Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Viz'art

  • Rank
    Wolf Eel

Profile Information

  • Location
    Montréal, Canada
  • Interests
    Diving, Sailing & Flying
  1. Hi James, might as well you bring this one too. as a reference the human eye see's an average of 45 degrees wide. it illustrate in a different way the image circle. Cheer's P.S. a pool session up here is called a skating on the pool/ice ring these days
  2. Here is an illustration to help debunk the DX/35mm ratio issue. To the left is a DX size chip in the center and right are good old fashion 35mm slides, the critter remain the same size in both the DX chip and the 1:1 center slide, there is no magnification in this case, just a area coverage shortage in the case of the DX chip, the right 2:1 slide illustrate when you add extension tube, diopter or teleconverter to attain bigger magnification, in this case you are closer thus you have a bigger image on the area of your chip or film, I agree with CeeDave aka Chris, life would be simpler in degrees coverage. The second illustration demonstrate image circle, the image circle of a lens is appropriated to the format it was designed for, it's ok to use a smaller chip because the circle is bigger, but the not the opposite, hence the reason lenses of the DX, EF-S etc cannot be used properly on camera with 35 film or bigger and full frame chip. Notice the critter size and how the area coverage is the only change, the focus distance distance remain the same, only the area covered is wider in the case of full frame 35mm film.
  3. It does give a deeper color penetration of the water column as well as balancing out the magenta filter on the lens other wise it would way too magenta in the foreground where the light from the flash would it, and also give richer blue in the background water, but check out Graig Jones stuff he's got some awesome shots on this website using this technique, the point of this tread was to let people be aware that there is economical alternative to those expensive resin or glass filters, you don't need to shell out a 100.00 buck for something that does'nt have to be optical grade. It work's great! that all I care. Have a good day and check up on Alex Mustard stuff also, he is pretty damm good with this filtering technique.
  4. Hi Don, here is a shot I did, taken with a Aquatica/Fuji S2pro/Nikkor AF 14mm f:2.8, 30cc cyan (non optical grade acetate) on flashes, 40cc magenta (optical grade gel) on lens. great viz on this day. Cheers
  5. Hola Luiz, I was at Aquatica this morning, these will be shipping very soon, they are by the way beautifull to look at with the silver grey paint finish. regards
  6. Hi Graig, did a few dive in Bermuda in the last few days, and my theatrical ''plastic'' acetate filter are as good as new, remember those are not ''optical gel'' per say. they are made to withstand a thousand watt of theatre spotlight, and I repeat they are not optical grade but since they go on the flash who care, take my word, it's very salty water in Bermuda and there is no wear or degradation on the filter, used 30cc cyan on each of the two strobes holding them with electrical tape and rubber band (genuine JB pat. pending holding system) and a 40cc magenta optical grade gel behind my 14mm. Regards
  7. I'm off to Bermuda in a few hours, will be back at Aquatica on the 24/02 will check with Blake, but i'm convinced they are available or very damm well soon to be. It's a sweet lens and right on my shopping list for top side photos. Cheers and this is me signing off for a few day's unless I can connect in Bermuda.
  8. No Alex, I work as a photo instructor in a camera Store in Montreal 5 days a week and work on my off days with Aquatica, hence my signature bears the mention Aquatica, so as not to leave any confusion to my ties, I like to keep thing's clear, like Ike, as to where my allegiance is, it also forces me in a neutral zone when answering post on WP, and I like this neutrality, the store I work for is huge (3 floors) and I have access to most of the goodies available from Nikon & Canon on hands. interesting to know is the fact that, the F6 is built on a D2H frame and layout, so once the D2x housing is up in running, I will see if slapping a F6 and the auxiliary battery pack in it is feasable at a low cost, but to be realistic I doubt the camera will have much success u/w, who want to go back to 36 frames. yuck, caca :x
