Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ComeFromAway last won the day on May 2 2016

ComeFromAway had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About ComeFromAway

  • Rank
    Moray Eel

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:

Recent Profile Visitors

10101 profile views
  1. Been there done that. Good news is the D7000 is a more than capable camera and WHEN you get in a position to jump to the next iteration of DXXX camera you will be blown away. In terms of business, if you can shoot splits (pollock and ling might not be the best subjects for this! ) then those are highly marketable images. That said, a big dome would be great and you could migrate that over to a new housing in the future.
  2. Way more than 5-10% quality increase by jumping to D500, IMO. Not sure how you're defining quality. Perhaps our definitions differ. If part of your definition of quality is also nailing WAY more keeper images, and tack sharp images at that, then jump to the D500. You won't be disappointed. Signed, Someone who moved from a D7000 to a D500
  3. I, too, upgraded from a D7000 to a D500... I was blown away by the much improved keeper rate and the blazing fast autofocus. I shoot blind 95% of the time and can fully trust the D500 to obtain accurate focus even on Auto Area mode. I shoot exclusively wide-angle (hope to do more macro this coming year though). That said, I've been considering switching to FF Sony mirrorless cameras for a number of reasons. IMO, if you're considering the D850 you should also consider the Sony line of FF mirrorless cameras. I don't have any personal experience with Sony cameras, but found this thread helpful: Despite the advice of the posters, I'm still seriously considering the switch for a variety of reasons. Not sure how soon I'd do that, but in the meantime I'm pretty darn happy with my D500!
  4. Hmm. This is more or less what I expected (the difficulty of getting inside the dome may prohibit proper scratch removal and thus full replacement or at least replacement of the acrylic portion).
  5. Thanks, but I'm specifically asking about methods or tips for physically getting inside a dome to remove scratches. I'm well versed in removing scratching from the outside of a dome...
  6. Any tips for getting inside an acrylic dome to remove scratches? Seemed I had some sand crystals on a microfibre cloth that scratched the bejeezus out of the inside of the dome. I'm using a Nauticam 8.5" acrylic port and the opening in the rear is fairly small. The scratches don't appear in photos unless the subject is super close to the dome. I haven't actually tried to buff anything out, but it looks like it's going to be a massive PITA. And there didn't appear to be any way to remove the rear backing plate (probably for good reason...).
  7. 6 pounds of weight seems grossly underweighted for a 7mm wetsuit, even in freshwater. I don't really know why the dive shop just gave you 6 pounds and not more for you to experiment with... In water as shallow as 10 ft, you won't really benefit from the effects of neoprene compression at depth. I would try 10 lbs and go from there. You should be trying this at different depths. My guess is even if you get the weight "right" you won't be taking many photos down at depth; as soon as you stop descending you're likely to begin ascending... unless you overweight yourself. Plus, a giant black thing descending down toward a fish comfy on the bottom is liable to scare the living daylights out of them. My experience in freshwater has always been to avoid this behaviour whenever possible as it seldom if ever works.
  8. DOH. Boy do I feel dumb... Thanks, Mackman. Didn't dig far enough onto that port chart!!!
  9. I cannot seem to find a definitive answer to this question: What (Nauticam) extension ring should be used on a Tokina 10-17 WITH Kenko 1.4x teleconverter?
  10. Email Reef Photo. Dave H at Freshwaters Illustrated has taken great splits with this setup. I think there was a post about it on Nauticam's blog featuring Dave's work.
  11. Really interesting and valid points all around. This is exactly why I posted this question! I had not considered the pixel size - more so simply the difference in image size from (for example) a 50% cropped image on the D500 vs. the A7RIII.
  12. I'm considering mainly for two reasons: video and high MPs (primarily for the flexibility of cropping without significant reductions in IQ). I don't shoot macro at the moment, but interesting to hear your take. I like the idea of focus-peaking if I did start shooting macro.
  13. Anyone here move from a D500 to A7RIII? If so, would welcome hearing your experiences. Regrets/no regrets?
  14. This is a highly subjective statement to make (though the reverse could also be argued, too!). Sure, shooting big tigers on blue backgrounds probably doesn't require the latest and greatest autofocus, but small, fast-moving reef fish shot on busy coral backgrounds or trout in complex rocky river habitats would require tip-top autofocus, unless you like the frustration of missing a significant number of shots. Certainly mean no disrespect to Undertow, just want to point out that there are definitely situations where snappy autofocus is and is not needed. I did fine shooting blue sharks off Rhode Island with a D7000 - arguably garbage AF compared to modern cameras - but my keeper rate went through the roof when shooting small-bodied freshwater fish in rivers after switching from the D7000 to a D500. After having "seen the light," I will never again (budget permissible) shoot anything underwater that does not feature the latest iteration of AF/sensor technology. But to each their own!
  15. Yeah, speaking as someone who shoots mostly in shallow rivers, you'll need to ditch the super dome idea. I have used an 8" dome but it is constraining in certain situations (e.g., spawning brook trout, sea lampreys) like when fish are tight to the bottom. I now use a fisheye and a 4" dome, but I know others that shoot adult salmonids that use 8" with Nikon 16-35 f4. I often shoot adult brook trout in the fall and a fisheye works great. You can get quite close to salmonids if you have a dry suit and lots of patience. I'd be concerned a 16-35 would be TOO tight and cut off parts of the fish. I also routinely shoot rainbow smelt and alewife (the former only 6" on average and not much taller than a quarter) and the fisheye is great. I've shot alongside a guy using a 140mm Zen glass dome with a Canon 8-15 behind it. Nice combo. If I were you, I would definitely consider the Canon 8-15 w/ Metabones adapter for adult salmonids. If you want to only use natural light you'll want something that can handle high ISOs. M4/3 would not be my choice for that (current iterations of most APS-C cameras seem great, but FF obviously better). I honestly wouldn't overthink dome choice for river shooting. You should be considering maneuverability first and foremost (you can have the sharpest dome out there, but if you can't get the right angle on the shot because it's gigantic then you're going to walk away with an uncompelling photo). Acrylic vs. glass is also a consideration. The CamRanger setup is expensive if you haven't already learned that from your research. I priced one out including associated housing accessories. DM me if you want more info on that. I've had great success with just rope and a bike brake cable attached to the shutter release. Nothing beats a dry suit and patience though. Hopefully Tom Kline chimes in here. He has lots of experience using remote camera rigs.
  • Create New...