Jump to content

Interceptor121

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4931

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    207

Posts posted by Interceptor121

  1. Posted

    I am not a macro specialist but I don't see any values for Single AF with the 90mm I use single AF for wide shot when am not interested in a specific fish but more about the landscape.

    It is good to see that Alex trusts the camera in zone and wide mode with AF-C I tend to use tracking expand spot on the 90mm when am running out of depth of field

    However for fish portraits where you have depth of field the camera tends to focus on the closest point if detect fails which in most cases is fine as the fish is coming towards you.

    In my opinion though the A1 is much better at AF-C because it reads much faster than the A7R5 so I am not sure the performance will be identical at identical settings. It would be good to have some experience from someone with your camera.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    41 minutes ago, Champers said:

    Thanks for the info... I'm looking to take more pics incorporating sunballs/sunbursts and I just want to make sure that before I splash out a huge sum on ports, extensions, and gears, that I'm not going to get a whole load of flare/ghosting...

    This is the video forum so does not really cover the idea of sunburst shots which I would normally take with a fisheye or distorted optic not rectilinear

    I do not anticipate this lens to have issues but that is not my intended use either

  3. Posted

    Great videos, I really enjoyed watching them... Looks like you were diving deeper than in the shallows(!?) so I guess you wouldn't have experienced ghosting/flare at those depths...!?
     

    There are some shots with the surface
    This lens generally doesn’t flare has very small ghosting that only occurs topside with the sunball in the frame
    Underwater I don’t see how this will ever be a problem
    Besides I don’t get this issue with any of my lenses or domes
    i have seen examples with the wacp-c but I have never experienced an issue myself


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. Posted

    There may be valid points for dismissing a Z8 for underwater use, I've even heard that red light focusing doesn't work, but I would absolutely not dismiss it on the basis of pixels in the EVF. The refresh rate is incredible and it has not hindered me at all on land, in fact I forget it's an EVF a lot of the time. But perhaps Sonys offerings are even better. 

     

    I own a Z8 for topside wildlife, but I'm 50/50 about upgrading to using it underwater. 

    Am not talking about the camera in absolute terms but for underwater use this doesn’t seem a big step forward from the z7II for photos

    For video and topside it probably is

     

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. Posted

    Battery has been historically really poor on the a6xxx wonder how this one does

    I can say the battery of the a1 is not bad at all and so far I have had overheat only on kong continuous clips

     

    Edit it has the same battery of the A1 so it should be very good

     

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. Posted

    DxoMark and Photonstophotos measurements are out

    The Z8 is very similar to the Sony A1 but has less DR and slightly worse performance at high ISO

    Interestingly the Nikon Z7 II performs better than the Z8/9 and similar to the D850 however it suffers from slower sync speed and does not do that well at 1/200

    I think Nikon is doing great steps towards professional video but becoming less and less interesting as an underwater platform with their mirrorless offering

    The EVF resolution is also average for the Z8 and identical to the Z7II making the latter I believe a better buy for the underwater photographer wanting to use a nikon mirrorless

  10. Posted

    I agree with the doctor [mention]Alex_Mustard [/mention]
    Today there are many 20mm rectilinear lenses that will be as sharp and have autofocus however need a dome

    I can see the uw15 as video lens the benefit is when you have current it has less drag
    For photos plenty of options


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. Posted

    Just now, wgreene11 said:

    I've had a mirrored Scubapro mask for a while and in certain conditions, it does seem like fish tend to be a little more curious to come up close; they see themselves in the reflection rather than my eyes.

    The theory comes from spearfishing if fish don't see your eyes they get close and this is true

    However the mirroring takes away some light so only works well in the shallows...

     

  12. Posted

    I am still going through the video materials from Malpelo

    The trip was amazing with what I would refer as hardcore diving. Big swells, crushing waves and current in some cases extremely strong.

    Not easy for photographers with large rigs I had challenges myself especially as they do not let you point video lights or strobes into the blue.

