Jump to content

JayceeB

Member
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by JayceeB


  1. 20 minutes ago, vaidhy said:

    You can use the filter with WWL-1. The magic filter can sit inside the lens or you can use the Keldan red filter for WWL-1 which is about twice as expensive. If you choose to use strobes or other lighting source (including the sun, shooting close to the surface), it makes things more difficult.

     

    Edited: Just did some more reading (https://www.uwphotographyguide.com/underwater-photography-filters). It looks like the filters only help in a fairly narrow depth range where you have enough red, but too much blue/green.  Beyond that, you would need a light source or live with blue photos

    Thanks @vaidhy for digging that article up.  It's a good read.


  2. 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.


  3. 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

    • Thanks 1

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


  6. 1 hour ago, Barmaglot said:

    Do you have it on a threaded mount or on a bayonet? I use a diopter on magnetic rings, and attaching/detaching it is no problem at all. Obviously a WWL is larger, but on a quick-disconnect bayonet it shouldn't be much of a problem.

    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.


  7. 4 hours ago, Draq said:

    JayceeB: For some reason I thought you were using a D850 and the Nikon 16-35.  I have no idea whether Sony allows you to set for APS-C mode, so some of my comments above are likely irrelevant.  Sorry about that.

    FWIW, I did a little looking and came upon a thread where Phil Rudin stated a 170/180 port does work well with the Sony 16-35.  He quoted Zen as saying " The Sony 16-35mm f/4 is a pretty unique rectilinear lens in that it performs very well behind smaller domes like the Zen DP-170 or the Nauticam 180mm dome."

    You may want to explore this further.

    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.


  8. 10 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

    What do you mean by reach? Too wide for smaller subjects? Why not just take off the WWL, park it, and shoot those through bare port? Nauticam's port chart lists converted FoV for your combination as 130-69 degrees, and lens FoV as 75-40 degrees, so a fully zoomed out lens with bare port is just a bit narrower than a fully zoomed in one with WWL. You'll have a bit of pincushion distortion on the wide end, but it will go away as you zoom in.

    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 :)


  9. 2 hours ago, Draq said:

    You should also check out some Wetpixel Live segments, perhaps look at Alex Mustard's book and do some internet searches for articles on the topic by Alex and others.  Older issues of UWPmag have some articles on this.

    I struggled with the same issues when i decided to move from M43 to full frame.  And got a D500 instead.

    By the way, since I gather you already have a D850 and housing, unless you can determine that the S&S correction lens does much for the 16-35 in a 180, you could consider getting a 17-70 instead.  It has a shorter minimum focus distance, which can help, but I believe you might need to restrict yourself to DX format when using that lens.  Not sure.

    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.


  10. 1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

    There is a lot of info about this here on Wetpixel! I would have a good read around.

    Short answer is: It is impossible to know without trying it in the dome(s) in the water.

    Longer answer is that a bigger dome will always perform better optically, the differences become more noticeable with higher resolution. Given that the very close focusing distance required to make a lens perform behind a dome port is not a typical design parameter for wide angle lens designers, many excellent topside lenses simply perform badly. Note that this is not a function of focal length, but actual design. The only way to know how your lens will work is to test it.

    Housing manufacturers test lens/port combinations and then create port charts. If they recommend a given port, there is normally good reason for doing so.

    The Sea&Sea correction lenses were designed for very specific lens and (Sea&Sea) port combinations. When used with other ports/lenses, they may or may not provide advantages. They are not a generic solution that improves every lens/port!

    From your description, it seems like you have invested in a very powerful imaging tool. It would seem a shame to do so and then hobble it’s ability to perform at its best by choosing a dome that will give mediocre results.

     

    Sage advice, Adam.  Thank you.  I will begin mining the forum for info on this topic now.  


  11. 13 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

    Everyone's standards are different and it really does depend what is in the corners.  To be clear, the corners of the shot in question are not distorted they fall outside the depth of field so are not in focus. 

    Another option with a small dome is to see is you can source a S&S correction lens as it will improve performance - which is the main subject of the article of course.  Some people have posted here that they are unhappy with the corners in a 230mm dome and insist they need the S&S correction lens- which shows how much variation there are in what people find acceptable.

    If you have blue water in the corners it is much less of a problem and you can always stop down more than they have in the in sample shots in the article.  The S&S correction lens and stopping down more will extend the depth of field out closer to the corners and reduce the impact on the shot.  Zooming in a little will also assist.

    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.


  12. 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 :)


  13. 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.


  14. 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?


  15. 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...