Nicool

Hello jplaurel! What do you think about autofocus speed? I am wondering how it improves over the panasonic, were you using it before?

See this nice article from reef photo about gx8: http://reefphoto.com/kb.php?id=94 Though i am not sure if it sells more the gx8 camera or the nauticam's wet lenses system, which seems quite interesting. I'd be curious to know how it compares vs dedicated lenses and ports/domes (in terms of IQ and AF speed)

Loool i have seen the exact same this summer in Tulamben wreck, and our pics look quite similar. What a headache for my autofocus!

yes these are good ways to have more pics in focus, thanks mates :-) Otherwise or in complement, there could also be quicker AF straight out of the box by being able to "tell" the lens to limit its focusing range to whatever the user decides :-O

I agree the camera and lens usually focus decently, but i have been finding myself multiple times in those difficult subjects situations where AF was struggling underwater, and i believe my above suggestion would be a good cure. Even for those who are happy with current AF on their Omd-em5 + 60mm, don't you want even improved performances?

This post and my recent comments about autofocus issues are obviously related, as this control of the focusing range could only help improving AF performance. But it seems i am the only one interested? Could at least someone advise why the idea isn't relevant? Do some of you manually limit the focusing range on the lens prior to going diving? Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Some focus issues i had encountered where either in silky water that the camera would focus on particles, or that it wouldn't "consider" a very thin subject, such as a pipefish. This actually occured last week to me: trying to shoot a thin pipefish with the 60mm macro: i put the focus point on the pipefish's head (meaning that small square right on the head), and it took me 4-5 attemps before getti g focus right. This was in bright light (shallow), i believe the issue was my focusing "square" was larger than the fish itself! Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk Some focus issues i had encountered where either in silky water that the camera would focus on particles, or that it wouldn't "consider" a very thin subject, such as a pipefish. This actually occured last week to me: trying to shoot a thin pipefish with the 60mm macro: i put the focus point on the pipefish's head (meaning that small square right on the head), and it took me 4-5 attemps before getti g focus right. This was in bright light (shallow), i believe the issue was my focusing "square" was larger than the fish itself! Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Thanks both. I am now back home and had no opportunity to shoot the barras with macro/mid-range zoom, but i do have some barras at home (bit more rare though), so i can try this advice here. I will post some barras pics here after the sorting! Cheers Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

thanks all for the great advice! @Chris & Tim, #3 and #4 are very inspiring, i'll definitely try to benefit from natural lighting as much as possible. And yes, kiss of flash rather than full blast against a dark background seem more appropriate. @Interceptor121, i am definitely aiming for strobes indeed, it feels like something is missing otherwise. I like your barracuda shot, indeed the front ones aren't overexposed, and the next ones are gradually less exposed, and the gradation is not disturbing (since they're well aligned). cheers Nicolas

Hi folks! I have the pleasure of 1/ being in vacations 2/ in avery nice resort (Villa Alba, Bali), whose house reef hosts a school of young barracudas (about 200 i'd say) who i meet on each dive. Obviously i try to take wide angle pics of the school (currently shootimg micro 4/3, with a 9-18mm lens) but just like any shot of barracudas school, i am not satisfied with what i am getting. I usually manage to get the barras pretty well aligned, but them they are not all lit the same, some are too bright some not. They easily get burned (contrast too high vs the dart blue water background). I wish i could post some pics but internet connection is too slow here. Would you habe any advice on how to get great barracudas shots? Maybe reduce flash output (but this won't help with heterogeneous lighting)? Maybe shoot ambiant light? My opportunities to shoot them again are limited as wifey keeps telling me about the great small stuff that she finds while i play in the blue, ans sooner or later we'll switch to macro... (I am the wide angle person). Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers Nicolas

Thanks for the comments guys. @Stewart, i guess 5 fps would be the maximum i would be looking at, good to know the YS-D1 coule handle it with the settings you mentioned. Interesting comment on the eletrical to optical converter, i think Nauticam also produce some. Nicolas Indeed Bart i've experienced it yesterday when the background became waaaay too clear behind my barracudas...

hi errbrr, thanks for this feedback, looks like the Inons aren't fit for burst shooting then Or i'd have to ensure i am not at full power, maybe by increasing the ISOs Waiting for other comments on that cheers

