Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/12/21 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    A very meta feedback but would it be possible to reduce the time between searches on this forum? When I search for something (using the text box), i need to wait several seconds every time I move between the results pages. This is not a big issue frankly, but I found this feature a little bit frustrating today! I guess it must be to prevent cyber attacks? Thank you Alex
  2. 2 points
    The arm seem a little bit short. See if with the house in the tray you do have space enough to use the clamps, if it does not reduce the access to any function of the housing. David refers 200mm/5” arms, but it was a mistake. 200mm is 8”. To secure the tripod base (the arms used as tripod base) you should use 2 screws in each, to avoid the arm to rotate.
  3. 1 point
    LX10 does not play nice with wide angle wet lenses. The port is too long. If you're set on the LX10, Issota sell a housing where you can swap in a shorter port.
  4. 1 point
    Link to full album HERE Few shots Tompot Blenny Mediterranean by Interceptor121, on Flickr Sunseeker by Interceptor121, on Flickr Hole in the wall by Interceptor121, on Flickr Gennaro and Carmela by Interceptor121, on FlickrBreeding Male Anthias by Interceptor121, on Flickr
  5. 1 point
    No. Water have an effect in skewing the expected balance of colour that a traditional bayer sensor is built to manage A typical RGGB schema expects double green than red and blue so you have issues of clipping the blue channel in water (in blue water in green water not so much as a paradox) Considering that most shots are using artificial lighting larger sensor means you need more strobe power to even things out so it generally impacts portability because is not just about a big camera but also about much bigger strobes Other things where a full frame camera can have an advantage are more latitude in your raw files and being more forgiving if you get your exposure wrong however this is exactly the same as when you shoot on land there is no significant difference I do a lot of land shooting post covid and do regular print club competitions (land or unrestricted) and format is not what wins the day It is however true that most professional and respected underwater photographers shoot full frame DSLR but this is just a habit in my opinion and many competitions are won with Nikon D500 and other cropped DSLR If there is one thing to be said about underwater photography is that the level of mirrorless adoption compared to land shooting is lower when you look at full frame or APSC and this is also because Nikon especially has been lagging but is catching up.
  6. 1 point
    There are two versions. The one with the balls is not designed for long arms, heavy lights and strobes, but only for very lightweight rigs (go pros, point and shoots) with correspondingly small lighting. The big version is for the big rigs, where the lighting is connected to the camera housing in the traditional way and not to the camera mount. I have the prior version of their pro mount which mounts via a cam band and not the straps, and I actually prefer that overall, although the arca release plate on this new one looks even more robust than mine. I mount a Nauticam housing for Sony full frame plus a port, and the WWL 1 lens, plus long arms, retra strobes, and a video light, and it is a big and heavy rig (not as bad though as a DSLR with a dome) and even my version of the older pro mount takes it all very well. Scootering with it is a pure joy compared to kicking it around, especially in a current. The new small one looks phenomenal as a tripod for stationary work. But, I think the allen screws shown on the pro could be removed and a ball mounted there if desired. Would be worth asking Dive-X about that. OOPS! Just watched the video. Indeed, balls can be added to the pro mount where the allen screw is.
  7. 1 point
    Thanks - I hesitated between the 5" and 8" arms, but when with the shorter as I couldn't see reasons to go with longer arms - It's for a compact housing and I couldn't see functional issues when measuring things out - when looking into it I also saw that actual Nauticam tripod mounts are quite close to the housing (albeit at an angle). My housing's in for repairs should be back in a couple days, so i'll get to check if the arm length is problematic or not. I got the 4 legs today and it's looking quite good, but I'll definitely need a second screw to avoid rotation. The polycarbonate sheet should be arriving tomorrow, along with longer screws, so hopefully I'll be able to fix something. I'm pretty happy with the way it's going - the biggest expense / headache are the screws so far, which hard to come by and expensive in these parts.... We're leaving Japan to work in Maldives for winter, but if all goes well I might actually get to test the setup on a couple of dives before we set off.
  8. 1 point
    Time for some overdue thanks to: @mdo905 purchased the CMC-1 my wife will never use. @PsychoSgt is putting to use 2 YS-110s from my original 20D rig @gdiver25 took one of my YS-D2s. @shjeong8 took the other YS-D2 and my older YS-D1. It was great working with all of you, thanks for helping me fund a bit of the bonfire my R5 is causing.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    For the EPL10 (m43), there is the options of the oly 60mm f/2.8, Oly 8mm f/1.8 and pana 8mm f/3.5. They are quite bright. I bought the EPL10 mainly because it is small and compact but has more versatility and potential for growth (versus Canon G series/ Pana LX10). I've chosen the Oly 60mm for macro/fish portraits and 14-42mm + WWL-1B for my wide angle (more versatile than the 8mm because it allows for zoom thru IMO). I use them with a pair of Z330s. I am very happy with the 60mm for macro/fish portraits, AF is very snappy. Custom white balance is very good as well. The 14-42 mm + WWL-1B combo I have not been able to try yet because of travel restrictions. I also agree with Chris that TTL is a hit or a miss and depends on the camera. Shooting manual yields way better results most of the time. You can also stop up and down in camera so you don't have change strobe power settings.
