Jump to content

Phil Rudin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Phil Rudin

  1. My mistake on current ZEN 170mm domes the dome shade blades are removable. So if you already own that port and can remove the shade blades you would have an advantage for splits. Would not be my choice for any other full frame lens other than fisheye.
  2. Please Read because some of the information above is a bit incorrect. First the Sony A7 line of housings has an N-100 100mm port mount not N-85 so any comparisons are not valid. Using the Nauticam N100 to N120 35.5mm port adapter allows you to use N-120 ports and in the case of the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye the metabones adapter extends to the edge of the port adapter and then you use the Nauticam Canon port charts to find the extension for the 8-15 zoom. The proper extension for the 8-15 zoom is the N-120 30mm for the 18811 140mm fisheye port with removable shade and 30mm for the Nauticam fisheye port II and 30mm for the ZEN 230mm. Both have dome shades that can be removed for use at the extreme 8mm end of the lens. Be aware a 140mm port is made that does not have the removable shade. Zen also makes a 100mm with and without removable shade. The ZEN DP-100-N120-CR (For removable) would be the proper dome. The Zen 170mm and Nauticam 180mm ports ARE NOT fisheye ports and DO NOT have removable dome shades, so the 8mm end of the lens would be useless unless you crop out a good deal of the frame. I have used all three port sizes extensively and as you would expect the larger the port the better the image quality in the corners with apples to apples settings. I would agree that the 230mm dome is a bitch to travel with but I have managed to keep my carry-on roller bag to under 12kg by putting the housing without grips, lenses and bodies into my "computer" second carry-on bag. The larger upside to the Nauticam/Zen 230mm (I own the ZEN) beyond the obivious over/under upside is that the230mm port can be used with the Sony 12-24 zoom, 16-35 F/2.8 & F/4, Zeiss 18mm and more by using 20mm, 30mm and 40mm extensions.
  3. As Taxi has said the Sony FE 90mm F/2.8 is outstanding for any Sony E mount camera and on the APS-C is equal to 135mm on 35mm size sensor. I would also consider the excellent E-mount Zeiss 50mm F/2.8 macro which is made for APS-C sensor Sony cameras. I just used this lens for a review in the current issue of Underwater Photography magazine uwpmag.com with the new Sony A6400 and Ikelite housing. The Zeiss 50 macro gives a 75mm 31 degree AOV v. an 18 degree AOV with the 90mm. Bot angles of view are very useful for macro with the 90mm being better for super macro with add-on closeup lenses. The auto focus on the A6400 is way ahead of A6300/A6500 in speed and accuracy for both lenses.
  4. Answer to World.explorer questions. Going to the back issues in uwpmag.com again, a free PDF download I have the following reviews. Issue #64 Pana 8mm N-4.33, #77 EM-1 review with P-8mm and Zen 100, #93 Canon 8-15mm with Zen-100 and #97 Oly-8mm with N-140. The reason I prefer the Nauticam 4.33 and 140mm for the 8mm's (P & O) is because they also work very well with the outstanding Olympus 12mm F/2 a favorite lens of mine for models and candid portraiture. I have attached two photos using the 12mm.
  5. I reviewed both the Kraken (Weefine) 1000 and 3000 ring lights in issue #101 at uwpmag.com. I think that most of the questions ask above are answered in my review of both light. Find the review on the front page of the magazine in the back issues section, it is a Free PDF download. Happy to answer any followup questions.
  6. Not to labor the point but mirrorless, DSLR or SLR film camera makes no difference. The Canon 11-24 F/4L on DSLR focuses to the same 28cm as the Sony 12-24mm F/4. The upside to mirrorless is that the Canon lens on FF DSLR requires the 250mm port for best results while the Sony lens with the 230mm port has equal or better corner sharpness. I would agree that using really old film ZOOM lenses that only focus to 18 or 20 inches will cause a problem because they need a +2 to +4 closeup lens to focus which then causes an above water problem, modern DSLR lenses or even older fixed focus lenses work fine for splits on DSLR or film. The attached was taken with a Nikonos RS a 35mm (so called full frame) film camera and an 18mm lens with eight inch dome.
  7. The auto focus on the A6400 is truly remarkable for a camera at this price point and beats many cameras in the over $3000.00 price range. I also agree that AF speed and accuracy in U/W photography is much more important than IBIS. The rest of the article is a free PDF download.
