Jump to content

jordi

Member
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About jordi

  • Rank
    Lionfish

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.uwaterphoto.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    photography

Recent Profile Visitors

3679 profile views
  1. Thanks a lot Todd and Alex for your answer! I'd really appreciate if you can post any picture at F5,6 or lower when you have the final WACP Unit. Thanks a lot for your help Jordi
  2. Hi Alex, I've been checking the images you linked, which are very nice as always, and I've seen than in most of them you are using high F/stops. The image quality is very good even in the corners but I am wondering what happens when you use open f/stops. I've been checking some images by Todd Winner (at Nauticam's website), and even at low res you can see that at F5,6 the corners are not good. If this is the case I think is a very expensive investment if you must use a very old lens behind, which has slow autofocus and you are bound to use closed f/stops. So the only real avantage would be a bigger zoom range than with any other lens... Am I right?
  3. This is my grain of salt: www.uwaterphoto.com/?p=82
  4. For those interested, I have posted different f/stops samples with and without filter in my website: http://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839
  5. Finally I had the opportunity to test the filter in a pool, in a more controlled situation. I also tried the Canon 16-35mm F4 IS, IMHO a better corner performer than the 17-40mm I was using in my previous tests. I have tried different combinations (230mm glass dome port and Sea&Sea Fisheye "acrylic" port) and I got slightly better results with the 230mm glass dome. The improvement is near the claimed 2 stops, which is very good news. At F8 the corners are very good and at F11 they are perfect.
  6. Hi Adam, Thanks for the info. I've been thinking that maybe my results are not so good because I am using the old 17-40mm. Some months ago I tried the new 16-35mm f/4 IS with the EOS 5DsR (50Mp) and the corners where very good, much better that the 17-40mm. So, I guess that with the S&S lens attached to the 16-35mm the results will be better. I'll try to borrow it again and try it!
  7. I had the opportunity to borrow a Sea&Sea 240mm Port. In fact the port has 240mm but the glass (acrylic) has less diameter than the glass 9,3" dome I used in my first test. The S&S dome has a dome of 210mm aprox. The radius of curvature seems bigger that the glass dome. In my tests the results are quite similar to glass dome and improvement is around 1 stop better with filter attached. I attach a crop at F11.
  8. Here I post another corner sample, now at f/8. As you can see the improvement is less evident when compared with the F/11 picture (Camera: 5DmkIII; lens: 17-40mm)
  9. Hi all, I've been testing the Sea & Sea correction lens for some weeks. At the beginning I tried it with a 8" port and the Canon 17-40mm. It was not a formal test as I just took some reef shots while diving. When I checked the images it seemed it was some slight improvement but not huge one. For me it was difficult to have any conclusion as I could not compare the same picture with or without the corrector, so I decided to test it in a more serious way. The next test I performed has been with a plastic board (100 x 70cm size, with a grid and some detail in the corners), I used the 17-40mm behind a 9,3" dome port and a tripod. The only downside of the method was that I did the test in the beach, near my home, (I had not access to any pool) and despite the sea was quite flat there was a very light swell that created a very small movement on the board, so I had to take many shots of the board on every f/stop in order to choose the better frame. I guess the best method would have been to do it in a pool an put the board next o the wall. I'll try to repeat that in the following days. According to the results my conclusions were: - There is an improvement on the corner performance but not as big the manufacturer claim - The improvement increases when you stop down, so you get more evident results at f11 than at f8 - At f11 there is 1 stop (quite clear) of advantage with the filter mounted - At f8 there is only a small difference - The lens corrects also the barrel distortion and turns it into a very light pincushion distortion. - I do not see any important cutout of the field of view with the lens attached but I should do a dedicated test for that. I really appreciate the Sea&Sea effort on producing that lens, but I must admit that I thought the improvement would be better. I'd like to do a pool test to be completely sure that my conclusions are all right. I attach a couple of pictures with and without the corrector, and the crop of one of the corners. Both at f/11, lens at 17mm.
  10. Sorry, I've just realized that Seacam is announcing a Sony A7RII/SII during Dema show. BS Kinetics too!! Recsea is also offering 2 housings (1 plastic + 1 aluminium) for the Rx100IV Hope that helps Jordi
  11. Hi Eric, There are some housings missing in your list: Seacam is doing Canon 1DC housing and Canon C300 and C500 housing (they can also do 3D housing to accommodate 2x C300 cameras inside, already discussed here on Wetpixel). Isotta (Italian manufacturer) is producing a very nice housing for Lumix Gh4 (http://www.isotecnic.it/prodotti/custodie-mirrorless/custodia-per-panasonic-gh4.html) they are just announced a super RX100iv, and Subal has a Sony A7R/S II housing available. Hope that helps to complete your list. best Jordi Chias
×
×
  • Create New...