Tom_Kline

I have used Inon strobes (220 and 240 models) with Canon 1D series cameras (see signature) in Seacam housings with no problem. I have always used the hot shoe connector. Never heard of using a communications port for flash synch! There is a standard PC connector on most cameras for old style wired flash synchronization but I have not used one of these with a Seacam housing yet. PS. The hot shoe connector is wired to S6 bulkheads in my housings as delivered by Seacam in my current housings (I had to "steal" a bulkhead to allow remote control in some of my earlier housings).

I am a bit stingier with my pixels, more like 640 to 800 on the long axis. As well images are watermarked. Most folks seem to be using their phones to look at these sites so why bother with more rez, that is what my website is for.

According to this page the barrel extends: https://sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-database/lenses-from-camera-makers/canon-eos-rf-mount-lenses/canon-rf-100mm-f28l-macro.html We will have to wait and see for a more detailed evaluation. The image of the lens nose is consistent with a portion of the lens extending as there are several parts here - the front end is not flush. The reason I got the Saga port was for the 67mm threaded end. This enables fitting a range of optical add-ons, from the EMWL to wet diopters.

"Back in the day" one had to have space between a macro lens and port because the lens extended when focused so this should not be too big an issue. The larger OD of a standard macro port will help with buoyancy since there will be a larger air pocket. It appears that the RF100 macro does extend a bit to get to 1.4x so that apparent extra space may end up being useful. The main downside will be accessories that apparently require the camera lens to be right up to the port glass such as those made by Nauticam. For example, on their lens compatibility list, the older extending Micro-Nikkors are not included for the EWML. We will have to wait and see to when the new lens is available and in the hands of the housing and port manufacturers to get more specific info. A third party port manufacturer that may produce a port for the new lens and with an Aquatica mount is Saga. See: https://sagadive.com/product/frontales-conicos-de-aluminio-saga/ Note that they offer Aquatica now. I have one of their ports from this list for Seacam for the Nikon 105mmVR macro and it is quite nice.

Maybe it will come with Kevlar gloves for safe handling!

See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RJh7VZrjA4 The Z 105MC will fit behind your existing ports with a few spare mm (room for an achromatic diopter lens??). This, however, may not be ideal for the EMWL so I suspect you will need a new port - we will need to wait for Nauticam's (or Alex's) tests. The vid shows the new 105MC lens to have superior IQ to the 105VR F mount!

I cobbled together my BCD using parts from various manufacturers. So it could be called a hybrid or a bastard.... The back plate is aluminum but should be stainless steel for better positioning. As well it should be used with steel tanks. Failing that I have four weight pockets on the two straps holding the tank not visible in the photo. Using a lycra suit, which is all I really need for Hawaii, temp about 25C, I have all my weight in these pockets. This is not the safest for quick ditching but I can assume any position with extreme ease, horizontal or tilted up or down. To save on weight I have just one D ring on each side. This shot was on the way to Niihau Island with Kauai visible in the background. On my previous HI trip to this one, which was to the Big Island, I got towed to the surface by the left hand side D ring as I was attached to a short down line for a blackwater dive when a breeze kicked up. The captain had not deployed a drogue so we quickly became a sailboat. A significant amount of force was needed to do this as I am well over 200 pounds in weight. So having a real solid rig is important for some circumstances - I broke the plastic D-rings on a previous BC from much less duty. The yellow strap that you see in the pic is from the weight belt I used in the 1970s. The belt is now fairly supple so I am using it for the crotch strap which is vital to the backplate design. Note that there is a heavy buckle which is important for opening and removal while in the water - has not failed me yet. I see weights on the bench so this is before they got loaded. You can also see my Canadian sombrero - a wide rim Tilley hat in an empty tank holder. As well there is the strongest sunblock I could find in the yellow thing next top the camera. The captain did not like me spraying it so it was not used after this first day of the trip. The reg you see is the same model that Adam has. I have gone back to using a combo reg-inflator. The Atomic SS1 model has a clever design allowing quick removal from the wing inflator hose.

