Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Interceptor121 last won the day on November 20

Interceptor121 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

335 Excellent

About Interceptor121

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Woburn Sands, UK

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  • 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

59725 profile views
  1. I am interested in the 18809 and have sent you a PM requesting pictures
  2. IATA regulations apply to all carriers except some exotic ones I think this new version of the regulations is actually very easy to check and implement as it is based on physical count of the devices that anybody can do. NiMh batteries are not a problem and go in check in no point taking them in hand luggage really
  3. it is interesting that the LX10 is not mentioned in the compatibility list? Sony confirms best compatibility for the range together with the TG-5 series however those cameras work fine with older design like UWL-04 already
  4. DxOMark Review for the A7RIV is out the camera scores 99 one point less than the A7R III and the Nikon D850 While dynamic range has a miniscule improvement and color depth stay the same the MK IV drops in high iso performance 3523 down to 3344 This is obviously marginal looking more closely the performance in print is similar when looking at on screen as it goes to 1:1 pixel level the mark IV gap from the III is more significant To me this means clearly too many pixels are not helping...
  5. I found this review pretty comprehensive https://wolfcrow.com/blackmagic-pocket-camera-4k-real-world-review/ The conclusion from wolfcrow Those who want to shoot documentaries, weddings, events, music videos, etc., should stick to the Panasonic GH5 (B&H, Amazon) instead. For extreme low light work, nothing beats the Sony a7S II (B&H, Amazon). On the whole though, the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K (Amazon, B&H) is a great camera as far as image quality is concerned, and is a perfect fit for low budget short or feature films, web series, corporate videos, etc Any more real life examples out there?
  6. @JohnDoe who said I do not like RAW? Unlike most people here in the video section I shoot stills maybe I am even a better photographer than I am a video guy listening to the feedback. I use RAW all the times with still images however my workflow for still images is not focused on white balance. In fact as a photographer you know that if you don't the colour right in the shot at least on a good part of your subject using a strobe or ambient light when you white balance it looks weird. In fact in most cases the reason why I white balance ambient light shots is because I did not white balance at time of shooting, then the white balance is right later corrections are minimal. What RAW gives you is the ability to exploit the dynamic range of the camera much more, underwater you tend to shoot underexposed according to the camera to avoid clipping highlights as camera metering fails in many situation due to blue water scattering light. So then you push up you darks and stretch the image to bring it back to the detail that seemed to be missing in the first place. After you get this right the next steps are local adjustments like graduated filters, brushes etc etc. Usually you spend much more time on local adjustments than you do on exposure. For video is a bit different as you are moving around in most cases and video tools do not offer the same ability to perform local adjustments. What you are left is exposure and white balance. For white balance what I said before holds if you use lights the adjustments are minor if you don't you need to adjust in camera. The other items is the ability to bring the dynamic range back into the picture that is probably the most important part however if you lock exposure this will only work well on a static scene. It is crucial for video to get the exposure right in camera and actually I am not a believer of fixed exposures. If you set a fixed exposure and you move around you have a risk of clipping the highlights or crushing the blacks here with a RAW editor you can recover to an extent. Otherwise you set a variable exposure for example set aperture and shutter and leave ISO float this will make sure you don't have huge variations reducing the need for the raw adjustment later. It goes by itself that unless you have backlit scenes you can nail exposure and white balance in camera and in fact many of my still images have only local adjustments for things I could not fix in camera. Regarding your question on the WACP it vignettes until 20mm so out of 18-55 you get 20-55 x 1.4 crop x 0.36 = 10-27 mm fisheye am not sure how useful is the range between 17-27 mm for you but the alternative is to forget the WACP entirely and go on Canon EF mount for APS-C So instead of your WACP you could get 1. Sigma 17-70 mm (as this is cropped sensor I would not get the 8.5 acrylic dome and settle for the 180mm glass dome need to work out the extensions) this gives you 24-98 mm rectilinear which for most cases this is all you need 2. Tokina zoom fisheye 10-17 mm this gives you the same of WACP if you need more zoom you put a kenko teleconverter With the WACP you still have to cover normal angles and macro so the cost of the set up above will be significantly less as the Tokina takes a compact acrylic port I do not own this camera nor I plan to buy it however as I said before I would not be looking at the WACP personally if I had to
  7. To add on Andrei point for splits it is true glass sheds water better but acrylic can be made work and actually you want your system to float as much as possible and a heavy dome is bad I would also recommend 140+acrylic dome for splits the acrylic also gives you the rectilinear lens option with 16-35 mm Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. John most of the ‘evolutions’ are dictated by what else is available. Until a few years ago lights were limited to 60 degrees so working with narrow lenses was the norm for close shots Then 90 degrees lights came around and now you have 120 or even 150 degrees lights. Video has traditionally been rectilinear with no distortion so when cameras like the GH5 have cone around the first choice has been 7-14 mm lenses to match the new lights except 7-14 performs really badly in the edges when you go finning. So now the solution to that is fisheye like lenses that are distorted but dont pull corners in the shape of wacp wwl-1 etc. Optical performance remains largely unaffected by evolution in sensors generally a rectilinear lens too wide will have perspective distortion on any camera body. I wrote this post to explain it https://interceptor121.com/2019/10/13/using-rectilinear-wide-lenses-underwater/ So 18mm equivalent once in 16:9 has no corners issue for most if you wanted to use a rectilinear lens in water and still be wide this is as far it goes offering 90 degrees horizontally If that is not enough (and for most cases it is enough) you can go WWL-1 way the field of view increase is not 30 degrees as diagonals dont matter but 14 degrees on the horizontal compared to a rectilinear 100 degrees diagonal lens so the effective field of view increase is 28% not 80% if you look at diagonal If you think about it this means a frame 2.57 meters wide instead of 2 meters In any case in my opinion a removable optic with zoom like the WWL-1 remains preferable when you have larger subjects because the range of focal length you cover is huge but am not that sold on WACP fixed ports for video So when I need to shoot rectilinear because I don’t have large subjects and mostly have people in the shots I like to have a lens like the leica 12-60 that gives me plenty of flexibility otherwise wwl-1 is my choice. I tend not to use the 8-18mm in video as 18mm is too wide for close ups for my taste Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. 