  8. To address Vagabond's original question about shooting the Olympus 8mm F/1.8 with a large port I have attached a few images using first the 8mm with the Zen Underwater 200mm port. You can see with the large group photo the water line will curve upwards or downwards when the lens is above or below the centerline of the photo. Just under the surface the model on the rights arm is distorted because of the fisheye even with the large dome port. For most applications I prefer the 8mm with the Nauticam 140mm port with the 17mm extension. I have also used the ZEN 100mm port with the lens. With the Olympus 7-14mm at 7mm and the Zen 200mm dome you get a much straighter water line and as you can see in the photo of Roman sitting on the steps, the lines of the rails and deck are very straight where as with a fisheye they would be distorted. Regarding Interceptor121's comment "on full frame rectilinear lenses cant focus properly on splits" not sure how you came to this conclusion and I will offer these model photos taken with the Sony FE 12-24mm F/4 lens at 24mm with Sony A7R III as rectilinear examples. Not only could the lens focus above or bellow water I was also able to use Sony's excellent EYE auto focus for focusing on the models eyes. These were taken with the Zen 230mm port which is the very best match for the lens. As a sidebar I have the Olympus 8mm, Nauticam 140mm port for the lens and the required 17mm extension all in mint condition for sale if anyone is interested.
  9. Well done Bill, your brightness values seem to mimic the guide number values published by the manufactures, with Inon rating the Z-330 at GN33 and Sea & Sea rating the D2J at GN-32. At the same time the brightness values are hardly apples to apples. The over 400 value for the S&S is for the strobe which has a beam angle of 80 X 80 degrees while the Z330 has a 110 X 110 beam angle. When the 110 degree diffuser is added to the S&S the brightness value drops to under 150. Using this logic it would stand to reason that if you reduced the beam angle of the Z330 strobes to 80 degrees the brightness value would jumpy 250 or close to 700. Regarding diffusers the S&S 100 and 110 diffusers are designed to widen the beam angle. The Inon strobe dome filters are not designed to widen the beam they are designed for two reasons, to reduce the out put of light by up to four stops and too change the color temperature of the light output. So again if you compare the S&S with the 110 diffuser for 110 beam angle and the Inon -0.3 dome filter with the same 110 beam angle the brightness value for the Inon Z330 is 100 points higher. I am pointing these issues out not because I have an issue with the work Bill has put in I am very well aware of how time consuming doing these tests can be. I just think it needs to be pointed out because these two strobes are in the same price ranged but not comparable apples to apples.
  10. I would be happy to answer to answer your question Rick. First of all understand that I have done over 75 articles for uwpmag.com,most on new equipment. The equipment I am reviewing in most cases is supplied to me and then returned to the manufacture. As a result I stick to reviewing the equipment I actually have in hand like the three lenses I used for this review. I am not in a position to own the twenty or so lenses supported for this camera by Ikelite. Since I don't own the Nauticam WWL-1 or the UWL-09F this would not be a lenses that I would be reviewing with this equipment. I have many times suggested that people in these forum consult the manufactures port charts for additional information on compatibility. So this is how that would have worked out the Nauticam WWL-1 supports two Sony lenses the Sony E16-50 power zoom and the Sigma 19mm F/2.9 DN. On the Ikelite port charts you will see that the Sony 16-50 PZ and 18-55 are only supported by dome ports, not flat ports and the Signs 19mm is not supported at all. Fantasea has just announced a housing for the Sony A6400 which probably does support some of their wet wide lenses.
  11. I have done a review of the new Sony A6400 APS-C camera which has all of the new AF features for the issue of uwpmag.com which posted today. This camera has the best auto focus for any APS-C camera I have used mirrorless or DSLR period. Regarding the animal eye AF please read the review for answers regarding which AF features worked best underwater for me. You may also want to look at A6400 review at DPReview regarding the auto focus in the concussing section. They place it as one of the best of all cameras at any price range.
  12. If I understand your question correctly the WWL-1 does not work with Nikon DX or full frame, it also does not work with any Canon other the M series. This may change going forward with Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless like EOS R and Z6/7 but not at this time. The WWL-1 will work with Sony E (APS-C) using the Power Zoom 16-50mm and the Sigma 19mm F/2.8 DN A. You can find the current port charts at nauticam.com, find the WWL-1 and then look for the port charts.
