Jump to content

TimG

Moderator
  • Content Count

    4672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Posts posted by TimG


  1. 1 hour ago, JayceeB said:

    Did you ever try a diopter on your D500 + 105mm (for when you really want to hunt for your subject ;) ) for super macro?

     

    Yeah, some time ago I bought a SubSee +10. But I just could not get on with it and sold it. 

    Here's a couple of pics take with the D500/105 just to give you an idea.

     

    TG46832.jpg

    TG49409.jpg

    TG50997.jpg

    TG53558.jpg

    TG53612.jpg

    TG53990.jpg


  2. Hi JayceeB

    I've used a D500 with either a 105mm and 60mm probably 80% of the time over the last 6 years. It's only in the last couple of years that I added the 60mm having had the 105mm on my previous system with a D800.

    The D500/105mm I've found to be a very good macro combination. It is sharp, quick on the AF and can produce either good, deepish DOF or dramatic images if used with a more open aperture. I like the combination especially for snoot shots and have found it great for the more "creative" type images.

    The only negative can be actually finding the subject! I use a 45-degree finder and can,. sometimes, find myself hunting around to actually locate the tiniest critters and get them in the viewfinder. 

    I added the 60mm to get the more "fish photo" type images - but usually revert to the 105mm for more creativity or, as I say, snoot shots.


  3. On 1/13/2022 at 12:44 PM, Dann-Oh said:

    but the ability to zoom on the TG6 seems nice for smaller objects

    Fins can work as well as a zoom...... if the only advantage is the zoom, definitely use fins to get closer. :rolleyes:

    Zooms are great and often allow you to get closer optically to skittish creatures.  But they do increase the amount of water between the camera and the subject - with all the negatives that this then produces. For macro work many folks tend to use a prime lens: 60mm, 105mm, whatever. 


  4. On the transition thing, I can't say that moving from a D5 to a Z6 and Z9 for topside use was anything approaching traumatic. One of the biggest (and most annoying) changes was remembering to press the shutter before looking through the viewfinder. The rest have been pretty minor.

    But I do think Massimo is right: if you have something that works and you get the results you want, why change it? Yeah, I love the flashy new toys and the thought of some of the capabilities. But really, will the new tech help me take better pics? Marginal. I really have my doubts. It's the same bloke behind the camera. With a D500 I can't say I need faster AF or more pixels; I do like the idea though of reviewing an image in the viewfinder.

    I'm no Luddite and thought the Spinning Jenny and the Ravelling Nancy were wonderful developments. Sure mirrorless will be the way to go for the future underwater (as it is now topside). When I need something new as the D500 system is either clapped out or there is something dramatically new, it'll be mirrorless. Till then, hello D500, my friend. 

    But if I was starting from scratch now, yep, I'd be checking out mirrorless options.

     


  5. Mags, I just bought a Nikkor 10-24 for my D500 second hand from London Camera Exchange. They had a couple of them for sale at a good price. I picked it up at the weekend. It looks in excellent condition with box and all the bits and bobs.

    As I have posted elsewhere, I have a zoom ring for the Nikkor 8-15 and that works perfectly on the 10-24.

     


  6. Your experience is pretty much true of any DSLR and housing.

    I guess to deliver a neutrally buoyant housing would mean either making a bigger housing using buoyant materials in addition to aluminium; or maybe some new material: carbon fibre? Titanium?  Which, I would guess, would be significantly more expensive.

    A lot of the weight though can be strobes/batteries/lenses so you are pretty much always going to need additional buoyancy to get to close to neutral.

     


  7. A number of WP members have been really kind in helping me with a zoom ring for the Nikkor 10-24.

    I finally collected the lens at the weekend. To my delight I found the Type 4 (ie 88 teeth) zoom ring for the Nikkor 8-15mm works perfectly on the Nikkor 10-24 lens.

    The Subal model of zoom ring I have for the 8-15mm has teeth all the way along the barrel of the zoom ring - not, as has been the norm, just along a short section of the ring. 

    This makes the zoom ring much more flexible in terms of which lenses it might fit.

    Attached is a pic showing a couple of zoom rings: on the left with teeth all along the barrel (this is for the Nikkor 8-15 + TC) ; and on the right the usual style (for the Tokina 10-17 + TC).

     

    IMG_2030.jpg


  8. 2 hours ago, Mags said:

    Ive got the type 4 Subal casing its the Nikkor 18-55 lens that might be the type 2 :(

    OK, if you have a Type 4 housing then you need the 88 teeth (toothed?) version of the zoom ring.  After that its the diameter of the zoom ring on the lens and the distance from the lens mount to the zoom ring.


  9. 41 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

    I should qualify this by stating that I still have no plans to switch from my D850/D500 until there is a mature ecosystem of lenses suitable for UW use. I am very happy with the performance of my existing system, and value the range of lenses and focal lengths that are available for it. I’m still not convinced there are enough performance advantages to outweigh the disadvantages (yet).

    Same goes for me with a D500! I'm not sure either that, for the moment, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Do I really need a better camera body?

    As Adam sets out, seems to me the quandry is what to do if you are setting out now. Mirrorless is the way to go - but whose? Looks like Sony at the moment in terms of camera bodies. But for lenses?


  10. 16 hours ago, UWPics said:

    I get scolded by DM’s at some locations for touching the reef, even two fingers on dead rock.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.....

    I wasn't having a go at you of course.  

    I spent a year running a dive operation in the Lembeh Straits and made a nice little earner out of selling muck sticks. Yeah, they were maybe better than nothing in trying to keep the mightily determined inexperienced off the reef. Generally the serious u/w photographers were pretty good on buoyancy and very considerate.

    But there was this inevitability by those whose buoyancy skills made them feel they needed a muck stick, of then finning hard to get off the bottom. Farewell viz, farewell next person getting a pic as clouds of sediment and silt blotted out the view. 

    This left me with a pretty jaundiced view of muck sticks!

    You are right, of course, super macro is hugely demanding of buoyancy control. Alex's method is good I think and if you are using finger tips to hold the edge of dead coral, then fair play!

×
×
  • Create New...