Tom_Kline

It is in here somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Rf_mU-wBuBXas7fBRJrMQ Adam did back to back interviews with Edward Lai not too long ago - check these out first. As well it was discussed here when the WACP-1 was first introduced. Alex mentioned that he used the Nikon 28-70 which I understood to mean the f/2.8 lens that preceded the 24-70 models but was wrong. He corrected me - it was the variable aperture model that uses 52mm filters if I recall correctly.

I have done the same thing - used the Z6 with the excellent 24-70 kit lens for most of my topside shooting last trip to Hawaii (b4 the pandemic). Had the FTZ in case I wanted to use one my macro lenses (which I did not get around to on this trip). Found this on Facebook so here courtesy of Seasport Divers' posting there. Well protected against solar radiation and holding the Z6 off Niihau Island (in the background).

This should work. Keep in mind that plankton are small but animals that feed on plankton will be larger, can be much larger like mantas. You will probably will get some creatures that hide in the sand so this could be very interesting!

There are organisms that are going to be attracted to light at night regardless of depth or salinity so the answer to your question is YES! I have been working on this at a small scale as a covid project - maybe it should be called cigarette lighter (not literally of course) underwater photography. One does not need very much light once it is dark to do this. My main limitation is that once it actually gets dark at night (in Alaska north of 60 degrees latitude), it gets cold rather quickly. Found an example on my HD taken before things froze up. Note that there is still twilight at 8:21 pm on Sept 26 (it looks like this at 3 in the afternoon now!). I used the Retra strobe's aiming light to also be the "bonfire" You can see stuff growing on the bottom of the lake. The stool was so that I could look at the back of the camera once out of the water while all the stuff was still attached to it (it stayed horizontal).

Looks like this will work!! Moving parts will need some maintenance.

Davide, Are you aware of the notched ULCS clamps that allow one to position an arm at 90 degrees. There are several models available. I got these a couple years ago but more are available now - some with notches on both sides of the clamps.

I took some more photos to show my quadrapod and my water-wings. By using different length bolts it is possible to have camera sit more or less level on the bottom where there is a slope. The water-wings are to provide some positive buoyancy when using the rather negative Nauticam optical accessories but something like this (float arms in different positions and different holes ) could be used with a go-pro to have your camera float near the surface. This plate has already been used for a few different purposes (note extra holes and circular wear).

Merry Christmas!

was not able to reply here due to SW issues so started new thread, sorry. Merry Christmas!

Some more shots that Wetpixel would not allow me to post the other day. You can see the cable running downstream in the first pic. Keeping the cable out of pix can be challenging!!! It is literally a drag!!!

I have added a variety of items to the bottom of my housings to use with polecam setups. Most recently I have made a quadrapod using bolts as legs but I do not have pix of it only pix taken using it. Here are a couple from my files. I took this shot after carrying everything (in a couple of trips) down a hiking trail from a road and prior to doing any shooting. There are a bunch of ankle weights wrapped around the poles for ease of carrying this distance. Note that the "pods" are about 0.5 m long which is about as big as will fit in these backpacks.

More shots.

Here are some shots of the monopod in sue. Not the adaptations to local conditions. There was a lot of current where I shot the Chinook Salmon - note blurry water but found a large rock at the water's edge to help hold it in place. I hit my photo limit on this shot so maybe later.

What you are seeking to use is called a polecam. There are a few threads on them here on Wetpixel. I have been using polecams for years to photograph salmon. My longest is a 2.5 meter long piece of surplus aluminum tubing. This is about as long as I can transport in the bed of a pickup truck. I have also used an old metal monopod. After a few uses the sections would not slide due silt getting into the mechanism. So I leave it as a permanently extended monopod. I use various ball mounts and other hardware such as made by ULCS to attach the housing to the pole. I have a few picks taken over the years of my setups. More can be found in past Wetpixel postings. The first 2 images show my long pole being used.

I solved the problem using a Think Tank whip. https://www.thinktankphoto.com/collections/cable-management/products/red-whips-v2-0 One could thread in a second whip or a ring (split ring or a solid one) to use it as Tim suggests. My use thus far has been in very shallow water so no need to clip on. One could, alternatively, glue the reflector to the reduction ring for a more permanent association.

As with Chris I am very happy with mine and find it very useful for daytime dives too. In HI there are lots of dark places - ledges, tunnels, etc. to look at on day dives. The can be scoped from a distance saving bottom time. The double O-ring design seems almost bulletproof, but maybe not.

Thanks Adam for your reply I have not done green water but most of my salmon shots have some degree of tannins in them that makes white balance somewhat challenging for any strobe or when shooting natural light. Color temp is thus less important (for me) than other aspects of the quality of light. I have found there to be a vast difference in the AAs that I use vs the Seacam battery packs. I even asked the battery expert who rebuilt mine whether Eneloops could be used as replacements but alas the sizes are a bit different. One of the big issues is the self discharge rate which is quite fast and not so for Eneloops. The ones in the Seacam packs are more like the batteries I used before switching to Eneloops in 2008. I am still using some of these. I grabbed 4 battery holders off the table next to me and took this shot - the 08 labeled ones are batteries from 2008. I only use them for lights now but I have over 10 lights that use them so I put them to good use until they die. The Seacam packs are good for about 3 years. It may be that you are getting more out of yours if you do not have interruptions (e.g. several months) in their use. As well, mine get used in sub-freezing conditions part of their life. The feature I most like about the Seacam strobes besides the light quality are the alarms - both visual and acoustic. This is quite useful for my remote control work when I am a slight distance away. Not sure if the new style display will be as good from a distance. Red glowing numbers are easy to see in the dark. BTW the Retras are very hard to read in the dark - I am looking into buying some fluorescent paint to paint some dots by the settings I use. The change in color when the strobe recycles though is very nice though the colors change if submerged in stained water (rather stained in my local lake - there is still a color change). When the change takes longer(re. Retra) it is obvious so i know time has come to change batteries. I have changed batteries in the middle of shoots. For example I have done two swaps with my 150Ds so that one strobe was used with 3 packs in one shoot (housing stayed in the water) that lasted for many hours. As well I can use just one strobe at 12 O'clock to shoot a fisheye lens (full frame i.e., rectangular frame) with a diffuser. ScubaLute - thanks