I am curious if anyone is using bulb or other long exposure techniques. An example would be for swimming around a wreck and doing multiple flashes. My long exposures have been limited to streams (some due to aperture priority auto-exposure setting so variable in length). Camera was always on a "tripod" of sorts and negatively buoyant to keep from drifting in the current. With and without flash.

+1. I do a fair amount of cropping of my FF images to the 4:3 aspect ratio (I use standard ratios for cropping to make it easier to print to standard sizes - earlier in the digital game I free-formed the crop). A fair number also end up as 16:9!! A wider than 24mm FF format would be nice. I suspect we are stuck with the legacy effect as 24mm was about as wide as was possible to fit between the sprocket holes of 35mm film. Note that Nikon and others tried alternative formats with their 35mm cameras but most everyone ended up with a format that was 36mm long as the area (24x36) had an edge over formats that were 24x(<36) (this was way back).

+1 on this point. The Canon 1D4 and Nikon D2X2 were the last crop bodies with the big batteries and had state of the art AF for their time. Issue for me is for cold water use such as temperatures around 5C/40F typical of groundwater fed streams and so have better viz than others in my area. For more recent bodies (Canon 1Dx and Nikon D4S) vastly improved high ISO (e.g., 12800) has increased (relative to the last croppers ((just mentioned)) my shooting capability as well.

This article is relevant to this thread: https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-02-05/covid-19-vaccines-do-they-prevent-coronavirus-transmission/13121348?fbclid=IwAR0zWol-KyzrTJjFxQSl2gG0VRE50VAcQD2GZi2B-iRcNZ8zVTBT_NABv-s

The vaccine may not be at 100% by then. The Pfizer (which I got) is supposed to be partly effective 2 weeks after shot 1 but I do not know when maximum immunity is achieved after shot 2 (mine is < 1week :->>). Good luck!!!!

The second pair was shot at f/22 in the creek that is just a few meters from where I took the previous shot. The water is even shallower. You can see the affect of the curved field on the rock in the foreground on the left side of the frame - more in focus toward the center of the frame (where the spruce needle is located on the rock). Pair same as above - one with corrections and one without. WP is allowing me to upload only one shot......:-<<<< Conclusion: f/22 is still marginal. Tom

I did some test shots with the 14mm Nikkor D-AF lens a few months ago - the sun finally came out but the salmon were done so I had to do something useful with the weather!! I used a standard Seacam Superdome for these images. There are special versions (with larger throats and matching PVLs) for larger diameter lenses. The first pair is in a nearby lake shot at f/16. One is with and the other without lens corrections for the lens in Lightroom (proper lens automatically gets picked if tiny box is clicked). The water was too shallow to submerge the dome all the way and am pointing the camera so as to not be shooting straight into the sun. Location is on the north shore of the lake making this challenging. Marginal at f/16 is my conclusion. Tom

Good, I had not see the shutter longevity specs. Now for N and C to get similar shutters. There was a time when shutters were made by separate companies, e.g., Copal. Not sure now. This could affect availability to N and C if they bought their shutters.

Being long in the tooth I remember when top shutter speeds went from 1/1000 to 1/2000s with concomitant increases in flash synch speed. In the case of Nikon it went from 1/60 in the F to 1/80 in the F2. This was due to how fast the shutter curtains traveled across the frame during the exposure. The flash synched only for speeds when the shutter was completely open. Faster shutter speeds were (and are) achieved by having a slit move across the film or sensor. The slit is narrower for higher speeds. So to get a 1/400s synch the shutter is moving much faster than previous shutters - the question from me is how will this affect their longevity? Many of us now may shoot many more frames than with film on a given shoot, e.g., 1 dive, and have camera bodies with actuation counts in the 100s of thousands. I have one with >1 million but the shutter was replaced. If the new shutter is still as robust I am all in :->>>>. My understanding of the E shutter (and video) and its phenomenon of rolling shutter is because the readout is not simultaneous. I gather with the A1 that 1/200s is how long it takes to read the data off the sensor in video/E-shutter mode. PS. the above pertains to electronic flash and not flash bulbs!!!!

