Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by vbpress

  1. I've some problems with the push button on the back of my S&S MDX D300, but only using the Sigma 8-16. For this lens I use a zoom ring modified to fit the body lens, so the problem is link to the particular configuration. But I recognized that S&S have a very very little tolerance in the camera position inside the housing. Have you removed the plastic rear display cover from the camera body, and the rubber eyepiece too? This is very important to make a correct "accommodation" of the camera inside the housing. bye
  2. Hi Jack, 70mm are good for the 16-35 but probably are quite long for 17-35. As I said, I tried 40 mm with the Sea&Sea 240mm acrylic dome, and the results are good. The New Sea&Sea lens chart suggest 80mm for the 16-35, and (you know) the 17-35 is shorter than the 16-35. So I think that 50-60mm are the good compromise. Last week I purchased the 20mm extension and, as soon as possible, I'll use the 40+20+Dome 240 with the 17-35 on my S&S MDX D800. Now I'm fighting with the second strobe connections ... bye
  3. Well, I've looked in the Leo Lens Chart for Nikon. Yes Easydive produce a 9" acrylic dome port, but the lens chart suggest the use only with fisheye full frame lenses (and the old AF 14mm). Mmmmm ... no indication about 9" acrylic dome uses with rectilinear wide angle zoom (for instance the 16-35), further Easydive tells to housing wide angle zoom with the optical crystal dome plus exensions. Lens chart of all other manufacturers gives clear indications about this applications. by
  4. Damselfish, I'm not a regular fisheye user, I prefer rectilinear wide angle lenses and in this applications DX give some advantages. Obviously FX sensor are more efficient in terms of ISO, and Gamma, that the reason of my S&S MDX D800 + extensions and dome port for Nikon 17-35. Furthermore, normally DX camera are less bigger than the FX which means more compact housing (is a great skill when you package the equipment). Today the photography community looks to Olympus OEM-D System with increasing interest. Housing manufacturer started to build housing for the newest Olympus and I believe that 4/3 format System will give new great opportunities to the users. I've just to say only one thing more: I make shot by FOW not by FL, the first imposes the second not the contrary (sorry for my bad bad english ... ) by
  5. hi, I suggest you to consider the natural maximization of deep of field offered by DX format, especially using wide angle lenses. Look the fantastic manattee pictures by Carol Grant (and her great blog). FX format give better performance in large print (thinking about D800) and normally give more hight ISO quality and large tonal gamma (larger than any DX sensor). But I believe that the increasing deep of field is the true DX skill, very very usefully inside the water! If you want to have an idea of what I'm talking to, take a look here bye
  6. hi guis, the converter port is dedicated to S&S converter, connecting directly a strobe can cause a damage to the strobe (or to the control circuit inside the housing). But you can make e "modification", simply bypassing the electronic circuit that connect the port converter to the hot shoe camera plug in. It means to realize a "parallel" connection absolutely equivalent to the non-converted plug. Ok, I've a MDX – D300 and I use the S&S Y cable to connect a couple of YS120 to the housing. In other words I haven't tried the customization, but I believe that it can be done! The true disadvantage using the Y cable is the short length of the cable branches. I don't know why S&S doesn't purchase a really long Y cable. On my MDX D800 there is the same problem, but (worst) S&S on MDX D800 allow to mount only one connector (sold as spare part ….grrrr). In the next months I'll try to solve this trouble (I'd like to mount a second flash connector using the closed hole on housing top...), if you are interested to I'll keep you posted on the developments bye
  7. Yes is normal for Sea&Sea Housing-ports bye
  8. I've made some experiments using Sea&Sea acrylic Dome 8.5-9" + ER 40 on MDX D800 . I've recognized some corner distortions but I think that the global quality will be improved simply adding 20mm further on the extension ring. I believe that using Zen 230 you have to use the same thick extension ring (60mm) and this is more important than any diopter corrections. Obviously you have to forgot the 25cm 17-35 MDF . This the price to pay, but the 17-35 can give you great quality pictures and without diopter you'll not lost the ability to shot up-above water images. by
  9. Hy guys, this summer in 12th August in Playa de la Ventana, Tamarindo Costa Rica, my following gear was stolen: Nikon D800: sn 6100236 Nikon D700: sn 2090942 Nikon AF-S 60/2.8 Micro: sn 2017718 Nikon AF-S 17-35/2.8 ED: sn 211636 Look around you, most probably this gear will be available soon in the South American used market. Check the serial numbers before buying!! Bye.