  11. 1 point
    Hello, I've used both the larger plastic (for mirrorless) and the largest aluminum Gorilla Pod underwater. The plastic one worked great underwater, it did not rust, etc. but overtime (a little over a year) the leg joints started loosening and got cracking in the sockets. It was very useful lightweight and could easily pack it for travel. Load capacity wasn't an issue since your rig is much lighter underwater. This is my bet if you are decided on gorilla pod for underwater. After the plastic one broke, I upgraded to the aluminum one, with the hope it would be more durable. For the record aluminum does not rust like steel. When aluminum rusts (aka oxidizes), the rust forms a protective layer of aluminum oxide. But the Gorillapod is anodized aluminum so you don't have that oxidation issue to deal with. However, one major issue I have encountered is the rubber compound they use on the aluminum version. After sometime the rubber became swollen and started peeling off. Eventually, it was just the aluminum ball and sockets legs remaining. Not very pretty but it still worked. The plastic version does not seem to have that issue with the compound they used for the grip. Also for the aluminum version I only used the base with the legs, the ball head on the aluminum version had lots of small parts that rusted. I've switched instead to just using strobe arms as a tripod legs. Less maintenance and rinsing needed. Much lighter than the Gorillapod. There isn't much places for a gorillapod to cling to underwater. If you are looking for a Gorillapod like experience, try DIY and buy Loc-Line Pipes and you can fashion yourself a tripod! Load capacity isn't much of an issue underwater due to the buoyancy of your rig. On land, I recommend the aluminum version, much more stable than the plastic one. However is quite heavy for what it does.
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    Hello all - I've made some progress on the project, ordering 5 inch ball arms on Ali Express with predrilled 1/4 inch threads, along with assorted countersunk screws - I settled for M5 (5mm diameter) as 1/4 inch was too thick to fit in available and usable tray spaces, and there's not that many lenght options available in the format. I mounted the arms to the tray using M5 screws in the 1/4 mount holes. However the Nauticam tray is asymetrical, so what worked was having the bolt up on the smaller side and bolt down on the larger side. The mount is not 100% symmetrical, but close, and I think it will do. It's pretty stable already as is, but I'll need longer screws - the ones I'm using are 20mm M5 and that's a little short, so I ordered 25mm in 316 stainless - I I'll probably need washers as well. I'm ordering the bolts etc on amazon.jp, so choice is limited, but ordering from China direct takes over 2 weeks and I might be on the move again soon. I also ordered a polycarbonate sheet, with a thickness of 5mm that I should be receiving in a couple of days. Idea is to reinforce this setup by adding a plate to the arms, so I can have another bolt to secure the whole thing, as suggested.
  14. 1 point
    My quick review of this rather wonderful piece of kit that I've been using for the past few months. Let me know what you think! Enjoy
  15. 1 point
    Sorry for the late reply. My friends uw photographers went to: https://laperlaneradiving.com/en/home-3/ Good service and by letting them know your needs in advance, they have an eye for photographers. Anyway the Island is plenty of diving centers. Diving is the main reason to go there. Is a MPA since 1986. Nearly all diving centers can take care of home/hotel accommodation and even ferry tickets. I mentioned Ustica because is fairly simple to get there. Airplane to Palermo and then a ferry or fast hydrofoil. You can go there even from Naples by ferry. Within Europe I prefer to send diving equipment in advance by mail. Very cheap and saves you the usual headaches at the airport especially if you travel with low cost airlines where the weight of luggage is a nightmare. Here general info on the island and its MPA. http://www.ampustica.it/en/come-raggiungerci.asp?idmenu=6 I would avoid July and August. IMHO best period is June and September/October.
