Jump to content

divegypsy

Industry
  • Content Count

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by divegypsy

  1. Hello Ian, I am interested in these three items you have just listed. Seacam Macroport 90, perfect glass. $100 Seacam Extension PVL20mm. $75 Nikon 5T magnifying macro "dry diopter" 62mm $75. They come to a total of $250. I don't know what shipping would cost? I would ask that you ship them to a PO Box in Florida. Cheapest rate with adequate insurance. No rush as I am away for the next three months. Would probably be better if you delay shipping until 1 March, 2020. But I would pay now. And trust. I have a total of US$285.83 in my Paypal account. Don't know how much PayPal will charge for sending you that amount. Is it 7% = about $20? If I need to add some money to my PayPal account I can do it or make final payment in three or four weeks because my internet connection here in Indonesia is not secure. I'll get to a secure internet in Australia in three weeks. Fred
  2. If you really favor wide-angle shooting, one thing you need to consider is the minimum focus distance of your "kit" 24-70mm lens. If it doesn't focus close enough to work with the dome port you have available, you may need to add a diopter which can reduce the optical quality of the image and reduce the angle of coverage slightly. Also, I don't know about the performance of the Z 14-30mm behind a dome port, but many photographers who tried the original DSLR 14mm and 14--24mm lenses found that they did not get satisfactory edge and corner sharpness with those lenses behind dome ports. I'd suggest trying to rent or by the new 14-30mm Z lens to test it before you spend the money on it
  3. By stacking extension rings you can use either Nikon's 200mm f4 Micro-nikkor or the 70-180mm f4.5-5.6 Micro-nikkor zoom lens. Both lenses are considerably longer than your 105mm VR. If what you want is simply more magnification you might try either your 105mm VR or the 200mm Micro-nikkon with a dual element close-up lens such as the now discontinued Nikon Close-up lens 6T with give you a magnification of about 1.4x with the 105mm VR and almost 2x with the 200mm Micro-nikkor. I think you will find the image quality does not suffer nearly as much as with any tele-converter
  4. Hi Ian, A quick note to tell you that this adapter works very well. I've been using it (slightly modified) for the last year and a half. The combination gives you the double o-ring port sealing of Seacam combined with a Nauticam housing body which give you significantly better control access and control ergonomics than any Seacam housing body. Fred
  5. Dear Ms DeeDee, I would like to buy the Zen DP 170 dome port that you have advertised and sent an email to the email address you have given. Please let me know if this port is still available. Thank you, Fred
  6. Dissatisfaction with Adobe greed seems rampant. I am also using a purchased LR 6.14. When Adobe went subscription on Photoshop and the other CS6 applications, they lured a lot of people into Lightroom by saying Lightroom would always be an application you could purchase rather than subscribe to. And typical of Adobe, they lied. I wonder if this opens Adobe to a class action suit on the basis of intentional deception. Could legal action force Adobe to make Lightroom an application we can purchase outright again? Or might Adobe have to repay the money spent by Lightroom purchasers? Is there any interest out there in pursuing this kind of legal option? I would join it. Fred
  7. I have been using Ikelite 161 strobes on TTL combined with the Ikelite digital converter for the past year and a half with my Nikon D850 in a Nauticam housing and have gotten consistently good exposures with all lenses from the Nikon 8-15mm fisheye to the 105mm Micro-nikkor. The one place where there seems to be some problems is when I am shooting very close subjects and that may be due to the pre-flash not hitting the subject the same as final flash. Those close shots are frequently a bit dark which I correct by adding flash compensation in the + direction. Over the last week I've been shooting the big cuttlefish spawning aggregation at Point Lowly in South Australia in 12C & 13C water temps and every thing has worked as consistently well as when I was in Bali the month before. If you are shooting pictures with ambient light adding to the flash, then you need to turn the flash comp in the minus direction so that the combination of flash plus ambient light doesn't cause overexposure. The combination works so well and so consistently that I say my camera has a Phd - it says to me "push here dummy", meaning push on the trigger! Fred
  8. I purchased my Nikon 8-15mm last July and on my last dive on that year's dive trip shot it on a D800 in a Subal ND800 housing with a Seacam wideport on it.. Nice results, one of which, mating octopuses, I posted under this topic. I'm finally diving again with a new camera (Nikon D850), new housing (Nauticam NA-D850), and new port (a Saga 4" dome). Enroute to Australia I stopped in Bali and was able to do five dives with the above combination in conditions ranging from mediocre to great (Kalanganyar, then Menjangan Island, and finally Secret Bay). I took several hundred pictures with the fisheye behind the Saga dome which does not allow you to use Nikon's own lens shade. I did have a shade on the Saga dome port that was made from a PVC pipe-joint that I purchased from Home Depot for $6.05 and the paid a machine shot to fit to the dome. The shade also provides