Pawel Achtel has been posting MTF analyses of the RS 13mm on FB. https://www.facebook.com/groups/260603000686027/user/1048959671

Very sad state of affairs and a good reason to avoid apps. PDFs seem to last a long time - I have a number of now multi-decade-old scientific publication pdfs (they started during the 90s) that can still be read. BTW I have the 3-volume tone. It is close to 1000 pages and weighs a bit. Probably the best resource for fishes of the region. Invertebrates might be a tougher nut to crack - the now 25 year old Coral Reef Animals of the Indo-Pacific by Gosliner et al. is a good place to start. There has been a lot of taxonomic revision since then .... One could go to Google with a genus name...

One has to define "catch" - I assumed, maybe incorrectly, the literal meaning. One could catch the virus (have it enter ones body) but not get sick but be able to transmit it and possibly test positive per Bill. One has to have a contingency plan for testing positive on arrival (negative on departure). One of the first positive cases where I live in bush Alaska was for a fish processing plant employee who tested negative in Seattle then positive here.

Being an aging boomer I received my first shot and am expecting the second in a fortnight. I suspect I will do my first post covid trip to HI which can be done on a much shorter lead time compared to overseas. There already is some travel to HI but with a lot of hoops to jump through. Will be more challenging coming from the bush which is my case. If one has immunity from the vaccine and catches the virus will that show up as a positive (from testing) and if so for how long and is the lag time (post infection) before positivity different? May take a while before these questions can be answered. If the body's immune system is attacking the virus is there enough to be detectable by a test? Other potential issues relate to the recently reported mutant forms (UK, S. Africa, and US) of the covid virus...

Very happy to see the return of this topic! My fave reflects my long-term salmon project that was influenced more by the weather that was excessively wet in 2020 and poor salmon runs than by covid. I took this shot during one of the few and short sunny spells in early July before any salmon had returned to this stream. I used a lens that I had used for this same purpose (juvenile salmon) but with film back in the 90s, the Nikonos RS 28mm. This was one of the lenses that Harald H brought with him to DEMA in '19 following the SEACAM mdification. I have used several other lenses for a similar purpose but was challenged by the nature of underwater optics. This lens has a much flatter field as well as being a sharper water-contact lens. Its small size also helped as the lens was not completely submerged due to the shallow water depth. Rocks on the bottom (get in the way) did not help either.

Alex, it would be interesting to see a similar analysis and graph done for a fisheye lens.

A 50-120mm full-frame macro zoom might compel me to house the camera to go with it even if it meant changing brands! As for high ISO I use it quite a bit. I did a Lightroom search for Canon 1DX underwater images and reproduce a segment (to keep the pixel count down) of the screen here. 12800 is ISO #1 and 6400 is ISO #2 followed by ISO 6400, 3200, and 5000. I wonder how much of the EVF contrast issue is due to using 8-bit jpegs for the image. Low bit count is needed for a fast refresh rate - I have seen the stroboscopic effect one gets from this from screen refreshings in two situations (Nikon Z6): 1. a fast pan such as moving the camera rather fast L-R, and 2. shooting a propeller aircraft (seen it both with fixed wing and helicopters as there is a gravel runway airport between one of my salmon streams and home used by both types).

I have shot the 10.5 mm Nikkor fisheye lens "properly" mounted behind the hemispherical Seacam Fisheye Macro Port and Seacam Fisheye Port as well as "improperly" mounted segment-dome Seacam Superdome SD. The SD is far better even with just 12 megapixels (D2X).

Does Retra make the adapter for the Hasselblad bulkhead? If so it is news to me. I presently have two copies of the adapter for S6 bulkheads. I have found them to be rather unreliable due to the design of the connection between the adapter and the fiber optic cable (discussed in another thread). I have had to carry an allen wrench with me to my shoots and have had to re-terminate the connection several times using the wrench to loosen and then tighten the repaired FO. Not practical IMHO for scuba diving.