Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Interceptor121

  1. Contrary to what people think diffusion increases by putting the light source CLOSER to the target

    This is why you see models in studio with massive softbox right on top of them

    If you place the light source further away due to inverse square law the shape starts changing into a point

    To overlay more theory on this if it was not complicated already water scatters blue light so putting the light source away will decrease the quality of light and increase the amount of blue light

    It does not matter how amazing your strobe is once this is sufficiently far away from your target nothing will matter except sheer power and the residual light will be scattered blue light not your nice even beam

    My take on dome diffusers: don't bother unless you are shooting your strobes very very close to your subject they will only dissipate light into the water more evenly 

    One final point the dome shaped strobes are not made like that to increase field of view this only increases mechanical resistance to pressure so the strobe can go deeper than a flat front

    • Like 1

  2. I have taken several videos now in open water in Malpelo

    Conditions were difficult and very dark however Slo3 delivered the goods I believe please check on the channel

    In general I do not over expose it especially in low visibility as there is haze in the water that already pushes it up

    In crystal clear blur water many need adjusting I set zebras at clipping point and try to avoid it

  3. 21 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

    Hi Massimo,

    We returned just tonight from our trip to Egypt...:rolleyes:

    You are completely right, I was wrong. A misunderstanding from my side - it does not matter, how the on-housing flash is triggered. This flash triggers the Anglerfish, no matter which camera trigger is used, but the Anglerfish is not able to trigger the remote Sea&Sea YS-D2 in my hands..

    For remote triggering, I will use a remote Z330 in the future and work with one Z330 on the housing (maybe the Sea&Sea as second on-housing flash, but on-housing flash is not the important flash, when working with remote flash...).



    OK so the issue is that the anglerfish cannot fire the sea and sea YS-D2. I have both I can try mine. I do use Inon for remote strobes as the YS-D2 are my main on camera strobes...

    • Like 1

  4. 23 minutes ago, -Johan- said:

    I've used the Sony 16-35 PZ on a Seacam A1 setup with a compact dome (170mm = 6.7 inches) and have found the results to be excellent! The lens is cheaper, small, and it doesn't need a focusing ring. I've been very happy with it. Just to provide an alternative to the 16-35 2.8.

    Why would you need a focussing ring? Lenses so wide focus very easily and the depth of field is extensive.

    The only focus rings I have are for macro lenses

  5. On 8/31/2023 at 8:21 AM, Architeuthis said:


    Thank you both for input...


    It must then be the Nauticam flash trigger (Sony A7R5) that is too weak...

    I found the issue during Alex Mustards Red Sea workshop in June/July, changed cables and flashes, also with other participants (one said he has the same issue and there would be many more) and the problem was very reproducable...

    I will head tomorrow, September 1st for another Red Sea trip and try again. I have a second turtle trigger as spare, maybe this one will work...



    Hi Wolfgang 

    Not sure what type of shots you are trying to do however I do not shoot the trigger directly from the housing unless I want to do a completely dark backlit shot for which video lights are better

    How does the flash trigger play a role here??

    • Like 1

  6. 10 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

    It all depends on whether the future 17-50 will perform well behind a domeport (hopefully 170/180). If yes, it will be a perfect lens to complement the Canon 8-15 & adapter...

    Similar coverage I have already now with Sony 20-70, but probably I will go for the new Tamron 17-50 in addition, in case it is suitable...

    FCP will be a strong competitor of Canon 8-15 & 1.4x TC: much better zoom range for sure and also better optical performance is expected. Indeeed little usage for WWL/WACP when one has FCP and Sony 20-70 (or even Tamron 17-50). For many FCP will also substitute the 8-15 fisheyes, as they do not like the circular fisheye look..



    Working distance 19 cm is very good news design does not extend so it should work well with the 180 dome

    Tamron 17-28 20-40 and 28-75 all work well with the 180 dome as all focus very close and the lens is not too small

    • Like 1

  7. 4 hours ago, JYk said:

    WACP would be a to big investment in my eyes. But lets see how it will play out.