Hi folks, I am seeing more and more situations where i would like to shoot bursts underwater, such as approaching schooling fishes, rapid swimming hunters, or macro. So, i am looking for advice on which setup attributes to look for in order to make it possible, i have in mind a few areas of attention: Strobe exposure control: TTL or manual I know most of you probably go manual, but having tried both, i must admit i still prefer TTL, which gets the exposure quite right in most of my experience. And when shooting actions, i doubt even further my ability to get manual exposure right. I am just wondering if the extra flashes needed for the TTL may limit the ability to shoot multiple real flashes, or limit the burst frequency. The answer might depend on the next point though. Strobe connectivity: electric or optical fibers Like many, i moved to optical fibers (got corroded electric cables twice...). It's great in terms of reliability, though it introduces a dependency on the camera's internal flash capabilities. In manual mode, you workaround it by setting the internal flash to 1/64th of it's power or something like that. When doing so, are we confident the internal flash won't be the limiting factor? So bottom line questions: are optical fibers a no-go for burst shooting? Or OK... in manual only? Which strobes? Some strobes might be more capable than others in terms of burst shooting. Right now i use two Inon Z240 type IV, would there be suitable? Would others be better? I must say i am puzzled by the userguide's recommendation to limit the number of shots, wait for the strobe to cool down, etc... Camera continuous-autofocus capabilities (underwater) Though burst mode could be used for still subjects to capture a given attitude, i foresee it mostly for fast moving subjects. Hence, there's a need for good continuous focus capability on the camera side. I am currently using an Olympus Micro 4/3 and i don't think these cameras are (yet?) fit for continuous autofocus. Before i used Nikon, and would not be against going back to this brand. So question is which of their D-SLRs would do the trick - not sure the D7000 is sufficient? Or maybe it is? Something to add: i would really prefer to avoid full frames cameras, i could cope with the budget of an APS-C D-SLR, especially if i can buy it used, but full frame would be too expensive and bulky for travel (already have to carry 2 rebreathers, for wifey and myself...). Any other criteria to consider for that setup? thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts :-) cheers Nicolas

Adding my contribution to this discussion (i was looking for a thread discussing the latest Oly m4/3 lenses). I moved from a Nikon D7000 (hugyphot housing) to an Olympus OM-D (mark I, in Nauticam housing) about 2 years ago. The size factor is definitely great, but now that i am intensively using this camera, i must say the autofocus is definitely a step down from the Nikon D-SLR (no surprise), i mean it's the one thing that makes me regret a bit the switch (along with short battery life). So i also really hope this gets improved in next Oly bodies, maybe this EM-1 mark II... :-)

Bit off-topic, but i see you're diving a rebreather: can you recommend a nice dive operator which support rebreather diving there?

Thanks :-)

Thanks Diggy I understand you're happy with the operability of your lights, and also maintainability (ie caring for orings, charging time...). What about the persistance of a charge? I mean, after a dive you're left with 50%. If you dive again 2 weeks later will you still find 50% or will it have dropped?

Yeah that's my concern, but this little "feature gap" may cause me the jump to the pricey fix neo 1500 dx :-0

Thanks for your advice Clownfish Indeed the 1000 mini could be close to covering my minimal needs, but i just wonder about the very light red light (100 lumen), not sure it will be sufficient. cheers

hi folks, My old Sola 600 photo light is getting meaner and meaner with me. The charging contacts are extremely difficult to connect with, and after i charged for hours and left all indicators green, when i turned on the light it started blinking red!!! Too bad, so i am looking for another light, and it won't be a Sola. The recent announcements on wetpixel front page about several Fisheye FIX Neo light models caught my attention, in particular those two: -Fix Neo 1500 DX SWR: 599 USD -Fix Neo 1000 Mini WR: 299 USD Two very different price tags i know, but i am not sure yet how much i am ready to spend. Fix Neo 1000 Mini WR The cheaper one seems to match quite well the specs of my Sola 600, except: -the red light that is only 100 lumen (Sola had 250 lumen), i am thinking it's too low. If i were still shooting on Nikon D7000 OK, but this nice little Olympus OMD-EM5 doesn't have such a strong autofocus... -the ASO (auto shut-off) feature seems interesting, but i am not sure i like it: yes it would be nice to avoid the light's lighting to ruin strobe positioning efforts, but at the same time, this turns off the light for 1 second, i am wondering whether this would be annoying, i don't realize how long it seems in real life. Also, i am wondering how the battery holds between 2 charges (i usually dive once a week, and don't want to be re-charging the light each time). Fix Neo 1500 DX SWR Just looking at the specs, this light is a killer! It has all i need, plus the choice of keeping your light sealed while you charge (like the Sola) or to swap batteries for more flexibility... I am surprised it doesn't include the ASO feature, but since i am not sure i like it, that's not a deal breaker. So specs are great, but i have no clue on the usability of such a dive light: how easy is maintenance (when you swap battery), o-rings greasing each time? Feels safe or is it a single/scary exposed o-ring? What about manipulations underwater? And a question that applies to both lights: how reliable are the battery statuses? As you understood, this is the pain point on my current light, i cannot trust it at all. So i would really enjoy reading any experience you may have on those lights, or on other lights of that same range if they share similar designs. thanks Nicolas

