Jump to content

Matt Sullivan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Matt Sullivan

  1. Adam, you're the only other person I've heard besides me, prefer the d500 over the 850 for underwater use. D4/4s is still my preferred camera to shoot underwater, not having shot a D5, but after that, d500 all day. I don't think the 850 has a significant advantage underwater in terms of IQ (IMHO) and the d500 edges it out everywhere else I think. The RS13 is fantastic on any of the Nikon bodies, significantly sharper than anything else I've used for WA (exception being the WACP which matches it)
  2. the Sigma 150 is another option and again, just a specific extension ring will allow it to work
  3. if you're referring to the CMC-1 vs CMC-2, the CMC-1 provides stronger magnification. In terms of optical quality, theyre identical
  4. small article on Nauticam's site with sony and the wacp. https://www.nauticam.com/blogs/news/wacp-on-sony Pretty much all the zoom lenses used with the wacp are 'slow' (sony 28-70, canon 28-70, Nikon 28-70, etc) and are old. But underwater, behind that piece of glass they perform exceptionally. I believe I checked into the tamron 28-75 a while ago and the physical dimensions of the lens would require pretty significant extensions if I recall correctly. I'm sure if they haven't tested it already, they will at some point.
  5. well you can use the wacp on the d500 and would still produce stellar results. I love the d500 (and that's after shooting the 850 a LOT) and I opted to house the d500. I have no qualms about the d500 IQ and if you pair it with great glass youre going to get great results. Use it with the 18-55 and you have pretty much the exact same versatility as the 28-70 would be on the 850. And both those lenses are incredibly cheap so im not sure the wacp should be the deciding factor between the d500 and 850 i'm not sure any of what I just said helped...
  6. Unfortunately, sometimes life gets in the way. I bought this housing a few months ago and unfortunately had to cancel several trips since then and now have a few more important things to pay for. So lucky for anyone who's looking for a new housing! I've never used it, merely set it up a few times, installed the vacuum and the carry lanyard etc. Housing comes with the vacuum (no pump, I still need that for an older housing), the mounting ball/lanyard set, and the standard nauticam carry case. Price is $2550 including shipping to the contiguous US. Outside of US is fine but shipping will cost extra depending on where it is going. Please let me know if you have any questions. Matt
  7. in terms of versatility and IQ, it really is hard to beat the WACP. and it isn't just the fact that its better in the corners when shot more open, the entire image is ridiculously sharp, itll give you a better overall quality picture than just better corners. It also is really easy to dive with and isn't as unwieldy/unweildy (spelling?) in the water as it seems on land. Much easier to dive with than the big dome/extension/etc imo
  8. @Walt, Andrej Belic can do the conversions and builds the native adapters for Nauticam housings. I suspect, as Tom said, mounting it the way youre considering would change the relationship of the lens elements to the water contact elements and likely impact image quality in some way. The way Andrej does it, the lens remains as one part. There is an adapter that seals the housing and then the lens seals against the adapter while mounting directly to the camera. I use it this way and have never had an issue.
  9. ^^I'm not sure how to reply with the quote thing but to landlocked, Alex did a big review on it that is somewhere on wetpixel. if you google his name + nauticam wacp it will come up. I've used it a few times and it is one hell of an optic. It is razor sharp at any focal length, you can shoot it at much wider apertures than normal rectilinears (or even fisheyes) and the ability to use the 28-70mm gives unmatched versatility. It also balances extremely well in the water and is so easy to dive with. It is definitely an investment, but is worth it IMO. I shoot the RS13mm which is an amazing lens and I was skeptical the wacp would match it in terms of sharpness and IQ but to my eye it definitely does and I'd love to complement the 13mm with the wacp but unfortunately I just can't afford to haha. Almost all the shots I have with it are on external drives but I can post them later. Here is one meh shot but with a 100% crop also so you can get an idea of how insanely sharp it is. (athought wetpixel is crushing the quality, not sure I can do anything about that?) Nikon D4, Nikon 28-70
  10. ^The 8-15 should still have the optical edge over the 15mm and the close focus advantage over the 16mm.
