Jump to content

Interceptor121

Member
  • Content Count

    3692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    147

Everything posted by Interceptor121

  1. On the 60mm is painful the focus ring has a very long run but it gets shorter if you are already close. however if I remember the EM1MKII has a pre-mf mode where you can set the focus distance to the minimum. I am not sure is entirely reliable but worth checking. There are also other ways like carrying a small ruler and doing autofocus and then switch Or more simply find a rock and start shooting until it focuses no more and lock
  2. https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/25/matching-filters-techniques/ For Egypt you need blue water and I prefer the 6 meters to the 12 meters as it takes away less light but this depends also on your camera
  3. For supermacro with the CMC-1 as in this example I use manual focus Set the camera to the minimum working distance and then using peaking shoot when the subject is in focus This ensures maximum magnification but requires you to be stable. CAF helps but does not ensure you are totally maxed out on magnification which is the reason you use the CMC in the first place
  4. That makes it clearer thank you I would have thought a dry corrector like wacp would be better and it is Thank you Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. So if I understand correctly you rather use the WWL-1 than the WACP on the Sony?
  6. The EM1X does 18 fps CAF in eshutter and 15 in mechanical it has procapture at 60fps that works well for certain animals (not underwater). That is one of the strength of that camera that is aimed at wildlife enthusiast spending a lot of time outdoors in all sort of conditions. We can argue that Olympus exaggerates their weather sealing benefits but the Sony A7C is just a toy in comparison in that segment. When it comes to underwater use the EM1X does not really have many benefits compared to anything else on the market I doubt anybody would look at that camera and buy it for an underwater rig A camera functionally similar to the A7C is the Panasonic S5 that has only a housing from Ikelite. Nauticam said they would not do one. Performance is very much identical but you need to adapt Canon EF lenses if you want fisheye. I have the 8-15mm and worked very well with the S5 but I sold the camera when Nauticam came with the news a housing was not being made MFT sweet spot is hybrid use still and video, APSC are probably the easiest path for a DSLR user today and full frame has good selection between mirrorless and DSLR for people focussed on stills with specific models mostly Panasonic and to an extent Sony more video focussed With regards to 14 bits to 12 bits file it mostly affects tonality not colour and may give a smoother gradation but there is a lot you can do with editing this days and many shots are fairly simple with low dynamic range anyway
  7. Housing is 3.27 kg in air so D6 3.8 Kg D500 3.02 Kg so EM1X heavier than APSC DSLR and all the rest of MFT
  8. Don't know. The EM1X is very popular for birds shooters which typically do not overlap with underwater Nauticam has phased out some housing that were slow moving but this is still being made someone might as well use it
  9. I am not suggesting it would work for you. I think you know exactly what you need. Some cameras like the Olympus EM1X take two batteries and have the same form factor of a professional DSLR. I am not aware of cameras that can house a battery grip or spare battery sorry if this created confusion. What I can say though is that even with my mirrorless camera using a trigger I can take over 600 shots and do a whole day of diving without opening the housing and the battery is 50%. Yet in general terms a DSLR will always outdo a mirrorless on that and if it has a grip shape with effectively two batteries the gap will be larger For what concerns white balance your freshwater is not blue and perhaps more green so the white balance is less of an issue with an RGGB bayer sensor unless the water is red. Surely you make adjustments you don't do but that is because the are not required not because the are not possible. I am amused when people make comparison to land shooting but do not actually do land photography. I am not suggesting you don't but I happen to do a lot of various things as you know at the edges of what a camera can do so I do have an idea based on practical experience. I.e. to talk about milky way photography and what is like it does help to actually do it and the same with night photography or other low light disciplines. Surely there are differences shooting underwater compared to land. I need to shoot 100m to get haze while in water just a few meters, there are issue of light transmission and scattering of blue. However all those issues do not care about your sensor size more than anything else. so unless there is a more clear articulation of which gap is increased i remain of the opinion that underwater or on land the benefits of sensor size and even rig size are very similar
  10. You are assuming that you have more headroom to do that but actually you do not know as you don't adjust your land shots and again the benefit is the same full frame does not have extra benefit underwater as white balance is metadata. If that you could argue that higher bit depth in raw file may help reduce banding but in reality most cameras do not resolve even 10 bits colors With regards to gripped there are cameras with battery grip in the housing in all formats APSC and MFT but take also into account that DSLR usually take more shots regardless of sensor size because mirrorless keep the evf/lcd on all times. Again this is a technology difference not a sensor size difference For clarity I have shot all formats Full frame APSC MFT and I am not saying at all that smaller is better. I am just saying underwater does not highlight additional benefits to land use. In your case you shoot high ISO and there are plenty of land scenarios on high ISO where the benefits are the same Water does not really change much except blue channels clips sooner across the piece
