Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JayceeB

  1. I think using a filter is worth a try, but will dedicate the dive to ambient, unless i removed the WWL and used a flip. I wonder if these same shots would WB significantly better if shot with a Canon or Nikon or different Sony model.
  2. Has anyone on this forum purchased a Marelux housing yet?
  3. Here is another shot (before/after processing) on the same dive with the sun behind me at approximately the same depth, but further away from the dolphins.
  4. I am fairly close to the dolphins ~15'. Lens is 28-60mm @60mm with WWL-1B. 30-40' deep. I white balanced this in Lightroom. Started with the eye-dropper on the dolphin's white belly, then fine tuned with sliders.
  5. Here's an export of the RAW file before and after correcting. Is the original too underexposed?
  6. Thanks, Chris. I currently have my WB set as 'Auto', and only capture RAW. Does setting custom white balance underwater actually give you the ability to get better white balance out of the RAW file? Or does it just make it easier to fine tune? The reason I am asking is i find my ambient RAW files have a 'magenta' tone to the water that is difficult to remove without altering the white balance of the subject. Wondering if all cameras suffer from this, or only specific brands/models.
  7. For those who have experience processing RAW files shot with ambient light in blue water with FF mirrorless cameras, can you give any observations on which brand/model is easier to accurately white balance RAW files in post?
  8. Good call. Thanks, Phil. Is it fair to say then that the same large dome for 16-35 rectilinear can also be used for a fisheye zoom? I know if you were going to be strictly using the fisheye zoom, you could go with a smaller dome, just wondering if the larger domes also support fisheye.
  9. Looks like Marelux Sony 28-60 port might possibly support the Nauticam bayonet mount. I didn't see confirmation of support, but the notches look similar to Nauticam ports. https://www.marelux.co/products/macro-port-32 Also the Sony 90mm macro port. https://www.marelux.co/products/macro-port-97 Canon 100mm macro port. https://www.marelux.co/products/macro-port104 Nikon 60mm macro port https://www.marelux.co/products/macro-port-71 Nikon 105mm macro port. https://www.marelux.co/products/macro-port-97
  10. To summarize, this is what I'm picking up from this discussion: Full frame cameras are more susceptible to soft corners with rectilinear wide angle lenses than crop sensor cameras. In general, the larger the dome, the sharper the corners for full frame. Higher f stops sharpen corners, with the tradeoff of having to use higher ISOs. Corner sharpness is not an important factor when shooting big animals offshore, because softness in blue water corners is not noticeable. Corner sharpness in CFWA with reef backgrounds is noticeable. Larger domes are better for splits. Zooming in improves corner sharpness. A 16-35 at 35mm will have sharper corners than at 16mm. Not all wide angle lenses perform well underwater in dome ports.
  11. Appreciate your help, @Draq ...I guess i went off on a tangent on that response
  12. Thanks for your response, Phil. I did see the new 16-35 Sony lens announcement, and it’s great news to hear you mention it will be a good one. So far I have not taken split shots, but that might be something I experiment with later on. The A7C I have been shooting for the past year is serving me well so far, but I know one day an upgrade will occur and that will surely be higher resolution.
  13. I have the WWL-1B mounted with bayonet. The 28-60 port has a focus knob on the left side that prevents the release toggle on the bayonet mount to be installed normally. As a workaround, the bayonet mount, on the port, must be installed upside-down, so the toggle ends up on the right side of the port. The WWL-1B is installed upside down as well. I painted a small white dot on the bottom of the WWL-1B (which faces up) to let me know approximately where to align it when securing the WWL1-B. It takes a bit of time to get it right and secure. You need to do that exercise twice since you take it off the camera, then secure it on a bayonet on the arm. And twice again when you re-install the WWL-1B. I also carry the CMC-1 on the other arm. So to swap CMC-1 for WWL-1B, it takes 4 steps. Remove WWL-1B from port. Install WWL-1B on right arm. Remove CMC-1 from left arm. Install CMC-1 on port. I absolutely make use of this on some dives where I have large sharks and nudibranchs on the same dive, but the nudi has to be outstanding before i'll make this switch.