16-35 full frame or 8-18 is the limit for still images when it comes to distortion at least for me but is a tad narrower than the wwl-1 (94 vs 102) the frame however is taller and not distorted The old school consensus when you shot a gates or similar was that 18 mm equivalent is the best because horizontally this is exactly 90 degrees and you never have corner distortion If you have the 9-18mm olympus and the 180 mm dome try a shorter 50mm extension instead of the suggested 65 to avoid pull in corners Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. IBIS is useful underwater for video not so much for still images. When you shoot with strobes most of the times you use fast shutter speeds, even if you don't the strobe freezes the motion. In some cases shooting at very slow shutter speed I have had instances where the part of the frame hit by the flash was crips and the rest was blurred ... and my camera does have IBIS however I was shooting at 0.5 s shutter to get the water the colour I wanted at 22 meters see edges of the motorbikes in the distance here. I am not sure the close shots that are referenced on UWPhotoguide needed any IBIS but there are some situation where it would be useful. Think also that in my case there are four stops between the shutter speed that guarantees no shake 1/30 and 0.5 and clearly the camera is not capable of that amount of stabilisation Exhaust Bike by Interceptor121, on Flickr From what I understand Canon is lagging behind on in body IBIS because they historically relied on lens IS Olympus and Panasonic are way ahead and seems Sony is making progress
  11. For the canon 8-15mm you really want a circular dome. The zen 170 is a cut kf a 11 cm radius sphere and to avoid vignetting you will need to push the lens right in and you are back at more distortion and loss of field of view The nauticam 230 glass dome would be a larger option however it is also a cut of a 12 cm radius and the 1 cm missing means you need to push the lens in a little but nowhere near the zen I have the 140mm dome and is a complete sphere clearly on MFT the smaller radius is enough but on full frame may be not Either way there are no other complete domes on the nauticam chart than the 140mm Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. Out of interest which videos on your channel are shot with the BMPCC4K? I have checked several and are all GH5 or Z-Cam
  13. 1. Yes if you are not bothered about circular fisheye images 2. You need a further extension. According to my measurements 25 mm not 30 mm as on the port chart to place the dome in the optimal position. Without extension you will increase the barrel distortion and reduce the field of view
  14. I stand corrected I found an updated clarification by IATA that is actually quite surprising https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/passenger-lithium-battery.pdf While it says that you cannot carry spare batteries in checked in luggage under any circumstance but also includes the maximum limit for carry on For batteries in equipment the limit is 15 pieces of equipment (with the battery installed) so say you have a camera, mobile phone, computer, two video lights, and a portable battery pack for your phone: total 6 devices You can then take max 20 spares so in the case above you could take 6 camera batteries and 7 spare batteries per video light each and still be fine. More interestingly you can take your device in checked luggage, now you won't probably want to take a laptop or camera however for what concerns the video lights you could put them in checked luggage. Now the issue that you have is if you have the video lights checked in with no spares and the spares with you how do you demonstrate what are they the spare for? I was recently stopped during a trip and specifically they checked if the spares were matching the batteries So in practical use you need to take both the device and the spare with you and you can take total of 15 devices with battery in place plus 20 spare overall which seems plenty The limit of two spares is for >100 Wh packs
  15. @ChrisRoss is I believe correct in terms of cost weight it will not be light. With regards to the FOV as I wrote that post after realising myself what was going on with the WWL-1 we need to take into account that wet lenses or water contact optics are not directly comparable to a rectilinear lens First and foremost because any water contact optics is NOT rectilinear it will have extensive barrel distortion. So the competitor of such lens is a zoom fisheye however in the full frame camp this options has been missing. You can use a fisheye or a fisheye with a teleconverter no zooming. The reason why those lenses appear sharp in the corners is because the corners are compressed is like looking to a pincushion image and compressing it into the frame. So despite all claims from nauticam you can't really put a resolution chart in the corner and measure resolution because the chart is distorted, this may as well be acceptable depending on personal taste. I want to say though that for those who like genuine rectilinear sea and sea makes lens correctors that seem to work well with 16-35 mm lenses. This is probably the widest you want to go before you incur perspective distortion and make things better around two stops. The WACP fills a gap between your 15 mm fisheye and the 16-35 mm rectilinear working like a 10-25 mm fisheye but is not a replacement for a rectilinear lens. Looking at the WACP 2 on the 16-35mm it shows a fov of 128 degrees compared to the 108 degrees of the lens alone. I would no be suprised that the FOV improvement is almost all on the diagonal and the image does not look rectilinear anymore At the end the FOV on the diagonal matters little because the corners are compressed they look sharp or not there is nothing interesting there the subject is in the centre. Going back to split shots all the shots you see are done with a fisheye. I do not like them, actually the line of the horizon bent by the lens is plain ugly and when i show a split to a normal person they say there is something wrong with it So I started shooting them with a rectilinear lens however this means pretty much f/22 on a full frame unsure if this is practical!
  • Create New...