Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Interceptor121 last won the day on September 29

Interceptor121 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

581 Excellent


About Interceptor121

  • Rank
    Blue Whale

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Woburn Sands, UK

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
  • 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

62473 profile views
  1. So then the recommendation of YS-D3 must be as good as that one It is unlikely that Japanese cheaper products mean more margin. I think when it comes to retra it must be irritating that they sell directly to consumers. Japanese companies from this point of view are more structured and easy to deal with for them
  2. I would hope not. It is funny how sometimes shops are brought into the mix and that adds credibility and other times it does not The owner of backscatter still recommends DSLR does it mean he has lots of old stock to sell?
  3. I think you missed the point entirely I was referring to this comment Also, it seems the time has come for UW photographers to switch to other strobe makes and inform Sea&Sea of this. Personally, since I switched I have had no more strobe problems. I did exactly that and actually had my first defective strobe after switching to Inon so that is not the cure Sea and Sea YS-D2 made in China (brown casing) have been problematic. Yellow casing YS-D2J not really except the protection issue The strobe is very powerfull but too small, the flat front does not let the heat dissipate and the plastic material does not help Inon Z240 were weaker so were YS-D1 so there was no issue Inon Z330 are also plastic but the dome front helps the heat dispersion process, Sea and Sea has insisted with the flat front and even the YS-D3 has this protection mechanism. If the design and materials do not change I do not think the heat dispersion will improve and problems will continue. If I had a full frame camera shooting at small aperture I would be extremely doubtful about using Sea and Sea strobes myself however with my camera shooting wide angle max at f/11 I really have no problems Yet many shops like backscatter and bluewater photo recommend the YS-D3
  4. Actually this is a bit subjective I have had two sea and sea strobes none of them had any issues I have had 4 inon strobes and one was defective I damaged the sea and sea (hit a door on land and cracked a part) was not impressed with after sales and decided to switch but the actual product was solid The YS-D2 has a design issue the bulb is too strong for the plastic casing and this results in the reflector getting hot In the updated version sea and sea has put in place this safety mechanism to protect the bulb. In some cases the users try to circumvent this issue and end up damaging the strobe Otherwise the strobe is well built has good coverage and power and the ergonomics work great I almost never shoot at full power is the benefit of an MFT camera usually f/16 on the strobe is plenty but in some cases I shoot full power never on rapid burst and so far no problem Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. Yes the powerzoom lens was the one I was given it to test with the newest macro port 29 but I used that lens on land and I knew it was not the best hence I used the 14-42mm Mega OIS. Much better performance. Nauticam did the job as it has to be done and consulted a variety of people. I am not a pro like yourselves but I know a thing or two about camera and wet lenses so they decided to contact me as well. It went on for months actually between the first prototype, the lx100 housing and the bayonet system. The float collar I did not see until later on What it is important to understand is that while the lens may correct the additional issue that water gives to the optics it does not improve the lens itself To give an idea the 28mm f/2 on a ATRII 42megapixels has a resolution of 60 lpmm the 14-24 PZ has a resolution also of 60 lpmm however the sensor is 1.8 taller and so is the resolution hence in the centre this set up will trash the MFT camera as it happens on lens regardless of the wet lens you use. The olympus 14-42mm is even weaker. When it comes to the edges the situation will change though and the gap will close. However the same lens on APSC has a lower resolution of 50 lpmm and therefore the gap is almost none as the sensor is not much bigger In essence the various systems performance is unaffected by the water contact optics Today there is pretty much zero gap between MFT and APSC in terms of resolution until fuji released the 40 megapixel camera all APSC at 20-24 megapixels do not provide large gap. Full frame however has a benefit even at lower resolution as it is easier to make higher quality optics with longer focal length. What I am saying is that the same full frame camera will progressively improve from wwl-1 to wacp-1 but at which point will there be a gap you can actually measure depends on you as the optic is not improving the lens is just correcting the impact of water on the lens. On the other hand in the frame centre none of those optics will beat a better lens in the center in any format as there no corrections are needed but of course as you go off centre the situation changes
  6. The initial lens had an m67 mount this is now submerged by the collar of the wwl-1b The original wwl-1 has a float made of devynilcell or whatever is called with some screws this came out some time later The bayonet was a discussion about reusing inon LD mount however the lens was larger and the torque higher With regards to quality it is down to the lens the olympus zoom you tested is very average best result were with the panasonic 14-42mm non power zoom but this was not supported and had no zoom gear however I had already worked out the 35 port fitted and made a 3d printed gear Yet this is a cheap 5 blades lens vs the 7 of the sony 28mm that is also a prime Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. Those however are mechanical devices with no electronic They do not address the issue of modern cameras and are manual focus only So I think it is not the same thing as the equivalent resolution of a film camera was around 2000 lpw Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. That in the image is like a reflector of a mains powered studio light The hole in the middle is for a modelling light and a circular bulb is mounted around it The seacam strobes are very similar however as there is less space and the whole thing is inside a housing the effectiveness drops Contrary to what most people think light is more even when you are close to a softbox Once you are far away all lights starts to be more of a point source and the diffusion effects drops Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. This is very strange as the strobe should recharge after firing and then when you turn it back on the condenser is still charged so the light should come up immediately For me this is an issue with the electronics not with the batteries as the second time around there would not be a recharge of the condenser
  10. Just a quick update as I have also refreshed some standard eneloop and broadly all have stayed at 1800 mAh or more with one exception Yes the Wh delivered by the eneloop was 1.95 while the eneloop pro bought the same year stayed at 2.48 So althought the ratio drops from the initial 2.5/1.9=1.3 to 1.27 there is essentially no reason whatsover to buy eneloop vs eneloop pro other than lifetime duration If you change batteries each dive and have two sets you need to go through at least 500-600 dives before the batteries are trash assuming you followed all usage guidelines. If you did not you would kill eneloop as well as eneloop pro
