Jump to content

Interceptor121

Member
  • Content Count

    3773
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    152

Everything posted by Interceptor121

  1. I saw some test shots time ago and it was great however this is partially due to the reduced FOV and distortion the lens is 100 degrees wide
  2. As expected the corners are better see the fish bottom right This however is due to corner compression of the wet lens so distortion helps the image Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. Yes the dome is a bit small but the amount of additional barrel distortion should not be so bad There is also the possibility the lens/camera is decentred to dome but few tests on land would exclude the lens from the equation Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk
  4. My comment is, assuming your lens is not decentered, the corner with the branch shows the effect of distortion correction (pulled corners) which means the corners are already soft and underwater they get worse The op lens however appears to have a discrepancy between the two sides that subject to further tests may indicate the lens is decentered, this needs to be tested In essence lenses can have their own problems before you put them behind a dome but nobody bother checking them
  5. The land shot n 3 where there is a branch coming in. With regards to this underwater shot the lens may be decentered which is a different issue altogether
  6. No the corner that is bad is the right corner where you can see the lens is corrected for distortion this is likely the issue Processing the raw with a software that can disable it will improve matters
  7. Shot 3 the one with the branch shows the lens is not that sharp in the corners. It has probably field of curvature issues of its own before you even take it underwater so I would expect things to deteriorate at close range and f/11 to be the norm
  8. The 180mm dome is a cut of a 220mm diameter dome while the 230mm is a cut of a 240mm if I recall correctly. So there is only 1 cm difference in radius. However f/8 seems too wide for APSC. I shoot f/8 with my 180mm dome at 8mm which is narrower than the OP on MFT. This does not consider that the lens itself may have issues on land. Many people do not test their lenses on land and then wonder why they don't perform underwater. Go and shoot a brick wall you will be surprise it won't be as sharp as you would think most times
  9. The mount converter v2 works with the bayonet v1 you don't need to adjust your lenses mounts but the old one has been discontinued Seems to have a different release button the old one was fidgety with gloves
  10. I got my hand on few samples to understand how those work in final cut pro (and premiere)
  11. Sorry I misread. In that case the distance is accurate as nauticam tests on a macro slide Which means you need to go with smaller aperture or larger dome Try small aperture first. I use f/8 on same dome on MFT you need f/11 likely Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. The lens is very wide and it is possible that the acrylic dome is not positioned exactly where it needs to be to make the corners better albeit they will never be perfect. If you invest in the glass port you will see the recommended extension is 60mm so it is likely the acrylic port is too short and this compromises the corners
  13. My recommendation DON'T contrary to common belief fisheye lenses are not sharp in corners they simply compress them and this gives a nice visual effect When you stretch out your WWL images you will discover the sad truth. Not sure what format you shoot but there are compromise options with rectilinear lenses that work on certain cropped formats
  14. If you compare with wwl-1 yes but most people shoot a panasonic fisheye and there is still $1000+ gap to an olympus My point on sensor crop is that even if your full sensor camera is cheaper it will still require small aperture which means expensive strobes it higher ISO that will negate the superior performance I have been doing a lot of land shooting this year and camera sensor size matters less than what I expected I got into MFT because of video if I was a still shooter today and had to invest I have would look elsewhere and I agree the sony a7c and panasonic s5 are interesting however when I look at lenses the choice is limited. You go and shoot macro what are you going to use? Still a massive 90-150mm lens that will reverse the compactness of your set up Canon is making the right steps with diffractive optics need to wait few years more to see where it goes Its a shame olympus went belly up as MFT is currently self limited by a 12 bit raw. If this was 14 bits this would be much closer to other formats Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. Thankfully Nikon has done a newer version of the D5XX because on cropped mirrorless the situation is not as good. The cameras are average and the choice of lens port is not great at present.
  16. That's you John. The rest of us are getting on just fine with our GH5/GH5s/BMPCC and not planning immediate upgrades...!
  17. That’s true for the cameras as phones are creating pressure but not for the housing and ports that generate majority of cost and bulk Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  18. Now most people shooting ‘cinema’ type camera go at 60 fps and slow down in post to reduce shake This creates those videos with 5’ of short repeated slow motion that in my opinion are horrid Underwater things go already slow those tricks can be justified with a gopro perhaps Dean Spraakman has good zcam material though with lots of slow mo Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  19. Panasonic BGH1 is also netflix approved and support MFT lens correction. Suddenly most interesting option on the scene of the 'Cinema' except of course needs a monitor
  20. 130 degrees and they are equally distorted, the WACP is the same the less distortion only comes because the magnification is reduced all those lenses are not rectilinear If you zoom a fisheye zoom it has less perceived distortion
  21. From what I recall the field of view required is 96 degrees with a standard fisheye you are almost there but it is rather easy to clip the top and bottom because the field of view on the vertical is not as much as horizontal or diagonal So you need a circular fisheye lens and a dome without petals. There are circular fisheye lenses for APSC like sigma 4.5mm and of course full frame 8-15 canon and nikon. You can adapt the sigma 4.5mm on MFT too For lenses without a recommended port you need to do some research but I think Wolfgang shoots the 4.5 mm if I remember correctly
  22. No I meant the inon uwl-100 and with dome you may find second hand Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  23. There was one guy on scubaboard who tried all the 'cheap' options after spending more money that way he bought a nauticam lens There is no way to shortcut quality. Most of the AOI, Fantasea, etc are made by the same factory in China, while Inon and Nauticam aren't Inon has reported some success with the glass dome this includes Olympus MFT
  24. The fact it is not on the port chart does not mean it doesn’t work. This will depend on the lens design and how close is to the glass port. In general you will not easily find flat ports as most would have a dome Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  25. To me, this statement implies that people are required to write in English, which is (definitely) not the case. I agree that the poster may get less responses, but ultimately, this is their decision, not yours, mine or anyone else's to make... For sure He is obviously translating the page but not bothering translating back Will try myself some posts in italian lets see the response I get Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...