Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mattia

  • Rank

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
  1. The RX100's do pretty well for video, and work great under water with wet lenses. Which version is best for video I'm not sure, but the most recent (IV) shoots 4K and gets very good reviews. If you're shooting with video lamps and at best moderate vis anyway, extreme high ISO performance becomes relatively moot. For stills, the resolution on the Rx100s and greater depth of field at a given aperture (and very competitive performance up to an ISO of 1600 at least) mean I would still prefer it over the LX100.
  2. I don't think RAW has a color space as such - you assign that when you export to JPG. The color space setting in camera only applies to the JPG profile. I have never shot anything other than the RX100 with Inon wet lenses, although my 'topside' kit is a Sony A7r and Olympus E-M1. I sometimes dither about housing one of those, but figure I need a) more experience and b) lighting (only natural light so far, no strobes) before gear even comes close to being a limiting factor. What I really like is the fact I can fit all my camera gear (underwater and non) for an average trip into a very compact bag. I used to own a Canon FF system, and much as I love the glass, I am never going back to DSLR sizes.
  3. I'm a newbie myself, but I'll vouch for the RX100 as a great pocketable compact. It offers full manual control, so its not just a simple point and shoot. You may want to have a peek at wet lens options as well, since 28mm behind a flat port won't be terribly wide angle. There is quite a bit of info here and at scubaboards.com and so regarding the RX100 as an underwater cam. I'm starting with this as an all rounder (with wet lenses) to figure out if its really for me - next potential step would be the E-M5...
  4. I have the sigma - optically it is great, but AF is very slow compared to every other Canon lens I have, and the fact it changes length is annoying. I got it cheap, and it has delivered some great photographs (topside, still building my kit to go underwater) but if I was buying a macro now I would get the canon L or the older non L canon macro.
  5. Unless your printer specifically states they want CMYK, they probably want an RGB profile of some sort. I believe a lot of inkjets use CMYK, but I'm no expert. Places like Luminous-Landscape have a good number of folks who print at home and can begin to explain the intricacies of a colour-managed workflow for home. 'Dark' pictures are tough to get right, and it takes a little experience to learn to 'see' what an on-screen image will look like when printed out. There are a few issues at play: - Monitor calibration. This is primarily about colour accuracy and reproduction, and will be very difficult with a cheaper (non-IPS) display panel which has colors and brightness that change significantly depending on how you angle the monitor/move your head. The luminance (brightness setting) also plays a major part - on my older Apple Cinema Display I have to turn brightness down to about 1/3 of maximum in a room with soft, neutral light (no direct sunlight in the room, shades drawn, lights on). - Color space. Google 'color management' and prepare for some fun. Most print places and all web outlets seem to prefer sRGB profiled images. The better print houses will have suitable ICC profiles (profiles that describe how devices interpret colors) available for the specific printers and papers they use, allowing you to 'soft proof' what your images will look like. - Print media. Each set of media/inks/etc. has it's own available tonal range. For 'dark' images, the difference between a backlit monitor, even one that looks dull, drab, and dark (= what my calibrated monitor looks like when I'm editing images) is huge, and the best 'dark' prints are ones that look excessively bright to me on the computer monitor. Some images look best behind acrylic, others look good under matte mounting, some better under glass, some best on pearl or metallic papers (sunsets look great on Fuji pearl, for example). - The lab. I want a lab that does not do ANY post processing on my images, which many do - I want to be in control of color, brightness, sharpening and so forth. The better labs understand workflows and colour management, and if you do as well, it's easier to pinpoint problem areas. You can also ask them whether they think a certain image will come out with reasonable amounts of detail in the dark areas. As an alternative print full-size crops of smaller sections before committing to a large panel of anything. I love prints, but I don't want the headaches and costs of large format home printers. Besides, I usually want really big prints (more than A3), so I prefer to pay a good printing place rather than messing around with home printing.
