Marcelo Krause

Hi With VR headsets becoming increasingly more popular, I am having difficulties to find available UW solutions for shooting in 3D VR180 formats . Apparently the best performance for the money will be the Canon EOS R5 with the Canon RF 5.2 mm F2.8 L dual fisheye lens. But as far as I know there is no UW housing solution for this. Any other suggestions? Thanks Marcelo Krause

Just out of curiosity, when the TTL converter board communicates with the camera, can it get information on what aperture the camera is set like the SB-900 can? focal distance? It would be nice if the user could create a "custom TTL profile" on the converter based on his equipment/preferences... Regards Marcelo.

So far my experience is this Set the converter to S&S YS-D1. At F4 no compensation was needed At F8 something around +1.5 At F16/22 something around +2 or even more depending on the subject. Of course those are initial impressions, I will need more time using then to assert that.

It’s Retra UWT https://apps.apple.com/br/app/retra-uwt/id1472741374

Just got mine today in Switzerland. They seem and feel very solid. Nice compact size. I already download the app in my iPhone. Hopefully I will be able to test them in 2 weeks or so.

What are the main main differences between a 12 inch and a 16.8 inch dome port, in terms of optical performance? Regards Marcelo

I use a D800 and D850 underwater and had used a D500 for topside for a few years. Others have made some very compelling arguments on what path to take...I will add just a few quick notes. 1- the difference in price between D850 and D500 when you look at the big picture (housing+ports+WACP+lenses) is to small, IMHO, to choose one instead of another. 2 - D850 can be used in "DX" mode with almost the same resolution as a D500, and use DX lenses setup. 3- the main difference between D850 and D500 is resolution and about 1 stop less noise regarding ISO. Depends on how big you print or how much you crop. 4 - If you use a DX system I suggest looking at the Sigma 17-70. By far the most versatile lens I used underwater, and if you keep it at F8 and smaller, gives you great image quality. You won´t need a WACP. Having said that, I think mirrorless cameras (of any brand) will be the future. If you will start a new system from zero, I would consider a mirrorless camera. I don´t know much about Sony, but would look carefully into that if were starting something from zero today. Nikon is rumored to announce a new camera (60mpx) until the end of the year. And I would chose Z7 over D850 (even if D850 is a better camera) and start building a lens setup on Nikkor Z lenses. Best regards and good luck Marcelo

With my sample of the 28-70 I would avoid anything wider than F5.6 whem zoomed at 70mm. F5.6 is ok, F8 preferable.

I´ve just became aware of a "new" Photoshop feature called "Adobe Camera Raw Enhance Details" According to Petapixel "Adobe claims that Enhance Details increases the resolution of both Bayer and X-Trans sensor cameras by up to 30%, improving both the fine detail rendering and the reproduction of fine colors." I am struggling to see any difference in my files (Nikon D850), let alone a 30% increase in resolution. Has anyone have a different experience? Any tips on how it would be more effective? Thanks Marcelo Krause

yes, I would say that even zoomed in, It may be a little to wide for shy sharks. But I don´t see much options. If you were only shooting shy sharks, I would say that the 24-70 and a big dome would be a better choice. But for general use, I think 24mm is not wide enough. Plus, the lens won´t focus on the dome (very close). But if they are developing a WACP version 2 I would wait for more news on that, as it may fit different lenses. Marcelo

