follow along by matching the strobe pulse lengths. The actual strobe output lengths are pretty similar between the two (1/4 power is 302 us on YS-D2J and 341 on YS-D3; 1/32 power is 78 us on YS-D2J and 72 us on YS-D3; 1/128 power is 42 us on YS-D2J and 37 us on YS-D3). But... epic failure. Sometimes the YS-D3 doesn't fire at all, sometimes it fires at full power. It doesn't seem to be able to match the right pulse lengths, even though it's now being triggered by a real xenon tube. Ok, let's try the YS-D2 in manual mode, and see if the YS-D3 can follow along. At least then I'd only have to turn *one* knob to adjust power on both strobes. Also very weirdly, when I change the strobe power on the YS-D2J, the YS-D3 seems to get the first shot wrong, but subsequent shots are better. That seems like maybe a firmware bug? But it kinda works, at least at GN22 - GN8. At GN5.6, it doesn't trigger reliably. And at GN4 on the YS-D2J, the YS-D3 stops triggering at all. There's no longer enough light coming in the sync cable from a xenon tube flash. That's probably why the first experiment failed; the preflash on the YS-D2J (roughly GN5.6) isn't bright enough to trigger the YS-D3 reliably. But if I put both strobes on manual, the YS-D3 will trigger all the way down to GN1 on the YS-D2J (1/1024 power). And it'll trigger at GN2 on the YS-D2J even if I use an old and much-abused crappy and dim single-fiber sync cable. So the YS-D3 can see adequate light coming in on the sync port. But all its TTL implementations are broken. Really hoping this is a defect in the first batches of strobes.
  31. 1 point
    Owen, I agree with everything Tim said. Your best image quality upgrade is going to be positioning the dome in the right spot. I shoot the Tokina 10-17 with a D7000 in the Aquatica housing and I use the 18456 extension (I think its the 48456 now, but the 18456 extension will work for your housing if you can find one used) and I get good sharpness. Image "quality" will not be improved by going to the small dome, but it can lead to more versatility. If you regularly find you are having a hard time getting close enough or lighting the subject in front of the 8" dome, then the small one might be a good upgrade for you. Same goes with the 1.4 teleconverter. If you are shooting small stuff CFWA style and cannot get close enough with your setup then the small dome and teleconverter may be the best upgrade path for you. One place where the D7000 shows it weaknesses is in high ISO situations. The 8" dome gives you some flexibility in shooting a little wider open than the small dome will, while still retaining corner sharpness. The small dome may force you into the dreaded ISO 3200, where the D7000 files start to fall apart. I too think about upgrading, but The D7000 is a good camera and I am amazed how well my files hold up if I am careful with my exposure. SH
  32. 1 point
    Yep, that's the one! I've been on Koh Tao for two months now, doing mostly muck diving - I want to get my fix of wide-angle before I go home Looks like we'll be meeting in person in just a few days.
  33. 1 point
    I use it (in the original E-mount version), very occasionally, with my Sony A6300. It's so wide that lighting a shot involving it is quite challenging, at least with the SeaFrogs strobes I've been using until recently. I have Retra Pros now, and I'm going to Richelieu Rock/Surin next week, so I'll give it another try. Here are some shots that I took with it in the Philippines.
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 1 point
    Ok folks...happy ending! I finally was able to bring the flooded float arm to the shop where it was purchased (Dive Supply Bangkok). They told me to leave it with them and they would see what could be done about a replacement under warranty. Later that afternoon I get a call saying they can replace the float arm with a new one and also the unflooded one that was bought together as a pair. The next day I brought the other unflooded arm to the shop and walked away with two new float arms! They said to come back if I had any problems with the new ones. Very big thanks for the great advice received here and a big shout out to the kind folks at Dive Supply Bangkok!
  38. 1 point
    For stills ? The camera will see it as natural light and adjust shutter speed (depending on setting), I have no experience with this particular camera. I see the tough has 1/4 up to 1/2000 fast shutter speed. I dont see the f-stop range in the specs. But if the tough can expose on midday in bright sunlight, I am sure it will be able to correct. Are you running into limits with the one light ?