  16. 1 point
    I shot a GH5 II for a few weeks in the Red Sea last month. Mostly photos, but also video. Can't say I really noticed much image quality difference over the GH5, either for photos or videos. I wasn't doing side-by-side controlled tests, to be fair, just shooting. Continuous autofocus for video with the 14-42 + WWL-1 was definitely a bit better, but I was mostly shooting with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye + adapter, so the autofocus wasn't really an advantage there. In the end, not keeping the GH5 II. That $1700 can be better invested elsewhere
  17. 1 point
    Thank you Chris and Isaac - understood. Yes there is too big a gap to try the Tamron, I am not overly keen on that lens. Given the reduced field of view -- maybe I could switch out to the 130 degree objective lens? Saves buying another port and lens. If I can get away with using my existing port and 105mm that would be my preference. I note also on the port chart that for the 60mm on APSC they recommend a hoya +4 adapter. Thanks for your help Cheers John
  18. 1 point
    Thank you for this tip, Davide, the gorgonia are outstanding! Strait of Messina in combination with Ustica is presents as attractive destination for 2022, I am eager to see this... Can you recommend a diving base at Ustica? Wolfgang
  19. 1 point
    Not a direct answer to you but I have almost all of the sony wide angle combos possible (on A7III) 28-60 + WWL-1 15mm Sigma + dome (& extension) 16-35 + dome (& extension) 18mm (Batis) + dome (& extension) The 1. has the highest corner to corner sharpness / Image quality of all of the above and it is the most well balanced and compact rig. I am extremely happy with it. The 14mm would be nice if you shoot mostly inside of wrecks or if you want a very wide split shot but for any other aspects, I would go for 1. or 2. Maybe if I go in Maldives and want to take pictures of distant sharks then I will chose the 16-35 (or break the piggy bank for a WACP).
  20. 1 point
    I've been using a 90mm with my A6300 for a while now. A focus light isn't absolutely critical, but it helps, especially when doing supermacro with a close-up lens on top of the port. What is crucial is the ability to hold the camera absolutely still while the lens focuses - this can take a few seconds, longer on smaller subjects, and even tiny camera movements tend to reset the focusing process. Surge and currents are your enemy. I tried using it on a blackwater dive once and couldn't get it to work in autofocus mode, but another diver on the boat, also shooting an A6300 with the 90mm, did get some nice shots on the same dive using DMF pre-focused on a certain distance and moving the camera back and forth.
  21. 1 point
    Hi smurillo, I've written up my notes on using that combo here: https://www.naturetripper.com/articles/underwater-macro-photography I think quite a few people here have experience with the 90 mm – pretty much the go-to for Sony users. Adding to my notes at the link: I haven't really tried it, but I think a lot of people use it with a focus light. Best, Simon.
  22. 1 point
    I have been shooting MFT since 2015 so my memories of the Sony RX100 are not so fresh I had a very good set up and pulled decent shots with the RX100 however the current set up although more bulky is superior There were some benefit with the rx100 for example the leaf shutter went all the way to thousands for sunbursts however the images were not the same quality or sharpness overall I have also developed more my style and my knowledge so some of the improvements depend on that Since the sony had a 24-70mm lens it was no longer adequate for me and the new version with a port system is at the end worst than using my set up in terms of flexibility
  23. 1 point
    Great thread! I actually started with a borrowed Nikonos around 1985 or so, and around 1998, dabbled with a Sea & Sea Motomarine 35 film camera. Finally, the first real kit was 2013 Sony RX100 MKI, Ikelite housing, 2x YS-D1 strobes, focus light, a Nauticam CMC-1 close-up lens, and a Kraken wet wide angle lens, all purchased over a period of time. The RX100 is great with 20MP and manual controls and has stood up to almost 8 years of diving Seattle and travel. For an entry level, it's really been a fantastic camera, but it's getting time to upgrade!
