Jump to content

Isaac Szabo

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Isaac Szabo

  1. Thanks Chris. If I had the monitor housing in hand, I could easily figure it out. But I'm trying to design and 3D print a hood for a friend who doesn't live near me, and I was trying to save him a trip to the hardware store to try out different screws. Getting conformation that it is a metric thread is helpful. With that information, I can probably figure it out by getting him to measure the diameter of the hole.
  2. Does anyone happen to know the thread size of the screws for securing the hood to the monitor housing on Nauticam NA-501/502 housings?
  3. Oh sorry, I misinterpreted your posts as if he didn't respond to either of your PMs and you hadn't been able to get through to him at all.
  4. Have you tried emailing him (info@stephenfrink.com)? He replied to me quickly that way when I had a question for him about another item.
  5. Thanks for the info, Phil! It looks like the 28-60mm + CMC-1 is capable of producing really good results. It's helpful for me to get confirmation that it has such a limited range of focus and thus wouldn't be a full replacement for a macro lens (for me at least). Still, it's an intriguing setup, and I may pick up the 28-60mm and and close-up lens at some point (I already have the WWL-1).
  6. Hi Phil. I've been following your posts and am intrigued by the small size of the A7c as well as the versatility of the 28-60mm with WWL-1 and close-up lenses. I've never used a close-up lens, but my understanding is that you only get a narrow range of focus with them? If that's the case, do you have an estimate for how much range of focus there was with the 28-60mm at 60mm with the CMC-1?
  7. Ah, that makes sense. The WWL-1 with the new 28-60mm is an intriguing option. I look forward to your review.
  8. Phil, I value your wealth of valuable information. However, I will note that the WWL-1 does indeed work for full frame with the Sony 28mm f/2. I have that setup myself and know a number of people who also use it.
  9. No worries, Lewis! You didn't didn't miss anything. I hadn't posted that information until after your post.
  10. As mentioned in my previous reply, I’m only doing shallow stream snorkeling (less than 6ft), so I’m not dealing with extreme pressure. I have tested my parts to a pressure equivalent to around 25ft using a vacuum pump, so I feel that I have a pretty good safety margin for my needs. If you were to try to make 3D printed pressure bearing parts for diving depths, obviously you would have to do the appropriate tests with a vacuum pump/chamber or by bringing the parts down to diving depths without anything valuable inside.
  11. I am using a Prusa i3 MK3 and have printed watertight parts out of ABS, PETG, and PC. As I'm sure you know, FDM prints are not watertight using stock settings. However, they can be made watertight by adjusting the slicer settings so that you end up with a completely solid print. The three main things I do to accomplish that are: print at a small layer height (0.10mm), increase the number of perimeters until there is no infill, and over-extrude enough to fill in the tiny gaps that are normally present between lines/layers of deposited filament (i.e. increase the extrusion multiplier by around 10-20%). Another issue is the o-ring grooves, which will not be perfectly smooth due to the layer lines. So for those I print them slightly over-sized and then coat them in a layer of epoxy. I have no experience using a composite filament like carbon fiber filled nylon and don't know whether or not the tiny fibers inside the plastic would make it more difficult to achieve watertight parts. Back when I was trying to figure out how to do this, I had considered printing the parts normally and then coating the outer surface in a waterproof layer of epoxy. However, as you allude to, one of my concerns was that the surface could get worn/scratched over time and develop leaks. So I settled on making the whole structure watertight, not just the surface. And as a disclaimer, I should note that so far I have only tested these parts at home with a vacuum pump and in a tub of water. All indications are that they are sufficient for my needs, but I haven't yet used them in the field. Also, I'm only doing shallow water stream snorkeling, and nearly all of my photography is done in water less than 6ft deep. Obviously, parts designed for diving depths would probably need to be designed more robustly and would definitely need to go through more extreme pressure testing.
  12. No problem! Wikipedia has a few tables with useful information on the Nikonos/RS lenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikonos#Lenses. I don't know of any data on the corner sharpness of those 2 lenses, but I know there are numerous reports of the RS 13mm having very good sharpness. On the other hand, I haven't found much information on the performance of the Sea&Sea 12mm. I picked up the Sea&Sea 12mm around a year ago but hadn't gotten around to putting together a full frame setup to utilize it until now. As for the adapter, I actually made my own with my 3D printer.
  13. I'm glad you got one. That's a great piece of glass from what I hear. If I were using a Nikon DSLR, that's probably what I would be using too. As for the Sea&Sea 12mm, I haven't fully tested it yet (just a few test shots in a tub at home), so I'll have to get back to you on that. But I can say that with a FOV of 167°, it is much wider than the Nikonos 15mm, which has a FOV of only 94° and as you noticed is really the equivalent of a 20mm. The Nikon R-UW 13mm that you just ordered has a FOV of 170° (essentially the same as the Sea&Sea 12mm).
  14. Keh has a copy of the 13mm available. And there are around a half dozen available on eBay, though they're all from out of the country (mainly Japan). The 12mm is harder to find. I have a copy but am not wanting to sell it at the moment.