  11. The question you are answering is not what is being asked You are answering the question is there a benefit to full frame? The ops question is 'Is the benefit of full frame accentuated underwater compared to shooting on land' The latter question answer is no the benefits are the same. What you describe is not special it is the same thing that happens on ambient light on land. The gap does not get larger So there is no disagreement you are just answering a different question that what is being asked
  12. Yes but the question was does this benefit becomes larger underwater? And the answer is no it does not it is the same situation that occurs with standard photography on land the gap does not get larger. What is important to understand is that is the lens that collects more light in virtue of a larger physical aperture however once you equalise that there is no benefit of any sort. Typically large dome ports require small apertures so what you gain you loose you need to resort to special equipment such as WACP or vintage solution like Nikonos lenses to balance things out With regards to Milky Way photography or night photography this is a different use case to underwater as the level of light are extremely low and not comparable to any situation other than pure dark. While larger sensor may have some benefit in situation of extreme low light there are plenty of dedicated astro cameras that feature smaller sensors. I do quite a lot of night photography and milky way in polluted areas and so far the issue has been light pollution and conditions much more than the camera equipment
  13. Which is the same it is on land things do not get further improved underwater That was the exam question not what’s the best format though everybody seems to want to answer that question
  14. That is a circular or diagonal fisheye not the same of tokina that is a diagonal fisheye zoom Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. This thread has gone off topic as usual with the sensor comparison The question was does the benefit of larger sensor that exists on land gets amplified underwater? And the answer is no it doesn’t the sensor benefits are unchanged and as side effect of shooting small apertures the gap may even close However provided you invest in equipment and are happy with the weight larger sensor do provide the best images example buy a WACP small apertures are no longer an issue buy it weights a ton or get a massive dome for a fisheye lens Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  16. It was not a criticism I really think the mirrorless transition is not obvious Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  17. I think the lack of being convinced is not the IQ which is indeed very similar is the ergonomics and features of a DSLR going back to my original point about adoption
  18. I know the operators and the local photographers I wrote about it on my blog https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/11/back-in-the-water-sorrento-peninsula-2021/
  19. In this trip for the first time I used the Panasonic 45mm 2.8. I have used the Olympus 60mm extensively since the last 7 years however I recently got the Panasonic lens for land use as I wanted something a bit wider and I like how this lens renders the image better so I decided to take it in water. I am pleased I did it focussed faster on the camera and I felt the field of view was right for this destination.
  20. No. Water have an effect in skewing the expected balance of colour that a traditional bayer sensor is built to manage A typical RGGB schema expects double green than red and blue so you have issues of clipping the blue channel in water (in blue water in green water not so much as a paradox) Considering that most shots are using artificial lighting larger sensor means you need more strobe power to even things out so it generally impacts portability because is not just about a big camera but also about much bigger strobes Other things where a full frame camera can have an advantage are more latitude in your raw files and being more forgiving if you get your exposure wrong however this is exactly the same as when you shoot on land there is no significant difference I do a lot of land shooting post covid and do regular print club competitions (land or unrestricted) and format is not what wins the day It is however true that most professional and respected underwater photographers shoot full frame DSLR but this is just a habit in my opinion and many competitions are won with Nikon D500 and other cropped DSLR If there is one thing to be said about underwater photography is that the level of mirrorless adoption compared to land shooting is lower when you look at full frame or APSC and this is also because Nikon especially has been lagging but is catching up.
  21. As I said as 1:1 replacement for the camera based on underwater use case not worth it. Though the new camera has much more powerful hardware and features may be added that could change this For land use: time lapses, burst photography etc substantial improvement especially for long exposures due to the new shutter design
  22. Naples and Massa Lubrense are great visibility may be lacking which was looks good in Giannutri Stretto di Messina need to check maybe a resident photographer? Also travel more challenging for me
  23. My strobes outperform any of my gear You need to make sure you take me off the cupboard and do some shots to ensure they don't fail when you go on a trip If instead you are in the water everyday then there is wear and tear I have no idea if professional resident photographer are subject to this issue As resident instructor I would service a regulator after 300 dives as I would feel the perfomance dropping, this is however a mechanical device
×
×
  • Create New...