I did some testing this past weekend for my own. Not very technical, but here are my very initial impressions: Zoom Range The WACP+28-70 combination will give you a bigger zoom range, it is wider and and will have a little more reach. Don´t know the exact numbers, but that is the impression that I´ve got Distortion At close distances on the wider end: The 16-35 have a strong pincushion distortion The WACP has more of a fisheye kind of distortion that I think it is more pleasant, but that's personal taste. At medium to long distances at wide end The 16-35 has less distortion, keeping straight lines more in shape. More rectilinear. The WACP maintain it´s fisheye kind of distortion At the zoom end Both lenses have little distortion. Sharpness At the very center they are similar along the zoom and aperture range. At close distances on the wider end: I would avoid using the 16-35 wider than F8 (F11. F16 and F22 are preferable, F8 the limit). The corners are not sharp at F5.6 and F4. I would say the corners on the WACP are sharper than on the 16-35 on every aperture. I would use it until F4, maybe F3.5 in an emergency( the image becomes softer overall). F8 to F16 gives the best results. At medium distances on the wider end: The advantage of the WACP corner sharpness is still there, but less noticeable. I would use F8 on the 16-35 more comfortably , specially on open water subjects. At medium distances at the zoom end The overall feeling is that the WACP advantage becomes more noticeable at the corner of the images as apertures get wider. Buy not as a strong difference as it is at close focus on the wider end. I would avoid using the WACP at F4.5. at 70mm and 16-35 at F5.6 and F4 I use the 9,25in dome port for the 16-35. I don't have the sea sea correction lens. People are claiming a 2 stops sharpness increase. If that's true I would not use the 16-35 without it. About the WACP The nikon 28-70 is not a very good lens on land. At wider apertures it is specially bad. Lots of CA and softness. At F8 I would say it is very good. How the lens delivers a very nice performance with the WACP underwater is beyond my understanding. CA is almost gone. I brought the WACP for mainly two reasons: The first, I am doing some kind of pictures that required a lens that has a zoom range, that is not ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel), is capable of very close focus (at the dome) and would have good corner to corner sharpness. The second would be to use a fast aperture lens underwater with sharpness (Converted 13mm RS would be another option) I can use the 28mmF1.8 at F2 or F2.8 and have a very good image (when focused at infinity). Even at f1.8, i consider it produce acceptable images. Flare On rare occasions, with the lens pointed at the sun. the WACP would produce a flare that is very visible at the image. It must me a very specific angle/position because other images with a very similar framing/composition did not have any flare. WACP negative points: price: it is very very expensive. Size/weight: with almost 4KG it is as heavy as the housing+camera. With airlines restrictions going tighter every day that is for me a major drawback. It can not do split shots ( it can if you modify some o-rings from what i've read, but i haven't tried) It has a shade, but i would say that the front element is more exposed that i wished Long term use will produce a more useful opinion. Regards Marcelo

Party is over. The $60 Amazon Cloud unlimited annual plan is dead. Just realized today when I tried to upload some videos. Now I have to delete all my backup data that I took years to upload. Wondering when they will do the same with the unlimited photo storage. Any suggestions for cloud storage? Thanks Marcelo

Thanks!!! Looking foward to read your comments!!!

Hi I need to buy some new lights for use with my DSLR with WA and during daytime. I have seem the Keldan Luna 8 in action and liked very much. Unfortunately a pair of those is too expensive for me right now. Have anyone used the new Luna 4 V? How does it compare to the higher end model or the competition? Any input is most welcome. Thanks, Marcelo Krause

Thanks...I am new to video. I did a few quick edits with iMovie and upgraded to FCP X when it was released. I used the program for the first time last week. I followed a friend's advice to set the D7000 to low contrast/low saturation in order to capture the best dynamic range. It turns out that all my footage looks washed out (as expected...). When I imported then into FCP X they became vibrant and with contrast (as seen at the little FCPX preview window...). So I thought that FCP X should be doing some black magic mambo jambo and tried to fix all the color and contrast automatically. I did all the editing and when I exported the movie...surprise, surprise, the colors were all washed out again. I called my friend and he said that the little window in FCP should not be used as a color reference and that I should have and external video monitor to review the results. I skipped the external monitor option and spend a few mornings tweaking the adjustments on FCP X to match the exported movie "look " to the one I was seeing on the preview window. So here are my color correction settings: Saturation overall +30%, shadow exposure -10%, highlight exposure +5% and on top of that I have set gamma on compressor to 1.5 But remember that I started from a very low contrast/ low saturation clip. I had another problem. I added a soundtrack from iTunes. The song when played in iTunes was fine. When I played it in the FCP timeline it was fine. BUT when I exported the movie there was an annoying tic tic tic tic during the whole song. I spent hours trying to fix the problem, changed songs and etc...Finally called my friend again. He said that only AIFF and WAV files worked on FCP. I said "you are wrong, I imported a mp3 file and it accepted ". He advised me to convert the file to AIFF in QuickTime Pro and add the converted file to the soundtrack. And the tic tic tic was indeed gone. Marcelo