protection for the otherwise exposed and vulnerable glass dome. In none of my pictures did I get any of the unusual flare that Alex Mustard and Adam Hanlon reported. I enjoyed shooting pictures with the exaggerated perspective of the fisheye while getting quite close to subjects that were sometimes only a few centimeters in length. The striped catfish at Kalanganyar were only about 2-3 cm long, but look larger due to the fisheye and being only about15 cm from the dome port. The Striped Cleaner Shrimp was also quite small and was only a cm or two from the Saga dome port. The yellow frogfish, Antennarius hispidus, was about 20 cm long. The first shot with the rope was shot from about a foot away and the second shot from only a few inches. Although I was shooting FX with no cropping, it is easy to imagine the cropings that would have been possible had I chosen to shoot in the DX mode or 1.2 crop mode.
  9. All three of my Subal ND800 housings have now been sold.
  10. Christopher, I had a machine shop make the stainless steel push buttons specifically for my Subal housings. They helped quite a lot, but didn't totally stop the push buttons from sticking. The groove, however, makes it very easy for me to "unstick" the button by pulling it outward. Fred
  11. For Sale a Seacam fisheye macro port designed for use with a Sigma 15mm f2.8 fisheye lens. The port design requires that the built-in shade of the fisheye lens be "shaved" to fit into the port. Seacam sells this port brand new for about US$1400. I will sell this one for US$1050. The port has some scuffs on the plastic exterior, but the glass is pristine. The port includes both front and rear protective covers. I will give the buyer of the port the 15mm sigma fisheye lens I was using, but the lens is not part of the price I am asking because what one person considers to be a great lens another person may feel is only OK. I have switched to the Nikon 8-15mm fisheye zoom because I feel that is a better lens than the Sigma fisheye. The lens includes the sigma lens case and a lens cover which fits the "shaved" lens shade which the original Sigma lens cover does not. If interested or questions please contact Fred Bavendam at fbavendam@hotmail.com
  12. For Sale - a highly customized Subal ND800 housing and a Nikon D800 camera with many extras. US$3300 Housing customization includes: (1) Most apparent from the rear-oblique view is that the housing back is black. I had this done to make the D800 LCD screen more visible in bright ambient light. (2) This housing has a viewfinder adapter which allows the use of Nauticam viewfinders. The basic Nauticam viewfinder is included in the $3300 price. (3) Included as shown in front view picture is a Vivid Housings Leak Sentry Vacuum Seal check system. (4) The housing has a custom lever for the flash compensation control which allows you to keep that button on the camera depressed which allows you to shoot a sequence of shots quickly at different flash compensations in TTL. (5) The housing body is wired to be ready for TTL shooting with Ikelite TTL strobe system. The wiring goes directly from the D800 hotshoe to a Subtronic N5 external bulkhead with all 5 wires connected. (6) Your choice of either a Subal or Seacam port mount on the front of the housing. I have been using Seacam ports due to the advantage of their having a double o-ring seal. But I can change the housing back to a Subal Type 4 port system if that is what you want. (7) Due to some push-buttons sticking when depressed, a problem experienced by many other Subal users and comments in threads concerning stuck push buttons, I have replaced the critical buttons with stainless steel buttons that have a groove that is easy to grasp and pull outward if this happens. Third picture in advert shows a close view of a new button. One Nikon D800 camera body, two camera batteries, one battery charger, two 32Gb compact flash cards, one Lexar USB-3 ard reader that reads both Compact Flash and SD cards. If interested or questions please contact Fred Bavendam at fbavendam@hotmail.com
  13. I have used macro lenses behind smaller dome ports since my early years (late 1970's) in underwater photography. There are many advantages. (1) The macro lens has a wider angle of coverage which allows you to shoot larger subjects with less water between you and the subject, which results in sharper images. (2) Because you are shooting "wider", you also have more depth-of-field in the resulting picture for any given f-stop. (3) With auto-focus lenses, the auto-focus is faster because what you are focusing on are the virtual images in front of the dome and the focusing "throw" between virtual infinity and virtual subjects that are closer is much less than the focus "throw" between actual distant subjects and closer subjects that you would have using a flat port. It has been quite a while since I've dived with a 60mm Micro-nikkor, but using the 70-180 Micro-nikkor zoom behind a smaller dome is one of my favorite shooting combinations. One drawback in using a macro lens behind a small dome is that you cannot focus quite as close, which makes your achievable maximum magnification less. As an example. The maximum magnification of my 70-180mm behind a flat port is .75x. Behind the small dome port I use, the maximum magnification I can get is about .4x. I feel that the reduction of this maximum magnification vs being able to shoot wider range of subject sizes, especially larger subjects like fishes and octopuses, is a trade-off I'm willing to make on many dives.
