Jump to content

TimG

Moderator
  • Content Count

    4672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by TimG

  1. Argh. Tinman also thought they were the same. Darn.
  2. Adam, your D500 was in a Nauticam housing, right?
  3. Really?? Wow, that's interesting. I'll try and check that out.
  4. Thanks! I really appreciate the offer but I don't want to go the 12-24 route. I don't know if the Subal gear for the 12-24 would work on the 10-24. I'll try and find out. Is there anyway you can give me the three measurements of the ring? The external diameter, the internal diameter and the depth of the ring? That would be really helpful.
  5. Hi Elias The Bluewater one is for a Nauticam housing. I don't know if that would fit the Subal system. Quite possibly not. I had the Nikkor 12-24 on my old D100, D200 and D300 systems. I really want to go with the 10-24 but if I can't get a zoom ring I'll probably drop the idea and stick with the Tokina 10-17.
  6. Thanks Elais! I don't have the lens and, so far, havn't found a way of accessing one here in Sint Maarten - hence asking if anyone could send me the dimensions. (I've got the measuring tool, no problem!) I've also exchanged emails with ReefPhoto and Backscatter and neither have the zoom ring and quote very long delivery times. The Seamless looks interesting and I'll contact them. Of course the ring needs to mesh with the Subal control - and not just fit on the lens. The point of trying to get the lens diameter at the zoom ring was to see if I already have a Subal ring that might fit; and also to respond to a very helpful offer from @onokai to look into his Subal zoom ring treasure box. All a bit tricky when I don't actually have the lens. But I'm reluctant to buy one until I know I can get a zoom ring for it in the next few weeks.
  7. Thanks, Adam. And very best wishes for the Christmas season to you and family and all the WP gang! Ho, ho, ho!
  8. Thanks Elias I'd seen those specs. The problem is, I think, that the 87mm diameter is the widest part of the lens - which is the filter ring at the front - and not the barrel where the zoom ring sits. To make sure i get a zoom ring that fits, I need to check the zoom ring diameter. Similarly with the length specified in Ken Rockwell's review. I think he's quoting the length of the lens. To make sure the teeth of the zoom ring engage with the Subal control, I need to check the length of the lens from the zoom ring to the camera mount. Neither of these measurements would change when the lens is zoomed. They'll will be constants.
  9. Folks I'm trying to find out a couple of specifications on the the Nikkor 10-24mm DX lens: a. the diameter for the zoom ring; b; the distance from the zoom ring to the lens mount.. If you have the lens, could you possibly send me the measurements? I'm trying to see if I can find a zoom ring to fit with the Subal ND500 housing. It sounds as though ordering one would be a very long process....... A huge thanks!
  10. Hey guys I'm looking for a Subal Type 4 ( so the 88 teeth one) zoom ring for the Nikkor 10-24mm DX lens if anyone has one they no longer need. Thanks!
  11. Yep, thanks. Got it. Mulling it all over..... will PM you back shortly.
  12. Yeah, I remember. Tinman too. Thanks to you both for the advise. Sounds good. And yeah, try it for sure.
  13. I'd welcome some expert thoughts on this: I've been thinking for some time about adding the Nikkor 10-24 lens to my Subal system which I know a few readers use with success. My Go-To wide-angle is the Tokina 10-17 but I'd like slightly more reach. I'm thinking dolphins and sharks. Subal guidance is the 10-24 needs the 8" domeport (which I have) plus a zoom ring and a 50mm EXR. With all the gear I have, I can put two EXRs together and, bingo, can come up with a 51mm (18+33). Would that extra 1mm make much - any? - difference?
  14. Hi Lasongo I could be interested in the lens but not, sorry, the zoom ring. Price for lens only? But I understand if you don't want to sell just the lens. Are you shipping from the US? I'd want it shipped to Miami please. Best wishes Tim
  15. There are tons of posts about this on WP so worth doing a search. Everyone has their personal tricks, bags and strategies. I've been using a Pelican 1520 as a roller bag (housing, strobes, camera body, macro port) into the cabin for at least 10 years combined with a backpack (extra camera body, lenses, WA port). Never had a major problem. I go with the smile, friendly-chat technique with the check-in staff. Any concerns I explain that it is very delicate camera gear. If our relationship is on a good day, I get my partner to tow the Pelican case gracefully on to the plane. She does it better than me. If it's a very good relationship day, she takes the backpack, and I do the Pelican pas de deux. Then we try not to show the cabin staff that the cabin-approved sized roller bag weighs about 20kgs. Ditto backpack. Arms, clamps, do-dads in checked baggage with dive gear. Clothes? Who needs them?
  16. Sounds a good plan and worth a try for sure. That definition seems incredibly broad and, as the insurer is doing, could be used to cover so many every day things. If they were being bloody minded, as it appears, a housing could be construed as photo equipment- that’s what it’s for: to allow you to take photos. But then you could raise the same argument for, say, a clamp and arm or a camera rain cover.
  17. Yeah, as Chris says, reading reports on WP, when it comes to arms and clamps - especially float arms - you get what you pay for. Why are these so much cheaper than others? Good question! An element of it for sure is the label. However quality and longevity may well be an issue too. Chris makes a good point on having the longer armed clamps if you use the Inon Mega floats. I had the Mega floats too for a while and must admit I couldn't get on with them. Some of the issue was not being able to fold them well enough (they are bulky) and the longer clamps would have helped for sure. I don't know if you have scope for adding an extra Stix-loaded arm running along the top length of your housing - held by a triple clamp at each end. I found this a good solution for adding a bit more buoyancy and it provides a very comfy handle and a place to strap on a dive computer at eye level.
  18. Hi Kellym77 Once you have made the 3 posts you should be able to start a new post in the Classifieds. It operates just like creating a new post. So start with "Start New Topic", select the Classifieds page and away you go. You've done the 3 posts so it might be just hanging on for the system to tick over. Give it 24 hours and if you're still stuck, yell! Best wishes Tim
  19. That sounds like a very good deal indeed, Dave. $135 to cover $25k. Last time I looked at UK insurance rates through an agency that many people use, for scuba and u/w camera gear the rate worked out at approximately 10% of the total sum insured. So almost £2k to insure £20k.
  20. Is there a definition of "valuable" in the T&Cs? Seems to me this is, sadly, one of those cases, as Wolfgang highlights, where you have to marshal an argument and fight your corner. As you say, it's fairly straightforward to argue it's not a camera. If that's the insurer's case then it should be possible to knock it down. A housing would not be considered by "a reasonable person" a "valuable". It's not precious or rare. However the insurer would argue that is relatively costly. So how are they defining "valuable"? That is a very relative term. Annoying!!!!!
  21. You did well! As you say not easy at all. A great leg muscle work out! You’ve got images with potential for sure. As a counsel of perfection, if you have Lightroom I’d be tempted to darken the left hand side of the image slightly: and increase the Dehaze.
  22. This is a bizarre response. Are they saying the items are “valuables”? Anyone out there in the insurance business who can comment? I always take my housing as cabin baggage and if challenged plead fragility - which usually works. With video lights could you use the lithium battery argument? A really upsetting response to a seriously annoying event.
  23. Really sorry to read that, Anthony. That’s really annoying and the response from the insurers (your second post) seems bizarre.
×
×
  • Create New...