Jump to content

newdiver

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by newdiver

  1. Which bayonet mount or adapter do you use? Re point number 2, what is the reason for not changing the lens to use macro in the water? Is it because of the size of the lens or any other reason? What aperture do you use to get sharp images on the LX-10? Do you have to stop down to get sharper image? I have read and the Fantasea 09F has to be stopped down to get good results. Thanks
  2. I guess the only option is to carry both lenses and removing one to use the other in the water, not sure how feasible that would be. I only had a macro lens on my RX100 VI in my last dive and it was easy just to unclip the lens and use the standard port.
  3. WOW, that is huge, it doesn't look big in photos, even if a sturdy flip adapter is used the lens will get in the way of anything you want to do with Macro. Compared to the older version it is massive, bigger than the housing lol
  4. Thanks, finally got a response from Nauticam, they don't know anything about using this with Fantasea housing which is expected. Like you mentioned there will be some vignetting but at what focal length, I will have to find out for myself I guess unless someone else gets to use it and report it. Also I am guessing any bayonet adapter should be fine as long as it is 67mm, is this right? I know Nauticam has mentioned their own specific one but I am not sure if it has to be theirs. I am thinking of getting a dual ring flip one to have both macro and the UWL mounted at the same time.
  5. I see, I thought f5.6 would be the max on 1" sensor, but that is interesting that you are shooting at f8 to achieve overall sharpness. Any experience or info with Nauticam WWL-C? Looks very interesting and hopefully better than UWL-09F. I am still deciding on strobes so will try to go into a dive shop and get the feel for them once the restrictions are lifted.
  6. I have a few more months to make a decision so I am still researching and trying to figure things out that would be best bang for buck. I have also been checking Nauticam WWL-C, it is a bit more expensive than the UWL-09F but being Nauticam and newer it might provide sharper image. I haven't found any info if it is compatible with Fantasea housing and not sure who to ask to confirm. Nauticam only provides compatability with their own housing. It is one expensive hobby though
  7. Beautiful video except the watermark. Sipadan is definitely amazing, full of life and great work by the Malay Government for protecting it. What gear did you use to capture it?
  8. I understand and appreciate that, however they are different strobes if you know what I mean. I understand their recommendation is based on different situation. I am in two minds now whether to get two Inon S2000 or one Z330, I am thinking that two S2000 might be better than a single Z330? Great info, do you use any red filters with it? I will use mine for video too so a red filter is necessary. I am not sure which one offers the better solution to remove the red filter when shooting stills and swap back to shooting video. Do you shoot f8 on RX100 line?
  9. Thanks, interesting that the two different types of strobes are recommended. I think two smaller strobes might be better suited for the RX100, however I will do further research to confirm. Regarding UW lens, the inon 100zm80 won't work as the lens can't zoom further then 66mm max. I have been comparing the inon UW-H100 against Fantasea UW-09F, I am not sure if the Fantasea will have water in the lens, if it does then it won't be that easy to take split shots above and underwater. Where as this will be possible with the Inon UW-H1002 as it won't have any water in the dome. Also the Inon is slightly wider 144mm vs Fantasea 133mm. Anyone with experience with these two UW? Thanks
  10. Thanks everyone for the great info. I don't want to buy another camera since I already have the RX100 VI, I will try to work within its limits if I can't find a better solution. I already have a macro lens so that is not an issue. UW is where the issue is and the Saltedline housing don't offer any improvement, in fact it is worse than Fantasea with UW lens. Fantasea housing says vignetting disappears at 29mm and Saltedline at 36mm. Now, what would be a good strobe to get for a compact camera? I am also thinking of the Backscatter mini flash for light direction for macro photography. Or is there other alternatives that can be used with a strobe?
  11. Thanks Chris, I think that is another big issue. That means a whole suitcase just for the camera setup and I don't see that as an option for a casual diver at this stage. Also I haven't been too convinced on the Saltedline housing for a7 III and other options are too expensive.
  12. Hi all, I have both RX100 VI and A7 III with several lenses, such as 16-35mm F4 and a few others. I have used my RX100 VI with Fantasea housing in a tray, AOI-UCL-900 macro lens and Bigblue TL2600P video light. This setup had negative buoyancy and it was a struggle to take it with me every dive. Due to no strobes most photos were taken at high ISO and obviously for 1" sensor, high ISO is a struggle and the resulting images are soft and I am not happy with. I have decided to invest in two strobes if possible however not sure which strobes yet. I also want to get the al-cheapo video lights from Aliexpress to experiment with I guess. The Fantasea housing limits the zoom to 66mm and it was a pain if I accidentally crossed that mark, because the camera would give an error and I had to power off and on the camera several times to get it back operational. I have been thinking of getting a UW wet lens, however it will be limited because of the flat port of my housing. I was thinking of getting Saltedline housing for my RX100 VI and I have confirmed with them that I need to zoom into 36mm to not get any vignette with UW wet lens, and this will negate the advantage of the UW wet lens if I zoom to 36mm. That means back to square 1. Is there any other alternative other than the expensive Nauticam housing that I am not keen on? I have been reluctant to even think about using my A7 III underwater because of the size of the housing, however thinking about all the investment for a new housing and UW wet lens, I thought of maybe getting the Saltedline housing for my A7 III and using that with 16-35mm F4 that I already have, this plus a dry dome will be wide enough and obviously much better image quality from the A7 III. However macro becomes an issue since I won't be able to use my AOI macro lens and I need to decide before the dive if I want to shoot macro or not. I am really not that keen with A7 III due to the size of the housing and it mostly mean check-in luggage if I get strobes as well, where as with RX100 VI it will be manageable. Given the above what would be the recommended approach?
  13. Hi all, Kind of new to diving, got my advanced open water in January. I initially used dji osmo pocket with their underwater housing, however the results were not good, worse than gopro. Then on the next trip I took my RX100 vi in Fantasea housing with a tray, a wet macro lens and a video light 2600 Lumens. The result was much better but still not ideal due to insufficient lighting. Most of the shots were above iso 1600. Ideal iso would be under 400 for RX100. I need to invest in strobes and uw lens, however this has brought me to a realization that I might be better off not buying an UW wet lens for RX100 VI and instead buy a housing for my A7 III with the adapter for 16-35 f4. I understand the housing for A7 III is much bigger but I can spend the money for strobes instead of UW wet LENS and potential new housing for RX100 VI as the Fantasea housing limits the zoom to 66mm and any wet lens will produce vignettes. What would you recommend? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...