  14. I have shot underwater with the Nikon D800 for the last four years, and skipped moving to the D810 because I felt it did not offer enough advantages vs the D800 to be worth the cost of new cameras and new housings. Recently, though, I have moved to the D850, which I do feel offers significant advantages vs the D800. I chose the D850 instead of the D500 for a number of reasons, most which I wrote about in the WetPixel DSLR thread "D500 vs D850?". Unlike TimG, I had continued to shoot with "hard wired" strobes, so there was no additional expense when I moved my Ikelite 161s to the D850. Like the D500, the D850 has Nikon's greatly improved auto-focus, which is first appeared in the D5. With respect to housings. Prior to the D800, I had been using first the Nikon F5, and then the D700, in Seacam housings, which I "abandoned" with the D800. Abandoned because Seacam had, in my opinion, become increasingly control deficient. No access to the programmable preview or function buttons. No port lock. Etc. And very heavy, very expensive viewfinders, which I replaced with Nauticam viewfinders while still shooting the D700. Nauticam viewfinders which allowed "in water" diopter adjustment. With the change to the D800, I decided to try Subal ND800 housings which offered all the controls I wanted. Unfortunately, in actual use, I experienced frequently recurring problems with the auto-focus point push buttons getting stuck in down position, which happened with both of the ND800 housings I was traveling with. A problem which caused me to miss a number of good shooting opportunities while I was trying to "free up" the stuck button. Eventually, with the help of a very good machinist, I replaced the original anodized aluminum push-buttons with buttons made of stainless steel which had a small grove which allowed me to easily pull the stuck push buttons back out, something which could happen as shallow as 3-5 meters. I looked at the Subal ND850 at DEMA, and initially ordered one. But when Subal couldn't fill the order in the "about a month" timeframe they had promised at DEMA, possibly due to their financial problems, I took this as a sign ( my order was jammed ) and decided I was unwilling to endure the possibility of fighting push buttons again. In early January, two months after DEMA, I decided to buy Nauticam housings for my D850s. Reef Photo in Fort Lauderdale was able to provide me with Nauticam housings virtually immediately. Like the Subal ND800s, the Nauticam D850 housing system offered me the possibility to use all my legacy Seacam ports and extension rings. I did need several new zoom gears. but there was no need for new ports and rings. And I continue to use the Nauticam viewfinders which I had switched to years before while still shooting the D700. So far, my only "in water" experience with the Nauticam housing has been in a swimming pool to try a new mini-dome port I bought for use with the new Nikon fisheye zoom lens. My initial pool results with that port and lens were very satisfactory. I still need more time for acclimatization to the control layout on the Nauticam housings, but I am very impressed so far and hope to get into the ocean with the new system soon.