  10. Ok, thank you Alex!! I'm happy to know that, so I can prevent a dive with a wrong tool. You know, it is very annoying to discover that only at the end of the dive! thanks a lot
  11. Sometime on the web we read a lot of strange indications, and sometime I think that there are a lot of people that love the newest without a critical approach to the real necessity. In my personal experience the NiKon AF 20/2.8 on D3-D700 camera sensor is a good tool, in terms of optical performance. The difference is about AF performance, it's absolutely obvious that the oldest lens offer a very slow focus speed (and sometime a non particular precise focusing, but we talk about a wide lens intrinsically "field deeper" ) So, next week probably I'll be able to measure a real difference between the lenses 20/2.8 AF, 17-35/2.8 and, more, 8-16 Sigma on MDX D800 with big acrylic Sea&Sea Fisheye Dome port. It should be an answer to the original question, but honestly I've preferred to read here some indications (I'm a bad tester). by
  12. Hi Claudio, we have to menage the same problems ... I've made some shot with my oldest Nikon AF 20/2.8 (non D) on Nikon D800, and they are quite good. But the significative comparison is with 17-35/2.8, or the newest 16-35/4 (but I've only the first), in a housing system with a huge dome port. I'm very interested about this argument too. by
  13. Thank You Hakan! Great flash strobe. Now I need a second housing and THE SEA !!!! by
  14. I use it in my sea&sea MDx D300 housing with Fisheye dome port (acrylic 240mm) Is a good lens, great deep of field and very funny by
  15. I'd like to bought both the flashes, but probably is too late ... by
  16. Hi guys, most probably EasyDive is trying to improving his dome choice. The follows images are from the EudiShow in Milan, last February. But I think that's still a work around by
  17. Great John! Your is a witty and not obvious notice thanks
  18. Yes, I'm referring to Nikon 60/2.8 AF-S. Sorry! The 60 AF-S is an internal focusing lens and it has a very fast auto focusing skill, more faster than the 105 AF-s VR. Obviously 60 is too short focal on FX format by
  19. I agree with you about the 20mm view, but 20mm need a very, very huge dome port to obtain clear air - water line. I'm not sure but I think that the biggest dome port on market today is the Subal 10", and I don't know if 10" is enough for the task. Fish eye is the last resort, . Alex Mustard, few months ago, have published a double page picture on BBC Wildlife magazine which show a "half water" view of a British's seal with a clear cliff in the background. Is a Fisheye picture but Mustard have used the lens in the best way minimizing the spherical distortion. A great picture! I'm saying that also fisheye can be a serious option but I prefer rectilinear wide angle lens view. Unfortunately I haven't any seals to frame in my camera.... So, to reach the effect I've tried with DX, super wide rectilinear lens and big dome port. It's a compromise, but it's still a work around of mine. by
  20. I want to say only one thing Nikon 60 Micro have a amazing AF speed, which 105 don't have. This skill means that is possible to catch fast moving subject and maintaining it in focus. I realized that trying to shot a close image of a little fresh water jellyfish (7-10mm length) in open water. Super fast 60 micro AF make it possible. Yes of course 60 on DX is the best, on FX is not enough long. I'm waiting for a 105 micro with the same 60 AF speed ! by
  21. Boris, I suggest you to contact the Italians Isottta (Isotecnic). They have realized a very large port mount, and probably is enough to fit the zeiss 15mm. Also they can build a dedicated extension ring for a specifically combo lens + dome. Obviously all these customization need a journey to Verona (Italy), but you're a neighbor If you're strongly interested about over /under shots (I love a lot this kind of pictures) don't forget that DX format offer, intrinsically, more deep of field than the FX. I'm sorry it's in Italian, but I talk about this here: http://www.fotobestiali.blogspot.it/p/sea-mdx-d300.html Now Nikon have launched the new D7100: 24 Mp Dx without low pass filter. It's a interesting tool ! have a nice day by
  22. Hi Boris, I suggest you to contact directly Mr. Harald Hordosch, Seacam chief manager (but I prefer "developer"). But I advise you that under water high optical quality can became less important than a precise focusing. I'm saying you that today MF lenses aren't the best choice in UW photography, we can't never forget the mask on our face! Water drops inside the mask glasses can prevent a precise focusing. The modern AF digital cameras solve the task brilliantly by
  23. Sorry John I've a OT question for you, why did you preferred the 15 Sigma to the 16 AF-D Nikon? Only for min short focus distance or for other skills? thank you.
  • Create New...