Jump to content

Interceptor121

Member
  • Content Count

    3411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    138

Interceptor121 last won the day on October 13

Interceptor121 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

455 Excellent

3 Followers

About Interceptor121

  • Rank
    Humpback Whale

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://interceptor121.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Woburn Sands, UK

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Italy
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Panasonic GH5
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA-GH5
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    2x Sea and Sea YS-D2, 2x Inon Z240
  • Accessories
    Too many

Recent Profile Visitors

60815 profile views
  1. 3200 is the max in video on auto so it felt it was dark Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. I use exiftool there are some strings in there you can parse
  3. It only records at the start of the shot in the metadata not very useful Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. In both cases the similitude applies you don't compare a prime at the same aperture you need to apply equivalence the other way around hence at least f/4 when you look at 300mm vs the 200mm of a MFT the relative crop is 1.33 so a 32 Megapixel full frame will have the same weight and have more DR etc etc etc. The same 300 f.4 on APSC will be 450mm so no need to crop and still lighter with more magnification. Ultimately the promise of MFT as per the own Olympus mission statement was a radical reduction of size, weight and thickness but this no longer works once you have a 1.2 Kg lens really or 750 grams for a mid range zoom the reduction of weight and size is minimal to none and the IQ is not better so people don't need to stick around the format anymore. Now they may leave to a mobile phone regardless but that's another story A common misconception is that larger sensor capture more light but actually larger physical aperture capture more light and therefore larger sensor capture also more light as they have larger lenses. Size does matter when you are chasing light so you can promise weight reduction only if you get less of it! Fortunately for us underwater photography and video is a small aperture game and within this game equivalence does matter and therefore APSC=Full Frame=MFT due to equivalence we don't shoot tele lens or fast lenses. At the end what matters more are ergonomics, AF etc etc not sensor size despite lots of people here think differently. But this does not hold true for the general public so we need to hope there will still be MFT cameras for underwater use as it is a great format and if you don't go on my path it can be compact too
  5. You need to compare with the 300 f/4 which is the same weight On APSC that would be 450mm and no DR issue on full frame you can crop Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. I print regularly. From 5184 pixels I print to 16" as I try to exceed 300 dpi but if you are happy with 200 dpi you can go to 26" But this is not actually the issue as MFT has plenty of resolution APSC is also similar. Am amateur will get a zoom lens mostly not a prime. A fast prime for MFT like the Panasonic 200mm 2.8 that is probably the best lens for wildlife retails at £2,299 that is the same price you buy a full frame zoom lens. The issue is that to get a 2.8 lens you need a large piece of glass so your lens is no longer portable and you are back at no benefit compared to full frame Panasonic 200/2.8=71mm Canon 400/4=100mm not much in there For what concerns professional wildlife photographer I agree with you those people are locked in somewhere and also have limited money (in US the average compensation is $50,000 per year) but amateurs don't buy tele primes as they do not understand that All of this only highlights Olympus did not have a lot of marketing intelligence
  7. The point is that olympus idea to go after professional wildlife shooters with 1 dedicated body and 1 prime lens is another suicide and the reason why the company is going belly up The segment is small and already busy with canon, nikon and now Sony putting a lot of effort to get there is just plain silly as there are diminishing returns Instead providing a lens that is light and doesn’t cost an absolute fortune is appealing to the MFT amateur That’s what Panasonic who doesn’t make lenses but is a consumer oriented company has done They had the 100-400 on the market in 2016 and the 50-200 in 2018 All olympus had was a 40-150 a 300mm prime and a bunch of teleconverters only in 2020 they came up with the sigma 100-400 which weights more than 1.2 kg Meanwhile canon and nikon have had lenses on this market for years and with current sensor resolution there is no benefit in equivalence once you crop the only benefit is weight and this is appealing to a casual shooter not to a professional one that will do what it takes to have the image