  15. I did not seriously consider the Nikon D500 when I made my decision to upgrade from the D800 to the D850. You can have almost all of the D500 "advantages", if you want them, by shooting the D850 in the DX crop. Or go midway between the two with the 1.2x crop. If you shot the D850 in the DX crop, you have virtually the same MP image, but you can only shoot at 7fps vs 10fps. But no underwater strobe can keep up with either of those frame rates except at tiny fractional power outputs. When you shoot DX with the D850, you see well beyond the DX area and can see fish and other animals that are just outside the DX area. Animals that may be about to enter you picture and which you might like to include by waiting momentarily for them to arrive. Or eliminate by shooting quickly. A fisheye or wide-angle zoom of the same focal length, when on the D850 in DX will exhibit virtually identical depth-of-field as it does on the D500 if you are using the same aperture and same dome port. What you really get with the D850 for that extra money and slightly larger size vs the D500 is far more versatility. The versatility to choose when FX and 46MP will do a better job for you that DX and 20MP. More of Nikon's FX lenses cost more than their DX equivalents (eg. 40mm micro-nikkor vs 60mm micro-nikkor or 85mm micro-nikkor vs 105mm micro-nikkor) and it is likely that you get more for that additional money in things like build quality which affects how long the lens will perform at top specs. Carrying this line of thought further - Alex in his review of the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye zoom wrote that some of his mates were calling it the "posh toki". But Adam in his write up also mentioned that he and many others he knew had had at least one of their Tokina 10-17mm lenses fall apart or fail in other ways. You always pay for what you get. But you don't alway get what you pay for. Especially when you go the cheap route. And in the Nikon system, all you have to do is look at the DX system as a whole, vs the FX system, and you can see where Nikon is putting their money and effort. That is why I went with the D850.
  16. Alex, you talk about using the Nauticam WACP with a Nikon 28-70mm lens. Nikon's own website does not list any 28-70mm lens. Please supply more details about the Nikon lens you used with this port
  17. Hi all, My two cents worth is that it isn't reasonable to compare the D500, which is a relatively new camera vs the D800, which is now 4?, 5? years old. Why not wait for just a few months and compare the D500 vs the upcoming D820/D850 or whatever Nikon calls it. It might be fairer to compare the D500 image quality vs the D810 in the DX crop mode. The D800/810 has slightly fewer Mpixels that the D500, but not so many fewer that its theoretical resolution would be much less than about 85% of the D500. As I see it the D500's primary advantages are the very enhanced auto-focus system and the newer image processor (X-peed 5), both of which are already in the F5 and will almost certainly be in the D8XX. Thom Hogan and others are predicting that the D8XX will be released in only a few more months and will probably be about 46Mp, which means that in the DX crop mode you would get virtually the same Mp as the D500, and have the ability to switch up to the FX mode or the intermediate 1.2 crop mode at will. Even during the dive. This would allow you to shoot the FX crop, the 1.2 crop, and the DX crop all on the same dive, with the same lens, while shooting the same subject. I recently bought one of the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye zoom lenses. In the past I have briefly shot a few topside shots with three different Tokina 10-17mm lenses. Everything I shot with the Tokina zooms was so lacking in image quality that I felt shooting the Sigma 15mm f2.8 fisheye or the Nikon 16mm f2.8 fisheye and cropping the image to equal the coverage of any Tokina shot would result in better image quality. Now that the Nikon 8-15mm lens has arrived and covers a very similar zoom range to the Tokina, but with much better image quality. By switching a Nikon FX camera from DX crop at 10mm, to the 1.2 crop and about 12mm, and then 15mm at the FX crop, you can get a stepped variation of the zoom range with progressively higher and higher image quality. Or just shoot everything in the FX mode at 15mm and crop each image to suit. I am looking forward to seeing and shooting with the D8?? when it arrives and will be perfectly satisfied with my D800's until it does. Fred
