Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Tom_Kline

  1. Thanks for the compliment. No on the WACP as it is a non-Seacam solution. I am not sure what I would do starting over. Since it is apparent that we are at the start of a new paradigm, i.e., mirrorless for all major brands, this is particularly challenging. My gear collection is largely a result of the last 15 years of digital history and no real planning on my part. Correct on army brat.
  2. Where did the 28mm value in the first sentence come from? The Nikonos 15mm is like a 20mm lens behind a dome as you stated further up. It looks like Pawel's shot is a bit back focused, corals slightly back are sharper than the ones lit. Maybe not the best example to make his point. Ian is correct about the old Nikonos mount; one has to avoid putting side pressure on a lens with a moment arm longer than ~ the 35mm lens, e.g., this applies when using extension tubes. Back in the day I would take an NIII with the 28mm lens with me in my BC pocket with no problems from giant striding in.
  3. John, Yes I remember Dick Tracy which I read almost daily in the Stars and Stripes newspaper in Germany as a child 50 years ago! Adam reported elsewhere that the minimum working distance of the WACP is zero whereas it is about a foot or so with the 20-35 (my recollection from film days). Therefore one might be able to get a slightly better fish portrait of a small fish with the WACP but this needs to be confirmed in a pool test with something like the rubber duck in: That said I think this answer is academic as really neither lens will be good for a portrait of a small reef fish which are better shot with a 50 to 200 mm macro lens with optimum focal length being inversely proportional to fish size. They are OK for larger fish as well as schools of fish. I got in a manta at a cleaning station with the RS lens at 20. I did manage to chop of part of a wing in a few shots so wider could have been even better. https://www.salmonography.com/Aloha/Hawaiian-cleaning-symbioses/i-mSDXvcV/A Tom
  4. I have been using the Z6 for nearly a year and have found the focusing to be quite good, maybe even better than my D3X. It is challenging to make direct comparisons; for example, one should have 2 copies of the same Nikon AF lens, which I do not have. The Z6 worked very well in near darkness with the only lights being Christmas lights. As well, the viewfinder is much brighter than an SLR; basically it is a form of night vision. It would be interesting to see how this works under water with color being off. I would not be surprised if one could dispense with a focusing light during day dives which may be needed in shaded spots. Another advantage is being able to move the AF points around beyond the central area (applies to FF). I generally use 1 point AF which seems the fastest probably because it uses less computing power. That said I believe Canon and Nikon could have done much better AFwise. This might require more computing power (2nd CPU?) which could drain batteries even more. I am waiting to see what their pro sports mirrorless cameras turn out to be. Hopefully they will have batteries with a far higher CPA rating as well.
  5. I have wondered about this myself. Looks like the shade comes off but I have not seen what it looks like after this. It would be cool if one could swap out the front glass oneself to enable field repair assuming one had a spare on hand. A new cycle of cameras are due starting with the 1Dx3 and D6. We do not know at this time whether there will be a new 5D as well. If so this would be a good upgrade for you in a year or so that would work with your WACP. I would wait to see what the 1D equivalent mirrorless turns out to be before switching to Sony especially if you have a lot of EF glass.
  6. John, I have a Seacam modified 20-35 and shot the 20-35 as well with film "back in the day" with the RS. The minimum focusing distance of the lens is 0.38m which limits how much "reach" one will get at 35mm if I understand your use of this term. Filling the frame with something small? I use the lens mainly at 20mm but do have a few at 35mm on my website from HI. Such as this one: https://www.salmonography.com/Aloha/Hawaiian-Invertebrates/i-ktJSpXN/A I do not know if this was shot at minimum focus distance or not but probably not as I did not want collide with lava rock as I was drifting along the backwall of Molokini! The Pencil Urchin is fairly large but there is a smaller species above it. The images to right of this are also with this RS lens. The exif data report it as the 16mm fisheye but this is incorrect. The focal length, however, is correct. Exif data can be seen my clicking on the three-line symbol below the arrowhead symbol in the upper left as seen on a computer. To properly answer your question likely requires using the RS lens side by side with the WACP in a controlled situation such as a pool like Alex Mustard did in his excellent video on dome ports. A point he makes in it is that some wide angle options limit ones ability to get close to a subject because the optics get in the way, hence the need for the 10cm/4" macro domes. Maybe the answer to your question is "none of the above" like in multiple choice questions ;->> Tom
  7. ULCS sells grips that go in the round hole. Possible to put one on each side. One can be lower than the other - good for even more accessories to go on top and not be too high.