not much to add, except that i noticed fisheye much easier to use on m4/3 than on 3/2 cameras: When i was shooting Nikon DX, i was quite happy with the angle of view of my 10-24mm Nikon, and was finding the 10-17mm Tokina fisheye usually too wide. Now on m4/3 my 9-18mm often seems too narrow, whereas my pany 8mm fisheye does seem very OK, and with the Nauticam 3.5" mini-dome, the CFWA capabilities are just awesome!!! Not that i am an expect, but learning... And the pictures look always crispier. The 4/3 pictures being less "panoramic", composition with a fisheye gets easier i think.

Though i am wondering how they'd compare for pure photography perspective (regardless of video, i mean)

Thanks TQA, good to know it's not worth exploring too much in Trinidad.

I thought i'd share my experience after having been there. The best place to be would be, according to locals, the Tobago island, where you do have nice reefs and clear water. The Speyside beach came highly recommended (more than some other spots that got famous after Cousteau, but degradated since then). If you're stuck in Trinidad like me, well there's a part of the coast covered with mangroves that is a bit special (i did snorkel mangrove in Bali and liked it though). My free time was very limited, but i went to some of the northern beaches: 1/ Maracas Bay. Quite a large & beautiful beach, with a fishing village on the rocky west side. That's the place which came recommended for snorkelling as you could see baby sharks there. Wheather was bad so i had terrible viz and not sufficient time to properly investigate, but there's probably some potential. One thing to note is they serve "bake'n'shark" (shark burgers) on that beach, and you can see the reminders of shark heads on the beach, they attract the local vultures, plus quite a few pelicans. I was sad to see one baby hammerhead's head in particular... But at least the locals are eating the whole fish, not just taking fins. 2/ Las Cuevas Bay Beautiful beach, and here the rocky side + fishing village is on the eastern side. On this one i spent more time snorkelling, but even going ~200/300 meters, you don't get much depth (3 meters max), and the viz was also terrible (due to weather? i don't know). Underwater i saw small black fishes and sponges, i'll see if i have any decent picutre, doubt it. 3/ Blanchisseuse Bay Litterally means "laundry lady" in French, i let you guess the sea conditions then - i haven't been there. That's it for my very limited exploration (4 hours). Bottom-line: if you're in Trinidad, it's recommended to take the cheap flights to Tobago (20+ flights daily, 25mins distance, 48 USD round-trip). cheers Nicolas

Hope i am not creasting false hopes, but what i put in the title is something i would loooove that Olympus puts in place. What this is about? It's about the great ability of the Oly 60 mm 2.8 macro lens to restrict the focusing range within a limited distance, in order to optimise the autofocus speed. Capability to access this setting underwater would be maravellous for obvious reasons, and would reduce the gap in Autofocus speed versus DSLR cameras (i often miss my trusty Nikon D300 in that area). Actually, this would be useful in about any lens i think, even on a fisheye, if you know you're shooting CFWA why wouldn't you like to limit the focusing range from lens glass till, say 10cm. From a product positioning standpoint, Olympus are very concious about underwater photography (they manufacture housing), so this would be in line. I would personally be ready to upgrade to a newer camera for that single reason (well, increasing battery life wouldn't hurt either...). Feasibility? I am not an Olympus engineer, but with the number of things that can be electronically controlled in Micro 4/3 system, i am pretty confident this would be doable. Take the example of the 12-50mm zoom lens, i think there's some ability to get to the "macro position" electronically. So how do we get it done? Two years ago i dropped a hopeful email to Olympus but didn't get any answer. Any other idea on how to get their attention? I guess the first step would be to see whether you guys would also like that capability. And if there's a few of us, discuss what's the best mean to convey that suggestion to them (photo show, some ideabox...). Thanks in advance for your comments! cheers Nicolas