  18. Hi Adam et al, Some more comments on the fisheye lenses for Nikon and the camera you can use them on. Adam, it seems you have misread my comment comparing the D500 to the D800/810. I specifically wrote that I did not see a whole lot to be gained in image quality by using the D500 vs the D800/810 in the DX crop mode. I totally agree that the D800 in the FX mode will provide a significantly higher image quality than the current crop of Nikon DX cameras including the D500. And that is one of the reason's I shoot an FX camera. However, you have made the comment, "Strictly technically, the Sigma does actually focus closer than this lens (by 1cm). I note that Nikon list the FOV of the lens at 175° at 15mm on FX." If you look at the lens specifications, as provided by the lens manufacturers, the Sigma lens may focus that 1 cm closer. However this lens specification distance is usually measured from the subject to the film plane or sensor plane in the camera body. But underwater, and behind a dome port, how close to the front of the lens you can focus (which might be called the working distance) is more important due to the fact that with the dome port you are focusing on virtual images that are much closer than the actual subject. And with a small diameter dome port, those virtual images are quite close to the dome itself. The fact that the Nikon fisheye zoom is physically quite a bit longer than the Sigma fisheye means that at minimum focus, the Nikon lens focuses closer and provides a larger image (more magnification) than does the Sigma. I shot a couple quick comparison shots with the two lenses at the minimum distance at which each lens could focus and the camera still fire when shooting with my D800 set to single focus auto-focus with being in focus the priority. To do this, I started with the lens almost touching the little spice bottle and then backed it away in tiny increments until the camera was able to shoot the picture. Here are the two shots. This is the image shot with the Nikon fisheye zoom at minimum focus and at 15mm This is the image shot with the Sigma 15mm fisheye at minimum focus As you can see, the vertical height of the little bottle is not completely shown in the image taken with the Nikon fisheye zoom. But there is space above the top and bottom of the bottle in the Sigma lens image. I made paper "feeler gauges" to measure the actual space between the front element of each lens and the bottle. The distance between the Nikon zoom's front element and the bottle was 24mm. The distance between the Sigma's front element and the bottle was 51mm. I have not had the opportunity to shoot this comparison underwater, but will when I get home and can try both lenses behind both the Seacam wideport and the Seacam fisheye macro port. Something that also shows in these two shots that I was not expecting is that if I look at the background of the Nikon lens vs the Sigma, the overall coverage with the Nikon lens is a bit wider than that of the Sigma lens. I would have expected there to be less difference as the glass bottle position remained constant and thus the Nikon lens was a tiny bit closer to the background as well as being 27mm closer to the bottle. So I would conclude from these images that the Nikon zoom is capable of providing a larger image (more magnification) of the subject at its closest focus than the Sigma fisheye can. And that at very close focusing distances, it includes a bit more of the background (is a little bit wider). Fred
  19. Hello Adam, Most of the thoughts I posted relative to the D800/810/820 and the D500 have relevance to this new fisheye lens as well as other lenses. And were made with the idea that if someone is thinking they might want to buy a D500 to get the "wider" zoom range of 180 degrees to 110 degrees that this lens provides on a DX camera, which is similar to the Tokina 10-17mm lens, that they could get the same zoom range by switching their FX camera to the DX crop mode and lose very little in comparison to a DX only camera. There have been many posts concerning the Tokina 10-17 which is a DX only lens unless you use it with a teleconverter which degrades its image quality. My feeling is that if you shoot a DX camera, and want a similar zoom range, the Nikon lens will provide this with considerably higher image quality. I did not shoot any pictures underwater at 8mm in the FX mode. Everything I shot was at the 15mm (full frame fisheye) setting. As I wrote initially, I am not interested in circular fisheye images and I would have needed a zoom gear to make any changes while underwater, which I did not have at that time. My interest in this lens is because I can shoot it behind the wideport at 15mm with no vignetting whereas I cannot do this with the Sigma 15mm. And because it focuses so closely. I had Nikon's own lens shade mounted on the lens when I took the picture of the octopuses that I posted. I shot similar images at f11, f16 and f22 and saw no vignetting in any frame. Since the lens is an internal focus design, that means the angle of coverage of the lens gets slightly wider as you focus closer and closer and the octopuses were only about six inches from the from of the wideport's glass surface. The lens was behind the Seacam wideport with a 20mm extension ring between the wideport and the housing body. If I get some free time I will take pictures of the housing with the port and extension ring in position as they were during the dive and post them. I will also post a couple additional pictures that show that whereas the Sigma 15mm lens almost always exhibits some minor vignetting with the wideport, even without any extension ring, the Nikon lens does not.