  13. I have been following this thread with interest. One of the most ask questions ask by people who follow my uwpmag.com reviews and attend workshops is what W/A lens is best for Sony full frame cameras. As others have pointed out what you will be shooting and how much you are willing to spend has a lot to do with the answer. First regarding the Nauticam Water Contact Optics. I have attached a photo of a prototype WWL-1 on the Nauticam NA-EM1 housing for Olympus E-M1 which I shot with the Lumix G 14-42mm F/3.5-5.6 power zoom lens for the B&W hammerhead photo. These photos were taken in March of 2013 to help Nauticam evaluate the lens. At DEMA in Nov.2014 another prototype WWL-1 appeared with little with little attention. By DEMA 2015 WWL-1 was ready to debut and coverage was intense. I touch on this information because I don't think many appreciate the amount of time, energy and resources Nauticam puts into developing such fine water contact optics. I would also point out that the Sony FE 28mm F/2 lens was the benchmark lens for this system because it was and still is the only Full Frame lens that works with the WWL-1. So be assured that image quality wise Beingnor has the sharpest lens combination available for Sony full frame outside the WACP. The tradeoff for the image quality of the WWL-1 and WACP is weigh & cost in the case of the WACP. For both lenses shooting split images is an issue and they are not rectilinear if that is an issue. I have also included two images with the Canon 8-15mm showing the 8mm end to create Snell's Window and the 15mm end for the turtle. With the turtle you can see how fisheye bends the water line when it above or below the horizon. I also included images with the 12-24 with 230mm dome at 12mm for the star and model and 24mm for the CFWA of the father duster worm. Any of these lens combinations works very well for most W/A needs. Regarding the comments on the Metabones adapter for the Canon 8-15mm, version IV/V have had firmware updates as recently as last month and most if not all reviews posted to the internet were done with lenses much longer that the 8-15. I have tested the 8-15 on the Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless and the Sony with the Metabones and I can assure all that AF is fast and accurate on the Sony.
  14. Thank you Tim. One of the things which is common to all of the housings and port combinations I used with the 8-15 zoom is the purple/blue fringing around the outside edges of the 8mm circular fisheye shots. Nothing I have tried in Lightroom seems to get ride of it. This image is with the 8-15mm on the Canon EOS R with adapter and no difference from the Sony cameras.
  15. Hi James, I have used the Canon 8-15mm and Metabones adapter with Sony A7 II, A7R II, A7 III and A7R III cameras in Nauticam housings with Zen 100 port, Nauticam 140mm port & Nauticam 230mm port, all with the removable port shades or blades. I have also used the lens with Ikelite housing and eight inch dome port and with the Acquapazza housing with Inon port II which is 162mm also with the dome shades removed. The large ports work best for split (over/under) images and the small 100 and 140 work best for CFWA. I reviewed these products for uwpmag.com which is a free PDF download. Further info and images can be found in the free back issues, #93, 102 & 103. Some images at the circular fisheye end.
  16. Apples to apples the Sony FE 28mm gives 130 degrees with WWL-1 used by many M43 users. WACP is obviously heavy compared to 7-14 combo with 170/180 dome port. Sony FE 12-24 with 230mm port is larger as well. These are the tradeoffs I am talking about. I am still able to carryon the housing with the 230mm port and the rest of my stuff. On all of my trips I am carrying two complete systems with equipment for review so something always finds its way into checked luggage. I have a trip to Mexico on Tuesday and I will have Sony A7R III with WWL-1 and more plus Sony A6400 and Ikelite housing with complete Ikelite system, I.E. strobes, arms, ports and more. Camera gear is always packed first followed by dive gear and any leftover space for clothing and personal items. I have used the Olympus 7-14 & Panasonic 7-14 with 170 &180mm ports and I can assure you the image quality in the corners is much better with the ZEN 200mm dome port which I have traveled with extensively. So in the photos again not a huge difference between 200mm with Oly 7-14 on M43 and 200mm with Zeiss 18mm or Sony 16-35 F/4 on full frame A7/A7R III side view is the 230mm with the Sony FE 12-24mm zoom. Again regarding tradeoffs the larger diameter 200mm and 230mm ports offer better balance because of the extra volume air in the housing and better over/under images v. smaller domes.
