Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jordi

  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
  12. Ask at Seacam headquarters (office@seacam.com). They have already converted some 20-35mm and they have some samples taken in the wild. I have seen them and I do not see the 20-35mm as the most interesting lens to convert, not only because of the field of view. The main reason is the long minimum focus distance (0,38cm).
  13. Hi Stephen, thanks for the info. One more question: the Canon 1DMkIV will have a completely new housing or it will be the same than MkIII but with access to Video control made easy. best
  14. Hi Drew, Sorry for the delay answering you. The lens is sharpest at very close distances (1-3 cm). And that's more evident with Nikon. The background is completely out of focus with the Nikon. I have done pictures at f/25 with both systems at the same distances (Canon+60mm EF-S and Nikon+60mm AF), and the background is more out of focus with the Nikon combo. I attach some crops of one of the images (the focus is on the fish mouth): (To Eric: I was really shock when I saw my name on the front page this morning!! ) lower left corner
  15. Hi all, After doing many tests I've got the solution of using the inon Lens with a Nikon camera. The solution was easier that I though but sometimes we use to start looking for in the most difficult side instead of try the easy way. The Inon lens works awfully with Nikon 60 mm AFS, or 105mm VR but to my surprise it works pretty well with the old 60 mm AF macro. There's some corner softness but it is very sharp in the center. Thanks to Jose Sanchez (www.sagadive.com) I have adapated the lens to a D300 housing. The port needs to be very well machined to align both lenses and avoid vignetting. I attach a couple of samples that I took last week:
  16. You are right Alex!! In my opinion, the lens is a special effect lens for special applications. For example the depth of field is not as big as it seems. I'll try to post some crops. Focusing is quite critical! Sharpness is not as good as a fisheye lens for example. The final image is softer than any normal lens. I've shot at 200 iso in shallow water (without any noise) and when you crop any detail to 100%, it is obvious that is not sharp enough, but anyway the lens is worthy for special applications. From my short experience the focus is better in the center than in the corners. I've used a Canon 50D and I tried it with an hugyfot housing and S&S housing with special SAGA port. I've tried to use it with the 105Vr+ d300 and the focusing is more critical because of the smaller depth of field. I am not sure if 100mm or 105 mm will have some vignetting in full frame cameras. I've tried with the Nikon 60 mm AF-S and there was a lot of vignetting. I attach one of the sharpest images that I've got with some crops.
  17. A couple of weeks ago I got one of those lenses (Inon UFL-MR130) and thanks to an adaptor port made by Jose Sanchez (www.sagadive.com) I was able to use it with my Hugyfot housing. I summarize certain operational aspects of this lens: - It is designed to be used with Canon APS-C and 60 mm Canon EF-S. With SAGA we have tried to use it with Nikon cameras and multiple lenses without satisfactory results, but we are still trying. - This is not a wet-lens, so it is not possible to remove it underwater. It is also necessary to use a specific port that aligns it with the 60 mm lens. - Need to focus manually. - Contrary to what might seem the focus is very critical. - For maximum quality and depth of field you have to shoot between f/22 and f/32. - We need to get too close to photograph the subject: between 1 and 4 cm (approx) The best: it takes a lot of fun and let you shoot in previously unthinkable way . I have done a couple of dives with it. I've posted a small gallery on my website that I will update as I'll take more pictures. www.uwaterphoto.com/galeria.php?op=8 I attach some samples
  18. When I first saw the wolf picture, I suspected the wolf was captive but it is difficult to demostrate. Jose Luis Rodriguez is a very well-known photographer in Spain but he is also known by using captive animals and buy creating behaviours (feeding owls with mouses) in the animals he photographs. He has amaizing pictures and he is very good using infrared barriers to trigger the camera remotely. WPOY has given some prizes in the past with pictures of captive animals. For example the picture attached below got prize in 2003 and even in the description text was explained in some newspapers (theguardian.co.uk), and if I am not wrong it was even explained in the WPOY 2003 book "M.S. won the 'underwater world' category with this image of a loggerhead turtle being released back into the Mediterranean off the west shore of Formentera Island.", The Guardian newspaper The turtle was in a veterinarian center, for healing of its wounds, after been fished by bycath (longline) and when it was cured it was released again to the sea... but just before a "shooting session" in the cave. What's the difference with the wolf?
  19. 1- Picture manipulation is not good or bad, it is just manipulation. And in many contests is forbidden, so RAW is the only way to be sure that this picture was no digitally manipulated. If you enter a contest following the rules, which clearly says that manipulation is not allowed and then the winner has a picture which is been obviously manipulated then this contest is not a serious because they are no applying their own rules. 2- Adjusting RAW parameters (contrast, saturation, etc) is not considered as manipulation because you are not adding something that was not on the file, you are just "adjusting". In the film era you were able to decide about contrast, saturation, color dominance by choosing the type of film. Now you do the same but after pressing the shutter. That's far different from adding a new element on the picture like a blur effect, or erasing a fish or a diver.... 3- Contests don't judge photographers, they judge pictures so you don't need to see 1000 pictures from 1 photographer, one good picture is enough to win a prize
  20. Hi all, I agree Alex and Mike. BBC WPOY is probably the most prestigious contest. An IMHO it is prestigious not only because of the huge participation, it is prestigious because they are serious about photography. What is really worrying is that in some of these online contests there is no control on the authenticity of the pictures presented. I am seeing more and more manipulated images in categories where, according to the rules, manipulation is not accepted. The other day I was watching the images of the Eilat Red Sea Epson contest, and I was shocked when I saw the winner Portfolio collection (http://www.eilatredsea.com/?CategoryID=341). There is a picture of a couple of californian sheepheads fighting that it seems manipulated with Photoshop, with a Motion Blur effect. Am I wrong? In the BBC Wildlife the winners must send the RAW files, but I guess in many other contests don't!! I think that not to ask for RAW files and accept manipulated images takes away credibility and prestige to any contest. Jordi
  21. Hi all, I've been following this topic with high interest. As many of us, I was a big fan of the Nikonos sytem when I started to take pictures underwater. I think the Nikonos V+ 15 mm was a light and fast camera when taking pictures freediving. For example when taking pictures of dolphins and whales, so I am waiting with high interest what's going on with the Pirate Pro project. There's something that I always wanted to ask about the Rs lenses. Maybe some of you can answer that! I remember the 18 mm made by Rene Aumann. As some of you pointed, it was a Nikon land lens behind a dome. I never had one, but I was told that this 18 mm was usable in both, Rs body and Nikon F land bodies. In the other hand the RS lenses were not usable on Nikon land bodies. Does anybody know why? I've been comparing the rear bayonet of RS and Nikon lenses and are almost identical, so I never understood why the RS lenses did not work on a Nikon land bodies. Thanks
  • Create New...