  11. Hey Sascha. It is literally the exact same piece of glass just one says Zen and one says Nauticam. The current Nauticam dome though is 18812 Matt
  12. Hey all. I'm selling my pair of Inon z240 type 4's. They've never been flooded and they're fully functional though aesthetically not pristine. Including the ball adaptors and dome diffusers pictured. $650/pair + shipping. Matt
  13. there seems to be no rhyme or reason at this point as to whether or not they make you unpack everything and seems to be up to the discretion of the TSA agent. flew cross the US recently. didnt have to take anything out except laptop. On the way back literally every piece of equipment had to come out and go in separate bins. if this starts being enforced its going to be a huge PITA :/
  14. why not the d500? or even d7500? i've used both the d810 and the d500 and in 95% of situations prefer the d500 for underwater shooting.
  15. we've discussed just recently the nikonos 13. I sure as s**t am not selling it but i sure as S**t want this thing also hahaha I love the compactness and IQ of the 13mm so its not going anywhere, but the versatility of this lens also is highly appealing.
  16. Hey Geo. The shallower DOF I was referring to is a characteristic of the nikonos. It has a shallower DOF than a normal fisheye so on a high res FF body (which has narrower DOF than cropped sensor) the focus will need to be even more spot on
  17. I have the rs 13, and I believe Adam does as well. Its spectacular. I've not actually used any other lens, wide or macro, since i had it converted. I love it on both apsc and full frame but i've not gotten to use it enough to have a firm opinion on which format I prefer it. The DOF is far shallower than a normal fisheye. This can present a problem on a high res full frame body and that is an issue i have noticed but its easy enough to work around. The only 'complaint' with the 13mm is the fact that it cant be used for splits. The sharpness and 'look' of the images from the RS imo is far superior to any other option i've used (not having used the Nauticam WAP converter). Tangent aside, I am very much looking forward to using the RS on the d850 but I am curious as to how the much higher res + already shallower than normal DOF of the lens will perform
  18. There are people far more qualified than I to speak on this issue but: I shot the d500 underwater for the first time this weekend. I usually shoot the d810. in terms of overall image quality, there is very little difference between the two at least underwater. Like Adam said, shooting through and under water will reduce many of the typical advantages of the d810 over the d500. If I were choosing now, id go d500 over d810 for underwater shooting. The image sharpness may be slightly better on the D810, ISO performance in real world underwater looks nearly identical. I have to look at exif data if I really wanted to know which camera took which image. I prefer full frame usually for the narrower DOF, better high ISO, and wider FOV but underwater the former two don't seem to give any advantage to the d810 vs the d500 (d5 and d4 are a different story). The d850 may perform slightly better than the d810 but will need the highest quality lenses and ports as Adam mentioned.
  19. sweet man! i've seen a few 20-35 floating around but heard the same thing in terms of it not being a useful focal length since its more like a 28-40 something? So I've not pulled the trigger. But the 13mm...i love it. it was ridiculously expensive to buy/convert and I went broke, but now that im finished paying for it it was absolutely worth it! I very much look forward to seeing your results from the solomons. I have some (hopefully) good stuff coming up including a return to guadalupe, and the 13mm probably won't leave my housing for any of it haha i preferred shooting wide angle before this lens and now i haven't been able to bring myself to put on a macro lens. unless i get the nikonos 50mm I appreciate the response, i'm glad somebody answered haha
  20. Figured this might be fun to start. To show off photos taken with the lens and just general all around discussions/thoughts on it. So far i've only used mine with great whites but i absolutely loved it. There are certain challenges but to me the images it produces just have a 'look' that modern lenses don't have.
  21. No luck yet 😔 And that's awesome! Glad to hear it. Those strobes are tanks it seems haha
  • Create New...