  17. Hi Wolfgang, First, you can find plenty of comparisons of image quality on sites like DPReview and image sensor quality at DXOMark so no reason to reinvent the wheel. I agree that the EM1 II has excellent image quality, that being said quality for cameras like Nikon-850, Z-7 and Sony A7R III would then be superb, stupendous, orgasmic, etc. The difference is a result of the sensor size, the $2000.00 EM1 II has a 20.4MP sensor with a max resolution of 5184 X 3888 with a bit depth of 12. By comparison the $2000.00 Sony A7 III full frame camera has a 24.2MP sensor max res. of 6000 x 4000 and a bit depth of 14. Bit depth is a measure of the amount of information that can be registered by a computer, binary code 1's and 0's. A bit depth of 12 is more than 68 billion while 14 bit is over 4 trillion. This is simple physics, the more space you have on the sensor the larger the photo sites and the greater the bit depth. Nikon Z7 at $3400.00 has a 45.7MP full frame sensor with max res of 8256 X 5504 while the $3200.00 Sony A7R III has a 42.4MP sensor with a max res of 7952 X 5304 both are 14 bit sensors. The reason this makes a difference too photographers is that larger max res. allows for larger prints and a greater amount of cropping along with better overall image quality. Viewed on the internet large numbers of MP's are just overkill. One of the first things I tell students in my workshops regarding equipment is that you should be making equipment choices based on a complete system approach, not based on the latest camera body or numbers of MP's. The other is that the system should fit each persons needs and budget. Someone who makes twenty dives a year on a vacationing posts the images to Facebook won't need the level of equipment someone doing over 100 dives a year and making large prints would need. Everything in U/w photography is a tradeoff, small body, lens and housing size V. better image quality, larger lenses, DOF, expense and more. The argument that full frame equipment is so much bigger that it can't be contained in carryon luggage is a bit of a myth. I carry all of my Sony A7R III equipment onto the plane with little trouble or over weight issues. The photo compares the size differences between N85 EM1 II housing, Sony N100 housing and N120 DSLR housing, in the background is a Hasselblad medium formate housing which present issues.
  18. Horvendile, Regarding the Nauticam WACP with the 28-70mm zoom lens v. a wide zoom with a quality dome port the number of megapixels or resolution has nothing to do with the image quality issue. I know that it is hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that 14-42 kit lens or 28 to 70 kit lens with the WACP or WWL-1 can provide better image quality than the outstanding Olympus 7-14 or a Nikon or Sony lens like the 16-35 with a dome port but that is the fact. You may want to read alex Mustards rather complex article in uwpmag.com, back issue #99. This is a free PDF download which can be found in the back issues located at the top of the home page. In the article is a graph which compares the 14-42 power zoom and Nauticam WWL-1 to the Olympus 7-14 with a dome port. The better image quality numbers are evident for the WWL-1. If the WWL-1 is used with the Sony A7R III 42MP camera and Sony FE 28mm F/2 lens the image quality is even more stunning. I have used 4/3 cameras since the Olympus E-1 5MP DSLR and Sony cameras from 24 to 42MP underwater for years. I can guarantee the image quality differences in RAW files for full frame are large compared to 4/3 and M43. If your images are only going to the internet you could be using a 5MP camera with great results as long as you have the correct lens set for U/W photography. In the same issue #99 of uwpmag.com is my review of the Olympus EM1 II with the Olympus housing. You can see a very large crop in that article of a dog tag using the Olympus 7-14mm zoom in the Olympus 170mm dome port and it looks quite sharp. My personal equipment I used a ZEN 200mm port with the Olympus 7-14 for better corner sharpness. I use a ZEN 230mm port with the Sony FE 12-24 zoom which is the best ultra wide (weitwinkel) zoom I have used and it is not as good as the WAPC with the Sony 28-70mm kit lens on full frame. High MP cameras reveal the flaws in mediocre lenses.