I am keen on reading or hearing Alex's opinion on this model as he has been using the 150D model for several years now and how they two models compare (in all ways). A bit of irony in my case is that I have one 150D for Canon and one 150D for Nikon so having a convertible model makes some sense. I would like to know how this process goes - actual experience. Your statement about battery packs starts to fail as the packs age. If one cell ages more than another (inevitable) then the whole pack slides. An advantage of single cells is that they can each be babied and indeed they need to be. One has to use a fancier charger like the Maha C9000 to do this. Even Eneloops do not all go downhill at the same rate even if always used together. I have had to chuck out one of a 4 cell group in several cases (failed the charger test, but they were a few years old). As well I have seen 100 mah variation among brand new ones and more for older ones.

Your dome port worked reasonably well (re. your other thread) for these last two shots - note that corner details are less important here.

Your dome would be OK for FF at 15mm but for MACRO shots. Maybe OK at 8mm but you need to be able to remove the dome shade if it has one.

Here is another shot from the same day - taken just a few minutes later. Here I am in a stream that enters the lake near to where the previous shot was taken. Trying to keep my shadow out of the picture the sun is very close to the left edge of the pic. Taken in early Sept - the sun is already low in the sky but above the mountains - now (early Dec ) it is below the mountains. This one at f/22, 1/500s at ISO 5600. The camera was on auto iso. Note the details on the grey rock with a spruce needle on top of it. But at the left corner it is quite blury

Here is a shot with the 14mm at f/16 using the Superdome. Note how blurry the lower corners are. Used ISO 3600 with D4S. 1/500 to stop motion as I was wading and there were these small waves. Chris is correct, it not possible to use correction lens with 14 which is why I recommended the 16-35 zoom instead. I have used the wideport to do macro-like closeups with the 8-15. Would likely be much worse for distant subjects, need a bigger port.

You are attempting the near-impossible here. I am not sure even the superdome will help you. Alex Mustard has been there and has pictures of it in his book: He used the 16-35 at 16mm (which will work much better in the superdome than the 14 especially if you have the Sea and Sea correction lens (there are threads on this already on Wetpixel)) for picture #13. He shot at ISO 1000 at f/13 at 1/50s. Note much smaller aperture than what you are trying to do as well as higher ISO. Picture #96 was done with the 16mm fisheye also ISO 1000 but at f/14 at 1/80s. Again small aperture was used. To use a larger aperture one would have to go with water contact optics which are rather costly. I recall Adam mentioning in one of the videos shooting the WACP-1 at a wide aperture in a dark tunnel.

You do not say whether you are shooting full frame or APS-C (DX in Nikonspeak). I have used the 14mm Nikkor D lens for both formats. The wideport worked OK with the 14 when I was shooting the Nikon D2X, a DX camera, and even have a more or less successful over-under shot that was unplanned - it was too shallow to submerge the wideport completely. I used the 10.5mm as my fisheye lens with the D2X as the 8-15 had not yet been invented. As well, the f/2.8 maximum aperture enabled better AF with this older generation camera. I have made full frame over-under shots with the 14 and superdome and found the results to be marginal even stopped down to f/22. The 14-superdome combination would likely be OK for an "in the blue subject". I have both the Canon and Nikon 8-15mm lenses. I have used the C version with the Canon 1D4 which is an APS-H sensor camera so the focal length was set a bit longer (than APS-C), about 13mm and got OK close-up shots using the wideport. I have not used the N version with APS-C but have used it at 15mm on full frame with the wideport to do very-close up. As well I have used it (at 15mm) with the Seacam fisheye macro port or FMP. The advantage of the FMP over the wideport is that I can get even closer to the subject. I have not done any over-under shots but if I was planning to I would use the superdome over the the standard Seacam fisheye port which is only marginally better than the wide port in my experience. The only advantage to the fisheye port (relative to the wideport) is that the shade can be removed to use the lens at 8mm. The shade removal involves small screws so is a topside activity. I am thinking of getting a Saga fisheye port for scuba diving the 8-15 since their ports have easily-removable shades. I find the two 8-15mm lenses perform about the same but have not done any critical tests. Not sure what Phil sees. The only advantage I have seen in the N version is that the zoom ring is near the front end so it is easier to tell if the focal length setting is off when looking at it mounted in the housing just before attaching the port.

You need to do the EVF - back screen switch manually. I found this to be the case in other situations as well such as in an airplane seat and shooting out the window. Oddly enough autoswitch worked fine a few days ago shooting the lunar eclipse.