  15. I also mostly stayed close to home last year. Thankfully, the Buffalo National River is only 10 minutes away. These images of a River Cooter and Longear Sunfish were two of my favorites of the year:
  16. Though I certainly had better results than yours, I was never fully satisfied with my results using things like micromesh, brasso, etc. My domes were usable afterwards but not perfect (still a tad hazy). More recently I purchased an inexpensive ($70) benchtop buffer and got near-perfect results (and with so much less effort). Just be sure to use a soft buffing wheel and a compound made for plastics if you go this route, and obviously keep the dome moving (buffing the same spot too long could lead to problems).
  17. Nice images, Adam. However, obviously it all depends upon one's situation and subject matter. Not everyone shoots large subjects in open water with artificial lighting. I'm normally shooting small subjects in shallow freshwater streams with natural lighting. And yes, many of my wide angle shots could not be gotten with a large dome. Here are a few examples with subjects less than an inch from a 4" dome (closer than a large dome could get) and/or with the housing pressed against the stream bottom (lower than a large dome could get):
  18. I have 4", 6" and 9" domes to choose from, but I almost always go with the 4" (unless I'm shooting splits). A significant percentage of my wide angle shots would not be possible with a large dome. I'm often shooting subjects that are nearly touching the 4" dome or maneuvering the camera into tight spaces/low angles, things that wouldn't be possible with a large dome.
  19. Sure Sonia, here you go: Also, after inspecting the sealed hole in the housing, it appears that the Scigrip 16 may have produced a better bond to both the housing and the cables than the silicone did. So I might retract my previous statement and instead recommend using Scigrip 16 if you're wanting to go the sealant route. The downside is that if for some reason it didn't work out it would be very difficult to undo. Another simple/inexpensive idea worth looking into is to use an o-ring to create a seal between the cable and button hole. First you would measure the outside diameter of the cable and the inside diameter of the button hole with precision calipers. Then you would try to source an o-ring with a inner diameter slightly smaller than the cable diameter and an outer diameter slightly larger than the hole diameter so that it would create a seal when placed between them. You would also have to make some stops on the cable so that the o-ring couldn't slide out of the button hole. And for some safety margin, you could use several o-rings if the button hole is long enough. The nice thing about this option is that it is completely nondestructive and could easily be undone if it didn't work out.
  20. Hi Sonia. Several years ago I made an external monitor setup using a Meikon housing for a Sony A6300. Rather than cutting the HDMI cable, I drilled a hole in the housing large enough for the end of the cable to fit through (as well as cables for power and remote control). I think I sealed the hole with a layer of Scigrip 16 (which bonds well to the ABS and polycarbonate that the Meikon housings are made of) as well as a layer of silicone (since I wasn’t sure how well the Scigrip 16 would bond to the plastic/rubber of the cables). It never leaked and served me well. So I think what you’re trying to do could work out. In your case I would guess that just filling the button hole with silicone might be sufficient. A nice thing about that is that since silicone remains soft it could probably be undone if it doesn’t work out. Another good thing is that you can try it and make sure it doesn’t leak before ever putting the camera in there. Another aspect of that project that may be of interest to you is that I was able to control the camera by modifying a Sony IR remote control (like this one). The basic idea is that you have to open up the remote and desolder the IR LED from the circuit board, position it to be close to the IR receiver on the front of the camera grip, and then connect it back to the remote by soldering a length of two wires in-between. It was inexpensive and pretty easy, and it was very useful to be able to take photos, start/stop recording, and change settings remotely while viewing the external monitor. So if you think you’re got enough room to fit the wires through the button hole in addition to the HDMI cable, this might be something worth trying. Good luck!
  21. Well that's very unhelpful of them. I'd be happy to do it for you for minimal cost. It's really easy for a camera technician like myself, only takes around 10 minutes. However, I doubt you'll want to do that considering the cost/time of international shipping. If you were to do it yourself, you would indeed have to keep track of more than a dozen screws, but it doesn't necessarily require any cable pulling. That said, if you aren't concerned with affecting the resale value of the camera, then probably the easiest option is to just break/cut it out.
  22. Hi Hory. Yes, I have removed the USB/HDMI door from my A6500 because the camera would not fit into my housing with the door open (in my case, this was for a for a remote shooting setup with external monitor/battery). To remove the door non-destructively, you have to disassemble the camera a little. It's been several years, but if I remember correctly once you get the back of the camera off you can slide the metal rod out of the hinge and then remove the door. If you are comfortable disassembling cameras, here are instructions for disassembling the A6300 (they will also work for the A6500). I think you only have to get to the 6th photo in those instructions to be able to remove the USB/HDMI door. However, please be aware that there is the potential to mix up screws or damage the camera during disassembly, so I only recommend this for those who are comfortable/experienced doing this type of stuff.
  23. Hi, I'm Isaac from Arkansas. I'm primarily interested in freshwater photography in the southeastern US.
  • Create New...