Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ComeFromAway

  1. 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!
  2. 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).
  3. 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...
  4. 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...).
  5. 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.
  6. DOH. Boy do I feel dumb... Thanks, Mackman. Didn't dig far enough onto that port chart!!!
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Anyone here move from a D500 to A7RIII? If so, would welcome hearing your experiences. Regrets/no regrets?
  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar! Just downloaded the files and will hopefully print soon. Thick, 7mm neoprene mittens and those strobe knobs do *not* mix...
  15. Same problem here in Atlantic Canada. I've tried darn near every strobe position you can think of and the only thing that removes backscatter to the degree I'm looking for is to get super close... or going to the Caribbean. haha A few other things help: 1) Turning down the strobe power, but obviously this either requires you to crank up the exposure in post more than you might otherwise or forces you to get closer. 2) Dome diffusers. 3) Zooming in a touch (if you have hotspots on the edge of your frame, which seems to get worse the murkier the water). But really, the only thing that truly makes a significant difference is getting close.
  16. That makes sense! Sounds terrific. Beautiful location.
  17. Beautiful! Nice buoyancy control in that shallow water. I noticed a lack of fish life. Is that something unique to that particular Turkish river? Certainly looks to be plenty of aquatic vegetation that would provide great fish habitat! Makes me want to be there. Looking outside and we have 15cm of snow sitting on the deck... :-(
  18. Intriguing, especially as an external monitor. Wonder how the brightness compares to the Small HDs and the Atomos. I'm assuming there's little comparison between a cell phone and one of those units, but I've been surprised before!
  19. Wondering what kind of computer you all are running for video editing? Specific specs would be useful. Looking to upgrade to something that can handle more complex tasks. Thanks in advance!
  20. So it seems like the Nikon 40mm micro (macro) would work OK on an APS-C body like a D7500 or D500? Based on the ratios you provided above it would put a roughly 38-39 degree AOV of the 40mm micro at about a 142-145 FOV with the MWL-1. Can the 40mm micro also be used with the SMC adapters? Just out of curiosity, what would happen if you put a Nikon 60mm macro on an APS-C body behind the MWL-1? (I know that's basically a 90mm FF equivalent and not 60, but just curious!)
  21. You should be able to press up or down on the pad to scroll through the histogram options. There should be one for all RGB channels combined (will appear white as opposed to red, blue or green for their respective channels).
  22. Should be easily correctable in post. I realize that's not the answer you're looking for, but sometimes we gotta do things we don't really want to do... The D500 holds up well to even heavy-handed exposure adjustments - going from bright to dark is much better on noise than dark to light. Personally, I don't expose to the right anymore. I'd rather underexpose, ensure my subject is sharp with no motion blur, and then bring up the shadows in post. The amount of detail you can bring back from an underexposed photo, to me, is more than you can bring back from an overexposed shot with significant clipped highlights. Your histogram will look very different depending on the conditions or type of shooting you're doing. The histogram on a blackwater dive will look much, much different than the histogram of a correctly exposed shot in a perfectly clear spring-fed stream. I don't know what conditions you're shooting in, but images with dark(er) backgrounds and strobe-lit foregrounds/subjects should show a bunching up toward the left of the histogram (blue ocean water won't bunch as far toward the shadows as, obviously, jet black conditions at night), but it should gradually taper off into brighter zones. If the taper ends abruptly in the first or second zone then you've underexposed, perhaps too much (though see above for my thoughts on this). Clear Caribbean Sea water or clear spring-fed creek water under bright sun will probably yield a more classic hump-shaped histogram with brightness values gradually increasing from the shadows to a peak in the midtones and then tapering off toward the highlights. Kinda hard to explain without using histograms as examples, but at least maybe this will give you an excuse to go for another dive!
  23. Yes, this is VERY cool. If it can keep the sharpness of some of the macro-type lenses AND give the crazy flexibility of 150FOV down to super-macro with diopters... it would be really tempting to pull the trigger.
  24. Nauticam lists it on their website as a new product. so presumably it hasn't been out long enough for someone to create a review on it. I agree, it's very intriguing.
  25. Except that you indicate in that thread they were sold back in February........ Am I missing something?
  • Create New...