Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About gsdive

  • Rank
    Hermit Crab

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fox Valley, Wisconsin, USA

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Canon T3i (600D)
  • Camera Housing
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Sea&Sea YS-90 & YS-90DX
  1. I’m still just getting into UW photo and looking for some advice on troubleshooting an issue. This is a pretty long post, I apologize, I’m trying to give as much info as I can right from the start. My setup is a Canon T3i with 18-55 kit lens in a Meikon housing using dual YS-90 strobes - strobe 1 is a YS-90 TTL Duo with TTL, 1/2 power and full power settings, strobe 2 is a ys-90DX which has TTL and 12 power adjustments numbered FULL through-7 with half-stop increments (1/2 power is labeled at -2). The strobes are connected to the housing via dual fiber optic cables and fired using the slave setting on the strobe. I set up a test shot on a table to experiment with power settings, strobe aiming, etc. Test shots with strobes off got a correct exposure at ISO 400, 1/20, f5.6. Setting shutter speed to 1/125 got a sufficiently underexposed photo to eliminate ambient light in the room which was the initial goal; now I could experiment with the strobes and know the exposure was controlled by the strobe(s) and not the room light. Switching the camera to manual at ISO 400, 1/125, f5.6 I started shooting. Setting both strobes to 1/2 got overexposure. Switching to TTL got underexposure by at least 2 stops. Both strobes at full got underexposed by at least 2 stops. At TTL and using the camera flash compensation at +2 was still underexposed. Turn flash ev off. Bumped shutter to 1/200, both strobes at 1/2, still overexposed. Changed to f/8, was still overexposed but much better, maybe .5 stop over. This was starting to be what I expected to happen. Get overexposed, reduce aperture and exposure improves - basic exposure triangle. The next shot iso200, 1/200, f8, strobe 1 @ 1/2, strobe 2 off - near black underexposed. Next shot same settings, strobe 1 off, strobe 2 @1/2 - slight underexposure, maybe .5 stop. Let’s keep strobe 1 off. Adjusted strobe 2 position to directly over the camera. Strobe 2 TTL - underexposed/black. Strobe 2@1/2 - correct exposure. Strobe 2@full - underexposed/black. Strobe 2@-3 (slightly less than 1/2 power) - good exposure. Strobe 2@-7 (min power setting) - slight underexposed (less than 1 stop off). Strobe 2 @ -1 (call this 3/4 power) - underexposed by 1-2 stops. Turn off strobe 2, position strobe 1 over the camera. Various strobe settings - full, 1/2, TTL, camera flash ev from -2 to +2 - every photo at least 3 stops underexposed. Summary - strobe 1 (90duo) doesn’t seem to get anywhere near good exposure. I see it fire, but with the naked eye that’s about all I can tell. Strobe 2 (90dx) is really strange. At 1/2 power or less I get a reasonable exposed image. At full power and/or TTL it is severely underexposed. This is exactly the opposite of what I expect. Add more light to a good exposure and it should be washed out/bright, not black. Or am I missing something? Is there a setting in the camera controlling the on-board flash I’m missing? (I’ve gone through just about every menu and haven’t found anything relevant - those settings seem more pertinent to land shooting with speedlights.)
  2. I've got the meikon housing for the Canon T3i. My first DSLR and my first housing. I used it on a few local shallow lake dives (Wisconsin) and have gotten decent results. (Quality of photos having everything to do with quality of the operator rather than quality of the housing ). I'd have to agree with Barmaglot's comments. Cons are fixed port, button shutter release - which can be a bit of a finger stretch especially with gloves and no control for the control wheel. All of the functions can be accessed through the various buttons/menus but not having the control wheel is cumbersome. The fixed port I don't find to be a real issue as anything I'm photographing right now the 18-55 kit lens is fine. (And the only other lens I have is 75-300 so that isn't really an UW option anyway.) It is also VERY buoyant - even with 2 ys-90s and tray it still floats, although that may be a positive from a certain perspective. The design of the housing doesn't allow for good use of the viewfinder so live view is really the only option. The real pro is the price.
  3. Received this reply today from S&S: "Thank you for taking the time to relate your service experience with In Depth camera repair. We do count on the service centers to handle our customers in a courteous and timely manner and I apologize that this was not the case for your situation. I will contact Mr. Evans and discuss the matter with him. Best Regards, Brad Lally Sea&Sea" Looks like this is not just a form letter, canned response. Have to wait and see if anything happens.