  6. Lightroom had very good NR, but the NIk suite offers a great deal for difficult shots. It works much better with photoshop (edits as layers rather than exported duplicate tiffs), and at te new pricing, its a steal. I use DxO or LR for normal processing, and move to NIK in photoshop for images that go to print, require more complex editing and/or local adjustments. I haven't needed to do much actual masking since getting NIK thanks to the control point system.
  7. Thanks for the thoughts. I love diving, but I'm realistic about how often I get to go underwater in scuba gear each year, hence the reticence about dropping thousands of dollars. I'm considering getting a case for the RX100 first, with a macro wet lens and maybe wide-angle at a slightly later point in time. Then, depending on a) what I can get for the Canon gear that's going to be sold and b) my experiences with the RX-100 kit, I'll consider adding an E-M5 case setup. The fact my girlfriend keeps borrowing the camera during snorkels (she's getting her open water right now) may decide the issue - clearly a second system will be needed
  8. Hi everyone! I'm a relatively experienced (enthusiast) topside photographer, mostly landscapes and travel/people photography. While in Bonaire over the past two weeks, I had the joy of borrowing an older Canon A570 in polycarbonate housing for a few snorkels, coming away with some pretty decent shots. All that did, unfortunately, is get me thinking about underwater housing options and seriously considering buying! Particularly as the Galapagos are likely on the menu for this summer. I'm curretly in a bit of a conundrum, and would appreciate any feedback folks can give me. Gear: I own a 5DII, 17-40, and assorted L glass (none particuarly suited to underwater other than the 17-40). The cost and bulk and fact I don't dive that often lead me to rule this out as my underwater rig. I 'migrated' towards the Oly E-M5 about a year ago, and I'm trimming the Canon rig to the 'essentials', and may reduce it down to just a set of fast primes. While it can't match the Canon, it's close, and it's so, so much smaller and ligher that it makes backpacking with a full range of gear fun again, making it my ideal travel setup. I currently have the Panny 7-14 and 12-35, which might suitable underwater glass, as well as the 'kit' 12-50, which is versatile but slow and not terrible 'special'. My 'pocket camera' for when I don't want to take any bags along is the Sony RX100, which I'm growing to appreciate more and more. The issue: I want to pack light. Right now, given the limited amount of scuba I do per year, I figure I can rent strobes at most sites more cost-effectively than buying and shlepping. I also very much enjoyed shallow water shots, natural light landscape, and so forth, and will snorkel more than I dive for practical reasons. The question boils down to 'suit up' the RX100 or the E-M5. Pros for the RX100: smaller, ligher setup. Cheaper ($1400-1500 with a nauticam, acquapazza or recsea housing and UW wet lens, 1800-1900 if I add a macro diopter). Higher resolution. More verastile (wide to macro with wet lenses) Cons for the RX100: handling is worse/slower, fps lower, less dynamic range, worse higher ISO performance, lens not as sharp as the 7-14 or dedicated macros. Pros for the E-M5: better ergonomics, better dynamic range, great IBIS, great glass. Cons for the E-M5: more expensive (slightly; nauticam housing, port for 7-14 and zoom gear is around $2000), quite a bit blukier - particularly the port. Things I'm not sure of: the size issue seems fairly relative: the RX-100 is more compact, particularly sans 6" dome port, but the weight differences are going to be minimal if I add wet lenses that weigh as much as the lighter housings. Camera and lens weights are a non-issue, as both the RX100 and the E-M5/7-14 travel with me anyway. Any thoughts people have on additional pros/cons, or corrections to my current understanding of what I'll need. I don't factor prices of lensen into the decision, since I'm looking to add a macro at some point anyway for 'topside' photography.
  9. Hi everyone, I'm a 33 year-old relative diving newbie (been certified for several years, but haven't dived a huge amount), enthusiast (topside) photographer, and made the 'fatal error' of borrowing a cheap and cheerful older A-series Canon for some snorkeling in Bonaire last week, and I think I'm hooked. Sadly no scuba due to recent (emergency) surgery, but that and the older tech didn't stop me from capturing some great underwater moments! Still pondering which system gets the underwater gear, will be posting to the forum to gather some opinions on the topic!
  • Create New...