  24. 1 point
    Having traveled through SJD in August and been hit with the housing tax I've done a bit of a writeup on the current state of affairs as well as some thoughts in the hopes it might help others. Crosspost from ScubaBoard https://www.scubaboard.com/community/threads/camera-housing-tax.587789/page-3#post-9161020 ------------------- Ok - as promised.I've been a bit busy though so not as fresh as I'd hoped....Anyways:Yes, when I traveled through SJD in mid August I was forced to pay an import duty on my camera housing.I, being curious and not in a particular hurry, spent more than 90 minutes debating with them as to whether a duty was appropriate.My conclusion: The front line officers have been instructed to tax housings and provide the reasoning of 'professional equipment'.They appear to have no discretion in this.This is most curious as it is a 'shakedown' but not by the officers.Rather I would speculate it is to hit a quota.The proceeds are collected by credit card and they do log it in a seemingly robust computer system - it looked like government software: ugly, bloated, hard to use and plenty of tracking data. It's not going in the pocket of anyone local.I should note that I had priority bags so I was one of the first hitting them. They asked what was in the cases and I answered honestly. Did not feel like experiencing a Mexican jail nor like having $10,000 worth of gear confiscated before a long dive trip. They would have Xrayed them anyways.I did note that they first asked if I had a camera and then afterwards specifically asked if I had a housing. See below for thoughts on this.Some observations:1) The officer I encountered spoke perfect English (hence my willingness to debate for 90 minutes), plus he was very patient and polite. He even made a really good effort to justify the situation but, as I was quite thoroughly prepared, it did eventually reduce to 'either you pay or you don't get into Mexico' when I'd poked holes in most of the 'official' reasoning he appeared to have been trained to promote.2) They are being very specific about housings now. They saw all my other gear (lenses, ports, etc.) it was just the primary housing they wanted duty for. And they knew just how much to charge (though they made an effort to google it for confirmation). This is, of course, very targeted. To argue that the housing is for professional use while none of the other items related to the camera, nor the camera itself was for professional use was absurd. You can't have one without the other. In my mind this was clear evidence that this was chasing a quota - make it a small enough value to minimize arguments (~$180USD) but collect it enough times to make it worthwhile. I even went so far as to gamble and point out that if they were taxing one thing they should tax the rest - they largely ignored this line of reasoning.3) I had the letter from Nautilus' Mexican lawyer. They didn't appear to have seen it before as they took a while to read it, however, they basically laughed at it and refused to accept it's validity or reasoning. Additionally they refused to comply with any of the demands in the letter/recommended procedures other than providing an official receipt. Reasoning was it was not part of their standard procedure.4) I repeatedly asked for permission to contact the lawyer for clarification. This was denied (it is a 'no cell phones' area).5) I also had a print out of the actual law allowing for two cameras plus accessories. They refused to accept the housing as an accessory though everything across my entire rig was.6) They focused in on 'professional'. To which I pointed out that for it to be 'professional', by definition in English or Spanish, it needed to be used for a profession. This caught them up and they eventually decided to ignore that path of reasoning as it was inconvenient for their narrative. "How do I know you're not using it to make money"7) The agent brought up the example of a GoPro and it's housing as an example of 'not Professional' with the justification being that the housing was also sold by GoPro. I pounced on this as absurd - this line of reasoning was also rapidly avoided after that. "If it looks professional to me it is professional and I will tax it"8) They would only allow me to 'escalate' to the front line supervisor - no further. Her English was much more limited (and my Spanish is useless) so this was pointless. She also wanted nothing to do with the discussion or debate - just "it's professional - you have to pay".9) They did offer me the path of holding it while I got a Carnet established. This, of course, is completely impractical for a vacation traveler both on cost and time frame. They knew this.I do think that how busy they are drastically affects how much this is enforced. I had arrived just before lunch and part of my strategy was to try and wear them out until they got hungry and gave up. This did not work.They did allow me to write 'under protest' when singing the acknowledgement. What I was being charged for on the paper was also quite generic. I suspect there might be a path to a credit card chargeback if one were so inclined. I am not going down this path as based on what my time is worth vs. the cost I would not win even if I won. I believe it has been calibrated to ensure this. Additionally, I've not been prompt in chasing this and I've had to do a lot of chargebacks recently related to airlines and some business matters. I don't want to get flagged by the card issuers for abusing the process over a measly $200 cost.I did receive a very official looking document as 'my copy'. I intend to keep this on file and present it in the future if they attempt to tax me again for the same equipment.That being said - this sort of activity makes me hesitate to spend any more money in Mexico. Corruption disgusts me - particularly when it is so brazen and officially sanctioned/mandated. They are ignoring their own clearly written laws to bite the hand that feeds them.I do appreciate that the officer was patient and cordial through the process. I also appreciate his effort in trying to come up with a justification. But, it was pretty clear he knew what he was part of and they've done a good job of making it essentially unavoidable.Ultimately, this is just a glorified tourist tax. If they'd just implement a $200 Marine Park Fee and ensured the funds actually went to the parks I think most would be happy to pay it. Instead there is this twisted workaround and I'm certain the money collected is not funding anything of value to either tourists or your average Mexican citizen.Anyways. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Hopefully helpful to those travelling in that direction in the future.
  25. 1 point
    They do Alex. It's called a credit card. Bob
  26. 0 points
    This thread has gone off topic as usual with the sensor comparison The question was does the benefit of larger sensor that exists on land gets amplified underwater? And the answer is no it doesn’t the sensor benefits are unchanged and as side effect of shooting small apertures the gap may even close However provided you invest in equipment and are happy with the weight larger sensor do provide the best images example buy a WACP small apertures are no longer an issue buy it weights a ton or get a massive dome for a fisheye lens Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sponsors

Advertisements



  • Newsletter

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