Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About hult

  • Rank
    Sea Nettle

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Nikon D200 D7000
  1. Li-ion or Ni-Mh ? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. I've got one in the closet. But I'm leaving for Red Sea Wednesday. Email hult at hydrologist dot com for phone number. Thanks ... Marc
  3. Hi I have switched to D800 system and am selling my D7000 setup including: -- Pristine, low-shutter-count D7000 ( <5% of rated life) with box, papers and all accessories -- Ikelite enclosure ( with box, papers etc) that has been tricked out by Bill Libecap www.underwatercamerastuff.com with vacuum system, moisture sensor and adjusted strobe connector orientation. -- Nikon 60mm AF-D macro May also have an Ikelite strobe with arms and another lens and mini dome depending on what you want. Thanks ... Marc Hult hult at hydrologist dot com
  4. This has been a 'hang up' -- or not depending on individual inclination -- since almost forever. Counter-assertion: All photographs, including slides, can be both pre-visioned and instantiated as an immutable object _and_ re-explored and re-discovered in post processing as new creations -- and this has always been so. For example, not so long ago, using a Kodalith intermediate, an original color slide could be the source of countless high-contrast black-and white variations -- all of which were embedded in the original, waiting to be found. (Think Andy Warhol). Now we can do this in PS, but the exploration is the same. Just as cropping and burning and dodging and shifting contrast are the same -- but different. Do check out this "Blow-Up" mind-bender : http://www.tedxcincy.com/2011/01/26/patricia_vanskai/ Here eight original daguerreotypes taken 1848 in a panoramic view of Cincinnati's Ohio River frontage were re-discovered by microscopic gigapan ( www.gigapan.org) techniques in the 21st Century (1400 separate frames of each photo averaged over 9 exposures each) to create an image with 100x the apparent resolution of the originals -- revealing dates and times (to the minute) and people and places long lost. (Think D800 DX crop times 65.) Would even a static picture of a nudi really be so boring if we could blow it up 50x? What would we see that wasn't new(ish)? ). Plus ça change ... Marc
  5. I use an Ikelite with the Tokina 10-17mm HX FE and have both Ikelite's 8" and Bill Libecap's www.uwcamerastuff.com 5" precision mini dome which is designed specifically for that lens on that housing. Unless you want to take over-under photos, the mini-dome is the way to go with that lens IMO/E for a variety of reasons including ease of transport, storage and protection from damage, image quality, flexibility of composition especially with macro near-far images, better attachment to housing -- and maybe cost ( I dunno -- price may have gone up). That said, those two domes are the only domes that I have any experience with -- and so am by definition 'biased'. Additionally, Bill's 'tuned' dome for the 10-24mm Nikon DX is different from the the one for the Tokina 10-17mm FE. HTH ... Marc
  6. Oops! Thanks for the correction. ... Marc (at least Last I Knew ;-)
  7. Most folks shooting UW DSLR are probably not using wide range DX zooms which would seem to be the problematic lenses. As a practical matter, macro lenses in common use are FX. I have 105mm macro lenses going back to the 105mm bellows mount and 55's to the f3.5 CRC. Film flatness used to be a limiting factor, now eliminated, to running out of resolution on those lenses at f8-11 (i.e., before diffraction ) . Do you have references? ( Not a challenge -- jist genuinely interested ;-) ... Marc
  8. There is no added investment at all that I am aware of for "lenses [and] glass" used in macro for either of the two most popular macro lenses (60m and 105mm) with or without teleconverter and regardless whether the 105 AF-D or VR is used. And ABIK, to switch to a FX format zoom fisheye, one would have to switch to a Canon body. Last I knew, all Nikon-brand fisheyes are FX. And the ever-popular 10-17mm Tokina FE w/could be used in partial FX mode (blackened corners) or DX'd. Reducing -- seems to me -- the "serious investment" to the cost of trading up to a new housing and _possibly_ rectilinear wide angle. In my case, I have a 20-35mm AF-D gathering dust since the D200 came out that I could press into service. But I haven't used my rectilinear 10-24mm DX underwater with the D7000, preferring the 10-17mm fisheye and prolly wouldn't feel the urge to ever finally 'straighten out' if using a D800 <joke intended> So my "serious investment" will/would involve no lenses or glass and consist in the price differential between new housing and what I can sell the old one for --> ~$400 to ~500 ( + hassle factor). My perspective ... Marc
  9. John makes an excellent point about "not going backwards". That said, macro ( 105mm, 60mm +/- 1.4X converter) will be FX unless you purposely force it to be otherwise. And the only other lens that really matters to me right now is the 10-17mm FE. I put one on a F2 (~100% finder) to 'see what I could see' and was _very_ pleased. Wide open at 10mm, the image circle is ~33-35mm so the corners are clipped, but it is full frame by ~16mm. (Might be somewhat different behind a dome. Be interesting to see how the Ikelite 8" and Bill Libecap's mini dome work full frame. Fer shure someone else already knows ... ;-) I dare say it is a _better_ lens on FX than DX -- certainly wider and with more possibilities because every FX exposure is a superset of the cropped DX exposure. One would need to 'prevision' the final outcome a bit more, but that's key to the craft IME. ... Marc
  10. I have both the Nikon DX 10-24mm rectilinear and the Tokina HX 10-17mm Fish Eye. One can rectify ( straighten, 'correct') the FE image with one click in Lightroom 3.5 (or Photoshop) . The images shown ( top left, bottom) were taken with a D7000 on a tripod from the same location, with 10-24 and 10-17 FE lenses at 10mm. The 'corrected' 10mm FE image (top right) is wider than that of the rectilinear lens and, to my eye, just as straight. So I'd definitely choose the FE if it were my only UW wideangle. Topside shooting is a different matter ;-) HTH ... Marc
  11. Or maybe not ;-) the Ikelite D700 housing -- which if Ikelite practice holds will be nearly identical to the D800 housing -- is only $100 more than the D7000 housing. Or for wide angle, use your current 10-17mm FE at zero extra cost . That was an (intended) point of my post. Or not ;-) see above Or only $100 more -- at maximum ;-) Actually, according to the Ikelite web site, the D700 housing -- which we can expect to be extremely similar to the D800 housing -- is slightly lighter, narrower , and less tall than the D7000 housing. So once again ... I was in Raj Ampat in December and many/most macro shots would have greatly benefitted from the increased resolution -- with the very same lenses as I was already using ( 105mm and 60mm). It would have made the differences between some keepers and bleh ... Mis dos céntimos ... Marc
  12. Just to clarify, one can consider the D800 as a 'superset' of the D7000. Put a recognized DX lens on a D800 and like the D700, it will autodetect its DX format. Unlike the D700, the resulting files will have essentially the same resolution as if they were taken with a D7000. A neat trick in my book. (I have two D7000's and plan to trade up to a D800 and a D800e when the Ikelite housing becomes available.) ... Marc
  • Create New...