  11. When I said everything started I mean some meaningful volumes. Many things remain experiments for a very long time and to be frank credit to Inon whose lenses were actually pretty good to make this a more popular option. It is good that those solutions that have some kind of popularity have made it to the market before the compact camera has been pronounced effectively dead otherwise probably many things would have remain pilot stage To be completely honest I am amazed how small our community is and how little weight we have in the camera market so it is a good situation to have devices that can beat traditional solutions and are available sometimes at competitive cost. Going back to my initial reflection I think the guideline WWL -> MFT WACP-C -> APSC and WACP-1 -> full frame broadly holds However I am sure some people will consider the WACP-C based on weight more than cost. Nauticam may have introduced a size factor instead of a crop factor in that lens design WACP-2 different story optical design is different less demagnification more emphasis on pure correction I do not see that becoming easily as popular as the others but I see who shoots underwater cinema may prefer that to massive domes
  12. I think the point that I was making is that it all started when the RX100 came about and at that time we only had Inon products. I always do my own research I for example used different combination of wet lenses from what was suggested in 2014 on the boat that you lead where I was invited by Nauticam through Alex Most of the wet optics development comes from compact cameras and is then adapted to larger formats this is unusual as typical things go the other way around I think many people have been shooting a Tokina 10-17mm on APSC and that filled the gap between a fisheye and wide angle rectilinear lenses that now those water contact optics cover at least partially Tokina has just discontinued the 10-17mm I am not sure how quickly someone will produce an APSC lens with similar characteristics for mirrorless especially as Canon is not yet allowing suppliers to produce autofocus lenses and Nikon has just I think authorised a few While you can adapt EF mount lenses to many formats like the Sony A6XXX the MFT cameras and Fuji I see that due to the evolution of the camera market with the exception of Fuji nobody is really interested in making a professional level APSC. Even the new Canon R7 though has certainly good autofocus does not have better IQ than DSLR cameras that are now over 7 years old. I think water contact optics align well to the fact many people are almost forced to buy a full frame camera and most mirrorless have a gap in their lens lineup due to lack of 3rd party suppliers or simply interest in making certain type of lenses. Today Sony has the best support of 3rd party lenses due to their optics, those of Sigma, Tamron and others and yet when you go underwater you have nothing to cover the space between your rectlinear wide angle lens up to 120 degrees (with problems) and the fisheye 180 degrees. So water contact optics will no doubt become much more popular and the fact you have several choices (especially true for Sony users) for all weight and pockets is also great. I think this is a natural evolution of the camera market, the housing market and more importantly the lenses marketplace
  13. Nobody bothers measuring them as it is very difficult to measure a flash vs continuous light. If all flashs were equal there would not be a reason why cheap ones product ugly light and expensive ones nice light The same that happens on land goes underwater Users are fixated on the bulb and do not look at the whole system, it is the combination of bulb, reflector, front port that makes the beam not just the bulb I think a perfect example of this is Ikelite they have circular bulbs however I think the design is a bit dated and falls way behind some of the newer strobes but also some of the old strobes. The Sea and Sea YS-D250 being the first large scale Japanese product that were indeed very well designed but heavier and more expensive to make. Seacam first and OneUW and Retra later show how the end to end design can turn into a better outcome but there is more than the shape of the bulb I also agree with David Hicks that technique is far more important and you can get good results from the Z330 and from any strobe for that matter if you know how to position the strobes I would urge the op to try what David and I have recommended which is to use inward lighting and forget about the color temperature for a moment as that is not going to change the subject as you correctly pointed out
  14. The CRI or a tungsten bulb i.e. an old school light bulb is near 100 That doesn’t mean that the CRI of a flashlight is near 100 because there is a reflector and the plastic/glass that covers the bulb that do not transmit everything equally Having said that if you have ever taken studio shots you will know that nobody would ever fire a flashlight directly to the target without a light modifier as what matters are the shadows Shadows define the character of an image Unfortunately underwater we can’t take softboxes or even position lights and camera as it should be due to water and physical limitations The OneUw and to an extent the retra are very similar to a mains powered studio flash but of course smaller Filters and anything you put in front of the strobes do impact CRI as they select what light frequencies to attenuate In short you get what you pay for but as dave hicks shows the most important part is to know how to use your equipment Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. Nice story I actually tested the WWL-1 prototype in mid 2015. I provided input that led to the bayonet system and the buoyancy collar I just looked at my old emails with Nauticam and it was already tested with the sony 28mm which is a very small lens and has a short flat port. Initially the lens was tested on sony rx100 but Nauticam also sent me an lx100 housing to test. This camera was a compact with MFT sensor I think the optics initially a compact camera idea proved very strong with larger formats however as I had already the inon UWL-100 with dome which wasn’t million miles away I didn’t buy the WWL-1 until I acquired the GH5 3 years later from using the lens Am not surprised the original WWL-1 wouldn’t work with DSLR the lenses are bulky and due to the mirror the whole port is much longer But again dry mount lenses existed since 2010-2012 but for compact cameras only Wet lenses in general were considered toys for who could not afford a system with ports Well not anymore Personally for a videographer the ability to remove a lens is far more important than edges sharpness as you move and there is always some motion blur but shooting wide medium close with a very wide lens is not always ideal which is why I insisted with the bayonet idea. When the bayonet was designed they had a delay as the adapter was not strong enough to hold the lens weight so it was redesigned With the incoming extinction of DSLR and lack of native mirrorless lenses wet optics fill a market gap which is significant so am not surprised the WACP and the other models sell well as many users want to upgrade their camera and do not find even enough options Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Create New...