    The following links to give an idea of how it was look at the surface when in the frame to see what it was like to get in and out of the water

    It was also pretty dark mostly as we had torrential rain, probably this was a bit of bad luck. It worked well for the photos creating really deep blues less well for video that comes out at times a bit noisy

    I decided to shoot rectilinear lenses tamron 20-40 and 17-28 for video not WWL-1 or fisheye like

     

    I have a lot of materials and little time so I decided just to provide some information of what the diving is like instead of going for artistic

    I will eventually combine all in one video as I have lots of topside too

  13. Posted

    I see that at present there are 3 liveaboards for cocos islands 2 from agressors and sea hunter

    From what I can see only the okeanos aggressor has a camera table (i normally prepare my camera in the cabin anyway) and the two aggressor boats are for 22 divers while sea hunter has 20 spaces but somehow funny cabins (double and bunk on top)

    I am interested in feedback from fellow photographers/videographers and those and other boats for cocos 

  14. Posted

    I, personally, do mot like the plastic domes...
    Is it possible to use the Tokina with both 0.71x and 1x adapters with the acryl dome?

    The recommended nauticam port for tokina is the acrylic dome 4.33 18804

    The benefit of glass on acrylic is that you can coat the inner with anti reflective layers
    Acrylic resists more pressure and can be repaired on the field
    I have both the 4.33” and 140mm dome
    On full frame I would use the 140mm dome except when I need to get extra close in which case I would use the 4.33”
    The 4.33” is flush with the n120 port it feels great in water and is very light


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. Posted

    I have an update on adapted fisheye lenses with small domes. I am sure others already found out, but I think it is worth posting and let more people know:
    I personally am using now the Canon 8-15 fisheye with another Metabones adapter on Sony A7R5, but my wife, Lisi, continues to use the EM1II and the Tokina 10-17. During our last diving vacation in Egypt (we returned just two days ago), she was using the Tokina behind Zen minidome 100 (N120 version) with 20mm extension (and the 34,7mm N85-N120 adapter) a lot. This combo can be used with the 0.71x speedbooster, where it provides 7.1-12.1mm (usable from 8mm without seeing the shades) and a diagonal FOV of 180°-107°, very similar to the Tokina on APS-C (or the new Nauticam Fisheye conversion port on FF). It also can be used with the glasless 1x adapter, providing the original focal length range and 131°-74°, similar to the WWL/WACP water contact optics on APS-C and FF. Both work without any vignetting and provide very good IQ (I will ask her later for some sample images, but it will last, as she is now busy with homeoffice, catching up the work that accumulated in our three weeks of absence...).
    => Zen 100 minidome, 20mm N120 extension, Tokina 10-17, Metabones 0.71x and 1x adapters and the 34.7mm N85-N120 adapter provide a slim and smart travelling package that provides the full range of WA options (split shots with the 100 minidome are difficult, but not impossible, though). I regard this as a true "killer" combo...
    The last week of the recent vacation we were with our Doctor Alex on the Red Sea workshop, where > 20 camera rigs were around, placed in the saloon, and it made me smile several times, when I saw her ridiculously small rig besides the big "whoppers" that had WACPs, or similar adapters, each containing kilograms of optical glass, mounted...
     
    Wolfgang

    For MFT the acrylic 4.33” is probably the best option in terms of size and weight. This is available for both tokina and canon


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. Posted

    Sorry for hacking the thread. Specifically I am not interested in the fisheye.
    Mine was a more general comment on Alex's statement and the availability of small diameter lenses in the micro four-thirds kit. My WWL-1 can only work with a lens that has been out of production for years, and a bad one at that. Since now the Kit M43 lens is the 12-60 which has a 58 mm diameter I would say we are in a dead end for this system.
    PS
    What port/dome is needed for the Canon 8-15 mm zoom?

    Matabones n85 n120 35mm extension and 4.33 or 140mm dome
    The sony 28-60mm is the kit lens for the a7c the fact is that is a fairly recent lens
    All water contact lenses like small lenses which intrinsically limits performance at very close range
    For me we need to see how this adapter does at very close range further away everything is generally ok


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Thanks 1

  17. Posted

    This is the reason  because we M43 users are left behind stuck with the discontinued plastic 14-42 mm. Panasonic has not produced any new small diameter lens since then.
    RIP M43

    You can use a canon 8-15 as almost 2x zoom this is not available on any other formats
    It is an amazing option that negates the need for this adapter as the 14-42 is after all an average lens


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Thanks 1

  19. Posted · Edited by Interceptor121

    18 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

    Perhaps but the reduction in view from a 180° fisheye should be somewhat consistent and useful for at least comparison.  Be interesting to see if their lens is wider than a standard fisheye lens when focusing close.