  20. I saw exactly the same vignetting, caused by the lens shade, when I shot topside pictures. More extreme vignetting with the camera set to the full FX picture and less when I had my D800 set to the DX crop mode. If you have an FX camera, like the D800 or D810, you can get the same picture area as Adam did by simply setting the camera to the DX mode. If you use the D800 or D810 in the DX mode you have a camera that shoots images very similar to the D500. I think it is about 16 Megapixels and has auto-focus spots covering nearly the whole image area. What the D500 offers is faster and possibly more accurate auto-focus, a faster frame rate which is of little use if you are shooting with strobes, and the larger image buffer which again is of little use if you need to wait for strobes to recycle. If Nikon's successor to the D810, D820?, appears with the rumored 46 Mp sensor (an upsized D500 sensor) the D500 will offer very little advantage, except size and weight and price, over the D820 when the D820 is used in the DX mode. And it will offer more than double the Mp in the FX mode for higher image quality.
  21. I received my Nikon 8-15mm lens about a week ago and have had it in the water once since then. Because I shoot with a Nikon D800, my interest in this lens is as a close-focusing full frame fisheye lens. I have very little interest in circular fisheye images. I initially did a few topside shots comparing this lens to my Sigma 15mm f2.8. My initial impression is that in dim light, the Sigma may pinpoint the focus in the center of the image a little better than does the Nikon lens. Probably due to the fact that the Sigma focuses at f2.8 vs f4.5 on the Nikon lens when set to the 15mm full frame. But on those same test shots, the sharpness near the edges of the images were consistently better with the Nikon lens. Underwater I have used both the Sigma 15mm and now the Nikon 8-15 behind the Seacam Wideport which has a radius of curvature of about 75mm, meaning that if you had that port as a full hemisphere, the diameter would be about 150mm or about 6 inches. I also own the Seacam 4" fisheye macro port, but pretty much stopped using it because you needed to cut off much of the lens shade on the Sigma 15mm when using this combination and therefore do not have it with me on my current trip. I feel that cutting back on the Sigma lens shade resulted in too much image degrading flare. With the wideport, I could use the Sigma 15mm with the manufacturer's full shade in place and although I did get slight vignetting at the corners of the image, I feel the image quality was better enough to use the lens this way. With the Sigma 15mm, I use the wideport directly attached to my Subal housing body. I switched to the Subal housing body for my D800's because I felt Subal gave me a much more complete set of controls to the D800 body functions than did the Seacam housing body and with the help of a good machine shop I was able to modify the port mount on my Subal housings to take my Seacam ports rather than buy a new set of ports. Because the Nikon 8-15mm lens @ 15mm is physically longer than the Sigma 15mm, I am able to shoot the Nikon 8-15mm lens, with its Nikon lens shade mounted, without any vignetting when using the Seacam wideport in combination with a Seacam 20mm extension tube. With a 25mm extension tube, there may be a very slight amount at vignetting, but still far less than with the Sigma 15mm. Below is one of the shots from my only dive so far with the Nikon 8-15mm lens. It shows a pair of small octopuses mating underneath the Edithburgh jetty in South Australia. The image was shot late in the afternoon at 1/250th at f16 using ISO 3200 on my Nikon D800. When anyone does tests to determine the nodal point of the 8-15mm lens, or any other lens, they should be aware that the nodal point of the lens lens can change with both the zoom setting and the focus point of the lens. I found quite large differences when I did a series of tests on Nikon's 24-70mm f2.8 several years ago. Using the manufacturer's given nodal point is also likely to be at least slightly inaccurate for underwater use because the manufacturer's nodal points are given for lenses focused at infinity rather than at the close distances the lens is likely to focus at when used behind a dome port.
