Jump to content

Storker

Member
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Storker

  1. I've bought a cheap soft cooling bag which I use as my "camera bag" for diving. Between dive trips, I remove the camera from the housing, take out the batteries from the strobes, store all my UW photo gear in the cooling bag together with the rest of my diving gear, and store my UW camera together with my topside camera gear.
  2. Option G: "Yes, dear... Uh, did I remember to tell you that I think you'd look fabulous in those shoes you told me you wanted? Why don't you go an buy them, I'd really like to see you in them"
  3. On the Mk1, it's under Shooting menu 1 -> Reset/Myset. -- Typed on an on-screen keyboard with [-]autocorrupt[/-] autocorrect and sent from my Android device. Typos are a feature, not a bug.
  4. My dome port has built-in shades. I actually believed that that was standard...
  5. That's basically what I was afraid of. I've been using the 8/3.5 almost exclusively since I bought it, but I guess I'll just have to go back to using the 9-18 when the viz really sucks and I want WA instead of CFWA and semi-CFWA. 8+8" arms are out of the question; the main reason I chose a micro four thirds system was because it's noticeably more compact than a dSLR system.
  6. Hm, OK. I guess it's hard to beat physics. I'll try looking into that, cheers! Cool pic, BTW. The wolffish is usually rather docile, particularly the larger specimens. It's not uncommon that divers can pet them as the lie on the bottom. Unless you're into spearfishing, that is. They don't particularly appreciate being speared and can become a bit PO'd about that
  7. I've had my fisheye lens for about a year now, and I did anticipate a bit of a learning curve going from a rectilinear WA zoom to FE. But now I'm getting a little annoyed. My CFWAs turn out decently after a few tries to position the strobes correctly (arms tucked a bit in, strobes behind the housing and angled a bit outwards). However, I struggle to find a good position for the strobes for WA shots at a little distance. Most shots come out with very visible backscatter on the sides, like the beam of a flashlight in heavy fog. My diving is generally in half-decent to poor-ish viz (typically 4 to 8 meters), so it might just be that the water is too murky for that kind of shots, but I'm not quite ready to give up. Tips are appreciated. BTW, my setup is: Olympus OM-D E-M5 in a Nauticam NA-EM5 housing, Flexitray with two handles Panasonic 8mm/3.5 in the Nauticam 4.33" dome port Two Inon Z240 with stock diffusers on 5" + 7" arms
  8. Are you comfortable with a drysuit? Most Norwegian divers dive dry, and you might have issues finding a suitable wetsuit for rent. Expect seeing more bottom life (anemones, soft coral, crustaceans) and less free-swimming fish than in the typical warm water dive.
  9. I've used the 4" semidome with my 9-18, since that's what Nauticam recommended when I got my kit. There are some corner sharpness issues, though.
  10. You're assuming that the system is based on logic. Much to learn you have, young Padawan.
  11. I use a similar one, but with a boltsnap at each end. And two clamps with shackles. -- Typed on an on-screen keyboard with [-]autocorrupt[/-] autocorrect and sent from my Android device. Typos are a feature, not a bug.
  12. Yup. I was rather polite in my reply, though, and managed to avoid asking them to send me a large package of their product, free of charge, but I'd promise to tell all my friends about where I'd gotten the stuff from. Even if I was quite tempted... You see that kind of tactic more and more, and it riles me up ever so slightly. There are some good photogs out there trying to make a living, and giving decent stuff away for free is basically depriving them of their income. I have no problems if one of my pics could beat the pro on quality; any pro needs competition to stay sharp. Non-profit I'm fine with; I've taken quite a few pics for my kids' sports club and only asked to be credited. I'm happy with that, since they're a non-profit organization and just can't afford a pro. OTOH, if someone wants to use my stuff to make money for themself, I want a piece of the cake. Somewhat related joke:
  13. Thanks, that was really helpful! It turned out they wanted extensive use (magazine ads, own website, social media, so something worth in the order of 150€ according to alamy.com) and were offering only being credited with the image. So they basically wanted free advertisement material. And they claimed that other photogs already had accepted that "offer". I turned it down...
  14. After reading the review here on Wetpixel, I decided to pre-order the book on Amazon. Being located in Europe, I found it easier to shop through Amazon UK rather than order directly from Alex. I assume it'll be a nice complement to Martin Edge's The Underwater Photographer.
  15. Today I logged in to flickr and found a mail asking about using one of my pictures for marketing since it showed a species of seaweed that one of the company's products is based on. I checked the company (pretty easy, since the email address was on the company's domain), and although I don't much believe in the product they're not running a total snake oil scheme scamming money out of poor and/or sick people. So, I don't have any serious ethical objections to them using my picture to sell stuff. What I don't have the slightest idea about is what's "normal" pricing for this kind of stuff. From the company's domain name, it's located in the UK in case that affects pricing. I'm thinking about reserving my copyright and only allowing use for a specific purpose, with other use to be re-negotiated, so that will probably also affect the pricing. So, given those constraints, what would be a decent price and/or starting point for haggling price? BTW, this is the picture:
  16. Is it your strobe that's underexposed, or the ambient? -- Typed on an on-screen keyboard with [-]autocorrupt[/-] autocorrect and sent from my Android device. Typos are a feature, not a bug.
  17. I use a spiral line tether like this. However, since I personally don't like tiny carabiners (they're a PITA to operate with thick three-fingers or drygloves), I've bought a large bolt snap (the same type that's used for rigging stage bottles) and switched the carabiner with it. I had to borrow my wife's sewing machine to fix it properly, though.The bolt snap goes onto my left hip D-ring, the other end of the tether goes on the bottom of my (Nauticam) tray. I've also tied another, standard sized, bolt snap to the top of my rig, and on shore entries it's clipped to my left shoulder D-ring. The whole rig hangs pretty much like a stage bottle. That works for me.
  18. The 7-14 is generally considered to be better than the 9-18, and the extra two mm at the wide end really make a difference. On the other hand, one of the main reasons I went for an m43 system instead of a dSLR was size. So mounting the 6" semidome or a huge FE dome sort of negates that advantage of m43. Which is also the reason that the 8mm/1.8 FE or the new f/2.8 zooms never have been an alternative for me. The 9-18, even with its limitations, is quite compact and the fairly small 4" semi and the 4.33" dome make for a decently-sized rig. The 3.5" dome even more so. Me, I prefer the extra two mm at the long end instead of the wide end for multipurpose shooting. If I want to go really wide, I'll use my 8mm FE. Find what fits your needs and your style. It may not be the same solution that fits other photogs best.
  19. Well, at 9mm the corner sharpness sucks. At more or less every aperture. Also, the corner distortion of a so wide rectilinear WA can be annoying for some subjects. The corner sharpness can be greatly improved by zooming to ~12mm or by adding a - preferably achromatic - +2 dry diopter to the lens before closing the housing. I've chosen the latter approach and have posted a test here sometime in the past. This isn't an issue which is particular to the 9-18. It's a fundamental optical issue for more or less any rectilinear extreme WA behind a dome (i.e. not flat) port. OTOH, you lose some 25% of FOV if you use a flat port, so it's up to you to decide on your priorities and choose your subjects so your images don't suffer too much from the limitations of your optics. I prefer WA shooting, so I basically use either the 9-18 or the 8mm/3.5. Both have their pros and cons. -- Sent from my Android phone Typos are a feature, not a bug
  20. Thanks. I have enough issues with the 9-18 behind the 4" semi (although not enough to make me give it up), so I guess that idea goes in the bin. -- Sent from my Android phone Typos are a feature, not a bug
  21. So, with the motivation to reduce the amount of gear to schlep on travel and vacations, I started wondering about ways to reduce the amount of camera stuff to carry. I like to switch between the Olympus 9-18 for general shooting and the Panasonic 8/3.5 FE for CFWA/WA stuff. Problem is, they require two different ports. But since Nauticam makes these nifty extension rings, I was wondering if anyone has tried the 4.33" dome, maybe with a 20 or 30mm extension ring, with the 9-18. Or will the curvature of the 4.33" dome make this a hopeless idea? I could try, of course. But I'm not very motivated to buy at least one of those extension rings just to try it out, so it'd be nice to know if anyone has tried it.
  22. Well, my flash system was two Z240s, so that wasn't too bad. The challenge was that my diving torch had to double as a focus light. -- Sent from my Android phone Typos are a feature, not a bug
  23. Last weekend we did a night dive to look for the Rabbit fish (Chimaera monstrosa). It's a deep water species which you have a decent chance of seeing around here, since it for some reason likes to come up to rec depths in our waters. Particularly during late fall and particularly at night. Conditions were demanding, with lots of clay particles in the top layer and less than 1m viz at the surface. The bottom was very silty, fine clay with pebbles, so you hugging the bottom to get a good angle usually had catastrophic consequences for the local viz. To top it off, I don't have a red focus light (yet, but Christmas is right around the corner), so I struggled with hotspots from my diving light. Some of the pictures had heavy hotspots and a -3EV brush was necessary to tone them down. I'd appreciate feedback on a few pictures that turned out not too bad (click for the large version):
  24. I always use single point focus, whether topside or UW. If your point of interest is off-center, you can move the focus point, use focus-recompose or crop in post to get your desired composition. Topside I use CF with the focus decoupled from the shutter (one button on the back of the body is programmed to activate AF), UW I've found that single focus on the shutter works best for me. -- Sent from my Android phone Typos are a feature, not a bug
  25. So, I'm still in the steep, very early part of the learning curve when it comes to video. I'm primarily a still photog, but since I wanted to have a little video from my dives as well, I've gone and mounted a GoPro Hero4 on top of my EM-5 rig. So far I've been shooting 2.7k30, protune, native color balance and flat tone curve to have maximum latitude for adjustments in post. Editing/post-production is in Premiere Elements 13, and I like to insert stills into the edited video. Here's my third attempt at UW videoing and editing. It's from a weekend trip last week, to the coast of middle Norway. Any constructive feedback would be appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...