  19. I agree with Adam when he points out that fast lenses like the Sony FE 16-35 F/2.8 are of little use in underwater photography and that the FE 16-35 F/4 would be the more logical choice. I also believe that with full frame cameras like the Sony A7 line, Canon EOS R line and Nikon Z-line that F/11 and for me F/13 is a good starting point for the 16-35 lenses on the wide end. For best results, 230mm ports will deliver best results regarding corner sharpness. While I agree with Adam that Sony has no native FE Fisheye lens I get by quite nicely with a Canon 8-15mm FF circular fisheye lens which I have used for both A7 II and A7 III cameras. EOS R and Nikon Z also lack a native fisheye but I have used both those cameras with the Canon and Nikon 8-15 DSLR fisheyes with great results. Depending on which housing you chose, it is likely that they will recommend a 140mm diameter port for best results. I have also used a 100mm port with the Canon lens. To use any of these Fisheye lenses as an over/under lens a much larger port like the 230mm would in most cases be the better choice. I also like rectilinear lenses for O/U and I am now using the Sony FE 12-24mm F/4 and the Zen 230mm port. Also working out an extension length for the brilliant Sony FE 24mm F/1.4. I agree with Adam that getting an opinion from someone that has actually used the equipment is always helpful. I write for UwP magazines and have written reviews of some of the gear you have listed for UwP magazine. Most of my reviews are related to mirrorless camera equipment while other reviewers cover the DSLR and video stuff. (Post edited: Admin)
  20. You can check out mine at https://www.instagram.com/philrudinphotography/
  21. As Adam has suggested adding a +2 diopter may have become a "folklore" fix for modern zoom lenses but it comes from the film days. At that time most U/W photographers using housed cameras were Nikon shooters, with Canon in much smaller numbers. A common zoom lens for Nikon at that time would have been the Nikon 20-35 F/2.8 D-IF considered a super-wide zoom at the time. This lens had a minimum focus distance of Appox. 52cm (1.7ft) and at the time most large dome ports were 200mm (appox. 8 inches). Adding +2 to +4 magnification was a must to get these lens to work behind the dome. Modern day zoom lenses in the 12-24mm to 16-35mm range for both DSLR's and mirrorless cameras all have a minimum focus distance under 30cm (1 foot) which eliminates the need for any additional magnification. Please remember that 35mm film cameras were all so called "full frame" and the modern lenses I have described are also lenses designed as full frame lenses. I hope Sea & Sea is reading this thread because I would like to point out that they are now selling housings for the Sony A7-series line of full frame cameras and the most popular wide zoom is the FE 16-35mm F/4 which has a 72mm filter thread not supported with the Sea & Sea correction lens. Tamron have also announced a Sony FE mount 17-28 mm F/2.8, a compact lens with a 67mm thread mount that will surely be considered by Sony users as an alternative to the Sony 16-35 F/4 and F/2.8 W/A zooms.
  22. I am not sure who that level thing on the EOS R will be implemented but I am sure ISO could be reached from the super screen or what ever they are calling it. Canon has taken a very different approach to mirrorless than Nikon, I was a bit surprised that they did not offer IBIS in stead on in lens stabilization. Regarding mirrorless lenses it appears that the difference in the setback between mirrorless lenses and DSLR cameras with the mirror makes a difference in the size of the port needed for wide lenses. Example Nauticam recommends the 250mm port for best results with the Canon 11-24 F/4 and the Nikon 14-24 F/2.8. For the Sony 12-24 F/4 the 230mm port is recommended for best results. While Sony 16-35 F/4 & 2.8 can be used with ports as small as 180mm. So apples to apples on full frame Sony at 12mm behind 230mm dome should yield the same corner sharpness as Canon at 11mm behind the 250mm given the same F/stop. The prevailing wisdom is that Nikon D850 and D500 have the fastest and most accurate AF of any of the DSLR's and that Sony has the best for any of the mirrorless cameras. I Shoot the 12-24mm in AF-C most of the time and I do not own a focus gear for the lens, in fact the only focus gear I own is for the 90mm macro and I would be hard pressed to say the last time I have used it. Like all full frame cameras I try to shoot at F/13 or higher unless I am looking for shallow DOF. This is one tradeoff for shooting FF. Keep in mind that I am not a video guy so my observations are based on stills. The high end Sony lenses are excellent which has been proven by tests by DXO and others. Also regarding the larger lens mounts selected by Canon, Nikon and Panasonic I understand the concept for faster lenses but the smaller Sony mount seems to be fine for any lens I would use and you can find a bunch of lenses in the F/2 to F/1.2 range that are offering excellent results on Sony FF.
  23. I would agree with Todd in regard to the Nikon Z7. The biggest issues being thrown out are the lack of two card slots something that would not have even been noticed there or four years ago. Others issues include the 1/200th sec. top flash sync and the AF-C. Image quality is in a word superb and on the same level as the D850. I had no issues with AF-S during you short one day use of the system. Regarding growing pains like Sony, Olympus and Panasonic when they went to mirrorless a full set of native lenses will take a while to roll out. That is what makes the MWL-1 and SCM-1 & 2 lenses so ideal for this system. With the FTZ DSLR lens adapter and the current Nikon 60mm F/2.8G macro this one kit can cover a very wide range of view all on the same dive. Looking forward to seeing offerings for the New Canon EOS R system at next weeks DEMA show.
  24. Some additional information on the Nauticam NA-Z7 housing with MWL-1 and SMC-2 can be found in the current issue of Underwater Photography Magazine. Go to uwpmag.com for your FREE PDF download.
  • Create New...