  39. 1 point
    Another size comparison, D800 and Z50. For me the attraction was being able to use the WWL-C rather than a dome and extensions. Having used a 12-24 on a D7000 with a big dome (and the 16-35 on a D800) I would much rather deal with a little barrel distortion (usually imperceptible) than all the grief big domes and extensions bring to the party. The Z50 set up with the WWL-C weighs about 3.5kg less than the D800, 16-35, 230mm glass and extension. The Z50 uses the same sensor as the D500, but has a pop-up flash for optical triggering.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Although at same settings a larger sensor produces a higher IQ once you work at constrained depth of field the benefit is zero So your full frame fisheye at f/11 is aspc at f/8 and MFT at f/5.6 Your two stops ISO benefit is gone As a land based full frame user the benefit is in those situations where I can have a different look for example shooting f/2 wt night where f/1 on MFT doesn’t exist Or bright scenes where full well capacity of full frame just gives more detail Underwater those benefits for most dont exist What is different is that some larger cameras are just better camera either for af, battery life functionality Then of course WACP type solutions bring back the gap however they are expensive Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  42. 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.
  43. 1 point
    It could be counterintuitive but I would choose the most powerful ones for shallow dives. Few days ago someone asked me more or less the same question. I'll copy here what I wrote: I own a couple of vintage Luna 8 CRI lights. I'm very satisfied. I own them since 2013 and I couldn't have made a better choice. Originally they were 5000 lumen and two years ago I bought the new 9000 lumen led modules. On Luna 8 They are interchangeable so you keep the light. Recently Keldan released more powerful modules.With the modern camera ISO capabilities I find that 8/9K lumens are more than enough. Maybe you need more powerful lights if you use ambient filters in shallow water. On the other hand the compact series have not interchangeable led module but without the large reflector they are travel friendly. Is up to you. IMHO I prefer the CRI 95 version. You could wonder if the small head of the compact version gives the same as the large reflector of the Luna. The original Luna 8 design used led arrays to get the whole beam so a huge reflector with a inner white shade was necessary to get an even beam. Now modern lights use COB led with a uniform beam by itself. You can see the type of dives I do in my signature.
  44. 1 point
    Some people do dynamic range tests on video there are some issues with the process but results are comparable The canon r5 has the same DR of the GH5 and likewise the R6 In essence the Panasonic Lumix S are the best cameras right now for video followed by Sony A7S3 that has some really bad quirks The rest of new digital consumer cameras are not better than the GH5 BMPCC ZCAM even better but worse ergonomics and no IBIS This is where we are right now if you want the best video orientated digital camera get Panasonic S1H the rest are far far away Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  45. 1 point
    Dimension: 307mm (W) x 172mm (H) x 103mm(D) Weight on Land: 1.78kg Weight Underwater: 0.19kg Depth Rating: 100m Port System: N100
  46. 1 point
    And they always say the simplest solution is often the right answer ... cleaned the glass with windex inside and out. Now it fires. But It won't high speed in manual. Next problem! LOL
  47. 1 point
    Oh, don’t worry. Thank you very much for your help.
  48. 1 point
    dang it your making me jealous again. Bill
  49. 1 point
    Market intelligence company has surprising and interesting prediction https://petapixel.com/2021/02/08/report-predicts-that-the-future-of-imaging-is-in-underwater-cameras/
  50. 1 point
    The Alpha 1 is already being used underwater in a Nauticam housing, I suspect the NA-2020 housing for A7R IV and A9 II as the the size and control placement are very close to A9 II. If anyone is interested go to youtube and search Hunters of light for the three minute promo video.

Sponsors

Advertisements



  • Newsletter

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