  22. Dear Vladimir, As I have mentioned, I have three ND800 housings, two of which were purchased directly from Subal. Mr. Harold Karl can verify this. He can also verify that I had all three of the backs of my ND800 housings painted black, by Subal, to reduce reflections off the housing back when viewing the LCD screen under high ambient light conditions. Shortly after receiving my housings, I started having problems with sticking buttons, and communicated directly to Mr. Karl about this. I also mentioned to Mr. Karl that I had seen posts on WetPixel by other ND800 users having this same push button problem. I received no response from Subal on this. I use the same D800 camera body in each of my ND800 housings. I take two housings with me on all my trips so that if one is lost by the airlines or in an accident, I do not lose the ability to take underwater pictures. The third housing sits at home ready to replace one that might be lost. I can understand that Subal may not have had very many complaints about the sticking buttons because many users probably go on dive trips only two or three times each year. And if a button sticks, they might logically think it is due to lack of use, and say nothing. But right here you have four ND800 users who have had this problem. Elmer, Tim, myself and my friend Don. This is not an insignificant number. Elmer has said that Reef Photo installed stronger replacement springs into his housing which helped alleviate his problem. Tim had to shorten the internal rod that made contact with his camera button. My friend Don Howie sent his housing back to Subal at considerable expense with no improvement and was eventually sent stronger springs and different washers, which he had to have installed. You also mention replacement arm levers. What do I need to do to acquire some stronger springs (24 stronger springs - eight for each of my three ND800 housings) and three sets of replacement levers with wider contact parts to try to fix the problem. It is only the five push buttons for the auto-focus point selector (which I think you refer to as a joystick?) that I would need new levers for. Shipping my three housings to Subal in Austria is not a reasonable solution as that would cost hundreds of dollars per housing to fix a problem that has existed since the day I received the housings. I have reasonable mechanical skills and have a friend with machine shop tools such as a lathe and milling machine. So installation and adjustment of the new parts should not be a problem if you send clear instructions on how to do it. Please let me know what you and Subal are willing to do to help me solve this problem. Thank you, Fred
  23. Vladimir, Would you please look at the topic about sticking push-buttons. In particular on Subal housings. Is Subal willing to send replacement springs to the Subal ND800 purchasers who are having trouble with their push-buttons? As I am. How can I get the "stronger springs" that one of the Subal users says Reef Photo installed in his housing to reduce this problem? Fred
  24. Here is a recent photo of a small snakefish, a species of lizardfish, attacking a small pufferfish, which it eventually was able to swallow. This shot was taken with the 70-180mm Micro-Nikkor lens at less than its maximum magnification, which is .75x. I consider this to be a macro shot, but under the current OWU rules, it should not be allowed in either Macro category. So in which category, if any, could I enter this photo or other shots from the same series?
  25. Hi Guys, Thank you for participating in this discussion. You clearly understand my problems with the original OWU definition of "macro". I hope that someone from OWU is also watching these comments. I had picked the 1:10 mark as the lowest magnification because that used to be the approximate magnification of many non-macro lenses at their minimum focus distance, such as a 50mm lens that only focused down to about 18". And was the range given for "close-up" photography in some photo books many years ago. I just checked the specs of the current Nikon 50mm lenses both the 50mm f1.8 & two 50mm f1.4's. All focus to a minimum focus distance of about 18", which gives a maximum magnification of .15x or 1:7. So 1:10 may be going too far away. But in any case, it is that difference, from 1:7 or so down to 1:1 that separates a 50mm or 60mm macro lens from a traditional 50mm lens. And that is why these macro lenses are so popular with nature and underwater photographers. The original Nikon 105mm Micro-Nikkor only focused down to 1:2, so we have tools available to us now, that photographers didn't have only 20 years ago. Like Fofo and Cerianthus, I was totally confused by Adam's remark concerning the "swirl effect" on the magnification of Luc Rooman's photo. And am not quite sure if a shot with swirls should have been entered in the macro traditional or macro unrestricted category. But that is a totally different topic. What I was interested in was simply getting more clarity what the minimum magnification in the OWU contest actually is, both as stated in their own rules vs what they were awarding prizes to. Interested because it would have a significant affect on which images, if any, I could enter into their contest. OWC is not the only contest with this macro definition problem. I also looked at the Ocean Art photo contest and they begin their definition of macro with the "same size on the sensor" 1:1 rule. But in the following line of their rules, they go on to say that typical macro subjects are about 6" in length or smaller, which is a total contradiction of the 1:1 definition and is slightly less than 1:4 if the shot was taken with a full frame sensor. That contest had already closed, but the response I got when I wrote to them was a very polite comment that I was right in questioning the definition's contradiction and that they would discuss the matter prior to next year's contest. Fred
×
×
  • Create New...