  4. NOT!!! Here is the text of a message I sent to SEA&SEA concerning my misadventures over the past few months in getting my camera serviced: "Last spring (2004) I purchased a used MotorMarine II from a private party. After several dives over the summer I determined that it was in need of servicing. After contacting the service centers listed on your website I sent the camera to In Depth Camera, Ft. Collins, CO on 11/19/04. My letter of transmittal included in the packaging re-stated the problems I had discussed with Craig Evans, In Depth’s service manager, requesting that he contact me after inspecting the camera and provide an estimate for the repairs. Approximately three weeks later, after not hearing from In Depth, I again contacted Craig. He provided an estimate for the repairs and stated that he should be able to return the camera around the third week of January. During the second week of February I sent an email inquiring on the status of the repairs. I received no response. On Feb 17 I again contacted Craig via telephone. He admitted he was behind and offered a variety of excuses – the holidays, family vacation, illness, etc. Craig promised the camera would be complete by the following week. On March 7 I again telephoned Craig and inquired on the status of the repair. Profuse apologies were offered – again – and the promise of the repairs being complete by the end of the week and the camera being back in my possession the following week. The morning of March 22 I again telephoned and asked Craig where my camera was; he stated he was not in the shop at that time and that he would need to check his records and that he would contact me that afternoon or early the next day. The next day I received a voice message stating the repairs were complete, the camera would ship that afternoon and that the invoice would reflect a credit for the inconvenience of the additional time. The invoice included with the camera indicated a substantial discount ($120.00), essentially charging only for parts used and nothing for labor. I sent In Depth a check for the balance due and considered the matter closed. On the afternoon of May 16 I received a telephone call from Craig Evans. He stated that the discount shown was a “typo†and should have been $20.00 rather than $120.00. I responded that while I had been surprised at the amount shown on the invoice I definitely felt that a discount of only $20.00 was somewhat small for the quality of service I received. Craig did not seem to understand what I was referring to. When I reminded him of the numerous phone calls I made, the actual terminology I used was “birddogging the situationâ€, he responded that I had not really had to do anything to “birddog†him. I terminated the call, instructing him to bill my credit card (which I had provided to him upon the original repair authorization in December) for the balance he felt was due. Upon hindsight I should have flatly refused to pay him anything more than what had been presented to me on the invoice which contained his signature. The above timeline is an accurate account of the events and the actions I needed to take in order to obtain the services promised. I am quite positive that had I not taken the actions I did that I would still not have my camera in working order. As I made the initial contact with In Depth based on Sea&Sea’s implied recommendation, they are listed on your website as a “Sea & Sea authorized warranty and service centerâ€, I would respectfully encourage Sea&Sea to review In Depth’s service records and evaluate whether they still comply with your standards of service." <end message> A few more notes on this: The invoice listed total parts, labor and shipping of $145.40, less $120.00, balance due $25.40. I sent a check for $25.40. Now he says the discount was only supposed to be $20 - fine, whatever. He charged my credit card $74.60. Add it up: $145.40-20=$125.40. $25.40+74.60=$100.00. $125.40=$100.00??? Note that the $74.60 is the amount he charged my card himself to make up the difference for the "typo". Apparently Mr. Evans has problems operating his calculator! He'll probably claim another typo and ask for the extra $25!!!! I don't normally broadcast personal complaints in this manner but this guy supposedly offers "quality service" and has space on the website of a major manufacturer which gives him international exposure and the implied endorsement of that manufacturer. Hopefully Sea&Sea/TUSA will question him on some of his procedures.
  • Create New...