  14. Thanks, @Draq. I read through Phil Rudin's review on the 16-35 + Nauticam 180. https://www.uwpmag.com/?download=88 Let me check for the Zen content.
  15. Thanks, @Barmaglot . I have actually played around a bit with this. The ability to pull on/off the WWL multiple times on a dive sounds good on paper, but in actuality, for me at least, the activity of taking it off, parking it, then un-parking and re-installing takes some time and isn't something I really even like doing once on a dive
  16. Thanks @Draq. I will look. I have a Sony A7C+28-60+WWL1. Works great for CFWA, but lacks the reach of a 16-35. Considering a 16-35 + dome, but trying to understand what will be gained and lost in this trade. Definitely no decisions made at this point.
  17. Sage advice, Adam. Thank you. I will begin mining the forum for info on this topic now.
  18. I would like to avoid a specialized corrective lens. Stopping down for wide open for reef background shots would probably be my choice. Thanks again for your help.
  19. Thanks for your reply, Chris. I agree that the close focus wide angle reef shot looks extremely distorted in the brightly lit bottom right corner at 17mm / f8. The other 3 corners don't stand out, so I guess it all depends on your subject and background, eh? I noticed @Stillviking 's post "New RF 14-35 f4L, anyone tried?" after posting this one, and took a look at the ikelite review link. Anything with sand in the corners was fine at f4, but anything with reef up close looks unacceptable to me in the corners. I posted this thread because the nauticam charts show 230mm domes as 'preferred', but 180mm domes as an option. I don't need tack sharp corners, but wanted to see what the tradeoff was. I do a lot of shore diving and travel several times a year, so a 230mm glass dome is a headache. Sounds like @ColdDarkDiver has offered to post some test shots, which I look forward to
  20. I would like to learn more about the difference in corner sharpness between a Nauticam 180mm and 230mm dome port when using a 16-35 F4 lens on a FF mirrorless camera. Does anyone have sample images taken with both to see what the sharpness gain gives you with a 230mm dome? Do different camera brands and lens models perform better in a 180mm dome than others? Any guidance or advice would be much appreciated.
  21. Hi Mike, I went down that rabbit hole. Here's my notes on the experience.
  22. I spoke with Reef Photo. They pointed this out. Has anyone tried it on a mounted WWL-1B in the water? https://www.nauticam.com/products/neoprene-cover-for-wwl-1b
  23. I lost my original cap as I didn't have it quite seated when applied. Forked out $113 for a new overpriced cap. Modified the new cap with a bolt snap similar to images shown earlier in this thread. I just lost that one hanging off my BC the first day of a recent trip. I won't be purchasing another one. I have never lost a neoprene dome cover. Neoprene stuffs easily into a BC pocket and works just fine. It's also much more convenient when doing offshore snorkel trips where you're not wearing a BC to clip it to. Not sure why Nauticam went with an overpriced awkward solution like this. I've been using a wetsuit hood to cover the WWL1-B when entering/exiting the water until I can find a proper neoprene cover that fits. Phil Rudin's dome cover photos look to be the best I've seen. Phil, would you mind sharing what brand of 180 mm cover you have?
  24. I am currently using the Sony A7C + Sony 28-60 + CMC-1. Working distance is very short, somewhere in the neighborhood of 37mm, but haven't seen specs published. It is a challenge to light a subject when your lens is nearly pressed up against it. Also, I find that there are many subjects I can't get in close enough to photograph due to structure around the animal. Because of the very short working distance, I'm considering a dedicated 90mm macro lens + diopter. I wish I had purchased the SMC-1 instead of the CMC-1, but at the time, I wasn't aware of the limitations. Given the price difference between the UCL-90 ($320 USD) and SMC-1 ($628), and the additional working distance that the UCL-90 (69mm) provides compared to the SMC-1 (50mm), and purchasing new, does the SMC-1 deliver twice the optical performance? I'm wondering if I could even differentiate the picture clarity between the two? Also, would auto-focus be significantly different between the two diopters?
  • Create New...