Olympus with they heavy pro lenses and camera like the EM1X have betrayed the whole MFT concept because they were desperate to compete on quality instead of making trade offs with portability and ended up with another failure after sinking the 43 format Olympus original OMD idea was based on having twice the number of photos developed from the same film when film was expensive to develop Then this translated into digital with 2x crop but little size benefit so 43 dies and here comes MFT with the promise of substantial weight reduction I look at the olympus 40-150mm it weights 765 grams and is disproportionate to their camera bodies then I look at the panasonic 50-200mm 665 grams to get the same reach from the 40-150 i need to add a teleconverter here comes 900 grams for a lens that is now f/4 but at 985 grams I have the panasonic 100-400 4-6.3 with double the reach and just a but more weight I ended up with MFT because I didn’t want to house my Nikon and I started with Panasonic GX7 that was truly compact when I started chasing IQ I ended up with a 140mm and 180mm glass domes and a canon 8-15mm fisheye I also have a GH5 housing that is not far from an APSC housing I can say that the portability has gone down the drain but I do not yet need a 230mm dome or a wacp but this is not really common for MFT and I am one of a dozen that has gone that far with this format thats not going to make anybody rich a bit like olympus and the wildlife shooter Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. No camera except the sony a7s3 records 422 60p 10 bits internally And at 200 mbps H264 I would not recommend it anyway With free diving the color correction ability are limited as you are almost never at constant depth so 422 or 10 bits will help little if the ambient color temperature swings from 8000 to 15000K in 30 seconds I would give up on that entirely and accept the blue on an average white balance depending on depth a filter would be better if it can be used in auto Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. Not internally but at 200 mbps H264 422 60fps I can tell you is a waste of time anyway. Panasonic IBP implementation at 60fps 8 bits is 150 mbps and is much more efficient, 4K 10 bit 422 is 150 mbps and that feels light The codecs of this A7SIII camera are terrible especially as Sony only uses IP frames. I wonder why a company has to produce a £3,800 camera just to destroy it in some software implementation. Perhaps they think anybody will get a recorder but ProRes RAW 12 bit can only support 30 fps with HDMI 2.0 and Ninja so it will require different hardware altogether assuming the HDMI port can manage I also think that there are no underwater cables going past HDMI 2.0 anyway so 12 bit raw at 30 fps is currently as far as it goes I do not shoot any 50/60 fps underwater anyway as it does not need it really fish moves slow so I would focus more on the ProRes RAW 12 bits 24/25/30 as that is where it is really interesting
  10. I checked the specifications Without a recorder the bitrates of the Sony A7SIII are pretty low 200 mbps at 60p and 100 mbps at 24p for 422 10bit which is 1/4 of my GH5 (400 mbps at 24/25/30p) I doubt that will overheat as all of this is pretty tame unless there is a serious design issue The bitrates appear pretty low for any serious log shooting
  11. So yesterday I submitted as a trial one underwater images together with two lands ones to a judged (qualified) competition and came first with the underwater one, one of the land ones got commended but came 4th The observations were interesting obviously the judge does not appreciate the difficulty of the shot but as long as the shot was strong this was not an issue I see an issue with fish portraits not really able to complete with birds, bears, lions etc but that is not an issue for me as it is not my favourite discipline, seals and mammals tho are popular
  12. Lots of cameras have heat issues and zcam bmpcc and the new panasonic box cam have fans and heat sinks I wonder how effective is this inside an underwater housing that has no ventilation. Heat can go on the metal and disperse in water but in warm water this is not that good either I suppose this issue exists today on red camera but the size is so large that is less of an issue On the new canon it will definitely get hot Wonder about sony a7sIII heat dispersion? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. High power are usually >90 92 typical 98% yet are power limited Consider that most of underwater video lights are 85 and you dont reach 90 unless you are very close >90 is fine for practical applications at 15000 lumens and above Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. Zcam requires a monitor unfortunately Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. Look at Z-cam, GH5 and if they make a housing the new BGH1 you can use your lenses Olympus is for photos and underwater the GH5 is superior to be honest also for photos Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...