    WWL-1 only takes lenses with small diameter that fit in a flat port on 67mm. This means the lens has to have max 52mm filter size which is not the case here.

    If you think about the WWL-1 it has a corner issue until f/11 can be f/8 on the 28/2 prime 

    This 17-50mm lens with wacp-c will work in the 26-50mm range it will a potentially higher quality alternative to the 28-60 in the same wacp-c

    To be frank I see very little to zero benefit between the WACP-C and WWL-1 on the 28-60mm so this lens with wacp-c could be an interesing prospect

    take into account the new nauticam FCP port will kill the WACPs


  8. Could also maybe an interesting combo with a wet-lens like the WWL-1. Maybe better sharpness in comparison with the SEL2860. But you kinda have a dead zoom range from 17 to 23mm. 

    I don’t think it will work as it has a 67mm thread
    Could work with WACP in the 28-50 range

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. Uhm no look at the edge resolution of all those reviews it looses over 10% on both comparisons
    This is due to the distortion correction
    The 20-70 is a lens that has so much distortion that remains bent even after correction. For this reason this is not an interesting lens topside where lines need to be straight
    In general for rectilinear lenses I buy lenses that are god topside and then also underwater generally f/4 lenses are not interesting for me anyway so I don’t consider it regardless
    My slowest zoom are the 100-400 and 200-600 however those are monster size optics
    The point is if a lens has 10% distortion and no straight lines why bother when the WWL-1 does better?
    I foresee the 17-28 useful for wrecks and the 24-70 for shots with models/people that look funny with a fisheye
    For reef shots I see little interest in rectilinear lenses

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. I have added now uncropped versions of the photos with shorter focal length to the tread in DPReview...
    Please Massimo, and other possibly interested have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4724115#forum-post-67199683
    It would be very interesting if you could also post example UW images of the 24-70 and 20-40 lenses (best also in DPReview, because of full resolution) - so that one could see what one is missing...:dunno:

    In my last trip I used such lenses only for video. I decided photos will be distorted and video would not
    So I have only pool shots (not very exciting) and currently am away I need to check if I saved them online in my store on not
    To be clear I do not recommend shooting any of those lenses in photos the only one I believe is worthy is the 17-28 that you have
    The 24-70 is also very good but ends up in the same category you take it with you and never use it

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. 13 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

    => this is interesting...

    Does it mean you already tested the 4.33 acryl dome and the 10mm extension more (compared to Nauticam recommendations) do not have significant influence on IQ?


    With the canon 8-15mm you don't need any additional extension with the acrylic dome they are just domes the position does not change as long as they are full hemispheres

    The tests are on my website. In addition if you push it forward it also vignettes so am not sure about 10mm more?

    I use the 4.33 not designed for tokina. So the extension is identical to the 140,,

    the tokina port has 20mm built in so needs additional 10

  12. I also want to add there are now several topside posts everywhere with complaints of weak edges for this lens at the wide end. This is because the lens has massive distortion and correction is a crop so resolution drops

    Underwater however you can disable it and the lens is no longer rectilinear but sharper

    Distortion is 10% which is very very large

  13. 4 hours ago, Blenny84 said:

    "The 1x adapter is 5.6mm longer than the 0.71x speedbooster. Hence, 35 mm is the ideal extension for the 0.71x speedbooster and 30mm is the best extension for the glassless 1x adapter..." - shouldn't this be the other way around? The longer the adapter the longer the extension required? 

    If the 1x glassless adapter (which is what I have) is 5.6mm longer it should require the 35mm extension and not the 30mm extension?

    Not sure if it was your table (see attached) but it says 1x adapter - 35 for the Canon 8-15

    I have the Nauticam 18803 N120 4.33 dome, not sure if that makes any difference but I understand it works the same as the 140mm dome. 


    So my question was, if I combine Canon 8-15 + metabones 1x glassless adapter + 30mm extension + 18803 N120 4.33 dome - would that work? Or would it be too short? 



    The 4.33 acrylic port takes the same extension of the 140mm glass port I have them both.