  9. Hi Alex, I just put the lens on a Nikon F6 (true full frame) and the answer is yes it does 1:1, I am sold out of 105 Nikkor and my own personnal one is packed up with my housing for my trip to Bermuda, but I recall putting them side by side ant the 150 is no more than a filter thickness longer than the 105 nikkor, but i am back here on the 23 and will try the 150mm in the Aquatica/ 105/ extension set-up, im convinced it fit, maybe a snug forget about close-up lens on that one tight fit!, will keep you posted, I plan on testing the lens this spring on a ecosystem survey project, sound exotic but it will be mostly marsh and wetland, with a splash of a swamp here and there, will keep you posted.
  10. The one James is referring to is the the "D" type that where available with the F50/N50 kit, if you have any form of allergy to plastic, stay away from that one it would be lethal to you , the one you have is the good 35-80, 80.00$ is a good deal, you see you just saved money on the lens so now spend it on the flat port cheers
  11. Hello Antonio, the difference between the +3 & +4, technically the +3 is closer to what is really needed for an 8" inch dome, it's just harder to find than the +1, +2, +4 kit available, if you can get the Nikon 4T it's 52mm and as double element construction, one thing is certain close-up lens are not all created equal, so get quality you won't regret, if you go the Alex way, (which I prefer you did) then there is no need for any diopter since you will not be focusing on the virtual image of a dome. Hope this help.
  12. Hola Luiz, I have two Sigma zoom lens that I use for top side. one is the 70-200 2,8 EX HSM, very good optically I would say at par with my old Nikkor 80-200 F2,8 and I have the 17-35 28-4 EX which I will get rid of ASAP, since it's not very sharp as lens of this range are normally. but more to the point, in the long term, Nikon & Canon will, did & have changed the electronic protocol on their body, when this happen very often the Sigma will loose it's upward compatibility, Sigma being good sport, they usually have upgraded their lens free of charge when its inside the warranty period, so be aware of this when buying off brand lens, this is not a Urban legend, I have been in the retail business of camera for the last 34 years and seen it happen with some Canon and Nikon, be patient and wait for a few optical test, maybe it's a great lens, maybe it's not, my other point is I've had Canon for 25 years and Nikon for 9 years, had a few Sigma in this lot, those are the only lenses I had to send for repair, good optics, but weaker construction than the original manufacturer. but, kudos to them for coming out with these lenses way ahead of thoses sleeping giant. Now if they could only come out with a fix focal 10mm f:2,8 Rectilinear, I would be a happy camper! Regards
  13. Hi Dan, got them on e-bay for +/- 15.00 each including holder for the flash, the plan is once i figure out the cc's I'll use them for a transparent cyan cover for the +15cc & 30cc gel filter that I cut to dimension of those filter and sandwich between holder and filter.
  14. Hi my name is Jean, and although I have been posting for a while, I never took the time to formally introduce myself, as you probably noticed, my signature always have Aquatica attached to it, even if I am not a full time employee for them, I feel that my involvement with them warrant the signature, I am bias toward our product and figure it's only honest to let readers know where I stand, I hate innuendo or false motive... on the other hand I enjoy the fact that i'm forced in a neutral zone, as I will never comment on a housing question except if the question is in regard to u/w photography per say and not about the product. On a personal note: I'm married to a Venezuelan, so a lot of my diving is over there, been certified since 1990, bought my first u/w camera Nik V in 1988, been doing photography since 1971 (found a camera on a park bench!), now work as a full time photo instructor in Montreal and been associated with Aquatica since the early 90', just landed the position of photography columnist for the magazine Scuba Press and did its front page in the same stride and finally recently started doing technical illustrations to spice up my courses or articles and must admit I enjoy that very much. Wetpixel deserve a big round of applause for permitting all of us from every corner of the world (the expression applies here) to be able to exchange ideas and point of view. BRAVO !
  15. Hi there old man, recovered from your 30'ish milk dringing binge , more to the point, they have two filter strenght associated to different depth, so I gather they are of different value ? I have a Minolta color meter (Which Aquatica will custom house for me one day) but call it laziness I tought i'd ask before, I will try to figure it out with the color meter, will keep you posted.
  • Create New...