    The horizontal fov of the fisheye is 2.1x wider from that picture Alex posted

    Assuming the other lens fov is correct that would give an  horizontal of 140 degreesand diagonal of 174 degrees.

    This is just a tad narrower than the theoretical fov of the canon 8-15The equation does not work very well at the extremes and is not exact

    However I doubt very much that the fov of the WWL-1 is 130 degrees diagonal 106 horizontal

    I see this option attractive for full frame users who do not want to go for a tc and want more zoom however for APSC and MFT there is already a full working solution that will cost overall less

  20. Posted

    On 6/29/2023 at 3:56 AM, ChrisRoss said:

    It depends on how important being able to zoom is to you.   I played around trying to fit the WACP figures Nauticam supplies to a fisheye projection and it appears like it might be a combination of a rectilinear and fisheye style projections.  If you assume the FCP has similar characteristics and a maximum field of view of 180° diagonal then you can estimate fields of view and I've done that:

    image.png.f2ef86e7820d7dfc9145035bfbbfd414.png

    This is an estimate of the field of view range compared to what you get with the WACP.  There is some overlap so you could work out how often you use the WACP zoomed in beyond a 99 deg diagonal, or zoomed in more than 45mm on the lens or so.  These figures are of course educated guesses and might be up to about 10° out, depending on the projection that the FCP uses.

     

    From what I have measured all underwater optics fall short a long way from theoretical models because the focus distance is shorter than infinity where the field of view of the lens on land is measured

    I am not sure how nauticam comes to their specifications and if this is a theoretical or measured number by master lens

  22. Posted

    Thanks for sharing this, I am exploring the SLog vs S-Cinetone for my next dive whenever that is going to be and very curious to hear other people's thoughts on which one gives a better result. It will be my first time colour grading an SLog footage if I do go that route and I am not phased by it .
    By the way I have a Sony A7IV.

    I prefer slog3.cine2 for a variety of reasons
    The cinetone is almost correct out of camera and has less latitude in post


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

    I do not have personal experience how it is to wear a mirrored mask...

    The son of a good friend and old buddy of mine (the son is a beginner), bought himself a completely mirrored mask (since it looks so cool). I find it not so good, as eye contact is not possible, but eye contact is important for communication UW. We both (my friend and me) try to persuade him to take a normal mask as it is more difficult to check, whether he is o.k (often a short look, without other interaction, is enough to check the buddy and the eyes are important to see)...

    Maybe if it is very important for photography it is o.k. (I personally do not need a mirrored mask), but it is not so good for buddy diving...

     

    Wolfgang

    As you can see here the mares mirrored mask shows the eyes at close distance

    The mark glass has essentially a filter which as you can see is near magenta. It is not 100% reflective

    Not sure about other brands

  24. Posted

    My last mask was mirrored and I bought it after hearing the theory that I'd spook fish less.  Supposedly, if they can't see eyes, they're less concerned.  I liked the mask, but I really couldn't quantify the results.  My new mask isn't mirrored and it's fine also.

    This theory makes no sense to me
    The idea of a filter on the mask does
    The mask I have has what looks like a variation of magenta filter. I shot video with the camera on a tripod and at distance is a mirror but at close range the eyes are visible.
    The loss of light is small but if you have eyesight issues in dim light you can feel it


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. Posted

    18 hours ago, rwe said:

    While I have no experience with these masks, I wear mirrored sunglasses above water. They are great in bright sunlight but definitely reduce the light considerably compared to non-mirrored versions of similar sunglasses. So it might be good to get a pair in your hands before you commit to buy.

    I bought two new masks one clear and one mirrored.

    The mirrored lens takes light away it is a filter after all. It looks very interesting for hazy dives to a depth of 18-20 meters where there are particles in the water

    Not so interesting for deep dives, wreck dives with penetration etc etc

×
×
  • Create New...