  8. Stephen Frink did some extensive testing of the 17-40 Canon lens as well as other lenses a few years ago. See results here: https://www.seacamusa.com/uncategorized/lens-testing-underwater-use/ and https://www.seacamusa.com/lenses-ports-domes/canon-16-35mm-ii-lens-test/ The super dome he used has counterparts in most underwater housing systems - the glass part may be made by one company. Note that both the 35-40 and 16-35 lenses that were tested have been replaced by much better lenses. As well, the relatively new Sea and Sea Internal Correction Lens is a game changer for this using type of lens (there are several threads on Wetpixel about this lens). Also on Wetpixel - there are a lot of threads on the 17-40 going way back as this was popular lens because of its cost.
  9. I bought a Seacam Pro VF from Ian Marsh from this ad: This was an excellent transaction. Great communication. The VF arrived very promptly and well packed. I would buy from Ian again. Thank you Ian! Tom
  10. I am seeing it OK in subsequent posts. The arrows (left and right) are below the level of the reply box. Maybe need to scroll down a wee bit more?
  11. Correct. If the subject is centered and has just water as a background one can use a larger aperture. Out of focus blue is not so noticeable.
  12. This is due to the curvature of the virtual image generated by a dome port. Basically you are trying to focus on the inside surface of a large bowl. Stopping a lens down increases depth of field increasing the chance of getting the sides of the bowl in focus.
  13. Nice shot, working for me too! Hint for newbies - click on a person's avatar to see this.
  14. The 25cm is minimum focus distance and not working distance. Measured from the image plane. Need to subtract the length of the lens plus the back focus aka registration distance from 25cm to get to working distance which will be very close.
  15. https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/discover New link for recent topics works for me!
  16. I guess we need to actually use WP to find the issues. Did find signature editing a second ago!
  17. Maybe that is why signatures are missing, just now noticed by me after making a post on another thread. PS. Signature suddenly appeared! Did NOT see signature editing in my profile a minute ago.
  18. This is a lens for some mirrorless cameras and maybe even some dSLRs in live view, e.g., Nikon Z6 which compensates for darkness in the VF rather nicely. The video shows the lens elements moving inside a fixed length barrel and confirms a bellows extension effect by change in exposure (See Chris' post above). Looks sharp but one must NOT stop sown very much at 2:1!! A manual focusing ring might cost as much as half the cost of the lens so needs to be considered.
  19. Table at the end is OK but not clear if the listed Seacam strobes are the more recent ones with a D in the name or the older ones without (as listed). Scott's table would be more clear if it included beginning and ending years for each model. Good having older ones listed as well for reference.
  20. The "topics" box (lower right) contains just a few and does not seem to be bookmarkable. Not a satisfactory replacement in my book.
  21. I am not seeing a reply to thread so started this new one (green button obvious). Also I cannot find a recent topics button. Using Firefox on a Mac. Tom PS I just now did see a reply to topic (green button) on a thread started by Interceptor but still am not seeing one in this topic or Adam's in the announcement forum. Hence I am using edit.
  22. A candidate: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/ultra-wide (weitwinkel)-zoom/ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm My understanding is that this lens is used by vid makers to deal with the crop factors of DSLRs when used for vids.
  23. Good point! I use a 5 degree Inon light for looking around and a moderate wide angle light for focusing (AF on a DSLR). The 5 degree light also works well for daytime dives for looking in crevices, under overhangs etc.
  24. I have the S&S 250 as well as the older Z220s. I also have the Seacam strobes (250D, 150D, and 60D) and have used just one of these strobes to successfully light up fisheye shots to the corners which is not possible with the others. Used diffusers for all shots. So I concur with post 25. IMHO it is end results that count, not wall test shots!!
  • Create New...