    So for the canon 8-15mm you need 35mm extension custom zoom gear and a dome of your choice

    I would go so far as saying that the canon 8-15mm is a spectacular lens and if you want to have a smaller set up in acrylic you could think about the tokina and a speedboster but then you would be better off with the special port for the tokina instead

  14. Just now, Architeuthis said:

    The images are cropped and  at original resolution (exported from LR as JPEG with 98% quality)...

    That prevents the infamous edge sharpness investigation


    The bigger selling point of the 20-70 is the zoom range so it is normal to expect the performance not to match lenses that zoom less. I would say the lens is OK not amazing in the overlapping range the 24-70 GM smokes it as it should be as it is GM vs G but I go as far as saying the tamron 20-40 is sharper at overlapping focal range but of course is only 40mm long

    • Like 1

  15. 20 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

    I have now the 20-70mm Sony and use it with A7R5 behind Zen DP170/N120 with 45mm extension plus 35.5mm N100/N120 adapter (that is the extension that Nauticam recommends for the similar Nauticam 180 dome, extrapolated to the DP170 dimensions)...

    It is a phantastic lens, very comparable to the Zuiko 12-40 with MFT, albeit I like the zoom range better (10-35mm extrapolated to MFT). I find it the ideal lens for fish portraits of regular sized fishes and 20mm is already real, but not extreme, WA. For more skittish larger animals, this lens also may be very good. So far the 8-15mm fisheye, with and without 1.4x TC covers almost all my extreme WA desires (for inbeteween fisheye and 20-70, I have the Tamron 17-28, but this lens does not get much use so far). The 20-70 is also used in the same domeport as the MFT/12-40 has been used before, so size and weight of the two Nauticam rigs (EM1II vs A7R5) is not much different between MFT and FF UW.

    The only complaint that I have is, that I do not use this lens too often. This was already the case with the 12-40/MFT  and after every diving holidays, when working on the images and browsing through them, I planned to use it more often next time. This was also the case with the second last diving holidays this June/July in Egypt, where I used the 20-70 just for a single dive at the housereef of the Mangrove Bay Resort (on September 1st, we will take off for another two weeks in Egy and I plan to use this lens this time more often...:rolleyes:). Here are some example images from the dive in Egypt, different distances and perspectives (2* Inon Z330 with all photos; I hope IQ does not suffer too much from the required compression):

    23mm, f/10, 1/200s, ISO100:




    20mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100:



    21mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100:



    20mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100:



    70mm, f/9, 1/200s, ISO100:



    47mm, f/8, 1/160s, ISO100:




    Resolution destroyed by the forum I guess? Those images do not look sharp even in the centre

    Do you have anything outside minimum 2-3 megapixels? 6 better?

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1

  16.  What is required to keep Wetpixel going? 

    Is it one person, preferably in England, to renew the registration in 2024, and keep an eye on the posts?
    What are the necessary expenses?
    Anything else?

    Let us spell out the criteria and solicit volunteers.

    We need to understand the finances of wetpixel limited and take over the company or someone needs to make an offer to Adam that he accepts to sell the forum rights etc

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. 3 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

    Thank you for this interesting comparison...

    I have photos with and without 1.4xTC from the Red Sea and can, so far, not see much difference in sharpness at the first glance (Sony A7R5). It will last some time, however, until I can post selected example photos for inspection (too much to do in the garden at present, it becomes quickly a jungle during diving vacations :lol:)...


    What color on the Metabones converter LED with and without the TC is the best, according to your opinion red or blue?

    (mine, by default, is red for both situations and I think AF works less good than on my Olympus EM1-II with Metabones)



    Metabones is better place in green mode which means confusingly that the led is blue


    • Like 1

  18. Wetpixel is worth something if it continues in the current form net of the financial issues

    It has taken 20 years to build and seems a short while to damage but I do not see how a new platform with potential a new name can be effective.

    Social media is killing the old style communities but those remain valid for certain technical content so you don't see many new forums around at all

    • Like 2
  • Create New...