Jump to content

Gudge

Team Wetpixel
  • Content Count

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Gudge last won the day on July 1

Gudge had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

1 Follower

About Gudge

  • Rank
    Tiger Shark
  • Birthday 12/24/1954

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.gudgeon.id.au
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Baldivis, WA Australia

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Australia
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Sony A7RIV
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA-A7RIV
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    2 x Retra Flash
  • Accessories
    Retra LSD

Recent Profile Visitors

16835 profile views
  1. I had a couple of scratches in my Zen DP-100 both of which were clearly visible and could be felt by running a fingernail across them. I managed to polish out the less severe one using a microfibre cloth and toothpaste. The worst scratch was improved using this method but not removed. I then purchased a glass polishing kit (middle option on this web page: https://glasspolishshop.com/glass-restoration/glass-polishing-kits Using only the micro fibre cloth and polishing compound (DON'T use the circular pads in a drill!) I was able to remove the worst scratch with about 30 minutes of polishing.
  2. It's like the metric system, America does it differently to the rest of the world. If you're from America it tends to be dove, anywhere else in the world it is dived: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/dived-or-dove-which-is-correct https://grammarist.com/usage/dove-dived/
  3. Not a problem with me. I have a second mount for the EMWL attached above my housing, when I want to shoot standard macro I move the EMWL to the alternate mount and their is very little change in buoyancy/trim of my rig. If you've got money to burn, Nauticam also make a flip adpater for the EMWL: If not done carefully this would interfere with the controls between each stage used to bleed air bubbles between sections when the rig is put in the water. In addition anything that makes the EMWL fatter would create problems. I have shot images of critters in small holes and up pipes with the EMWL inside the hole/pipe. Making it fatter would limit the ability to do this and make it impossible for the strobes to shine into the hole/pipe past the end of the EMWL. This octopus was about 300mm inside a piece of old pipe under a jetty. I had the EMWL inside the pipe with the tip almost touching the octopus. There was still enough space around the EMWL for the light from my strobes to get past. Making the EMWL fatter by adding flotation to it would have made this shot impossible: The large float arms next to the strobes haven't proved to be a problem with getting close to marine life. They are behind the strobes and the strobes are the closest thing to the subject, as they would be with any sized arms.
  4. I've had a chance to play with all three objective lenses 60°, 100° and 130° on the EMWL. Zooming in on the photo it definitely looks like the 60° objective lens on the end of an EMWL. Definitely flotation and not camouflage, the EMWL makes your rig VERY front heavy, specially when you push your strobes forward as has been done in the photo. My solution was to replace the arms closest to the strobes with a couple of Nauticam 90x170mm float arms with 450gm of buoyancy each which balanced the weight of the EMWL very nicely. Here's a shot of my wife Mary who has the same setup as me:
  5. I used to use a 100mm Zen mini dome with the Canon 8-15 fisheye on my crop sensor DSLR and was very happy with the results. However, when I used the same combination on my full frame Sony A7RIV the resulting images were nowhere near as good. I got a Nauticam 140mm dome and am once again very happy with the results from the Canon 8-15.
  6. I've been using a Canon 8-15 on a Metabones converter with my A7RIV and the autofocus speed is very good. I have a friend using the Sigma 15/MC11 combination on their A7RIII underwater and they are aren't having any issues with slow autofocus either.
  7. I'm using the Metabones Mk V adapter with the Canon 8-15 on my Sony A7RIV, it is the latest version and am very happy with it: https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB-EF-E-BT5 As you are going to use a Sigma 15mm a better option for you is the Sigma MC-11 mount converter: https://sigmaphoto.com.au/products/489e965/sigma-mc-11-mount-converter-for-canon-ef-to-sony-e-mount It's cheaper than the Metabones and there shouldn't be any compatability issues between lens and adapter as they are both Sigma. I have a friend using this combination on their Sony A7RIII and they are very happy with it.
  8. For my Sony A7RIV in Nauticam housing I use: Mostly a Nauticam 140mm dome port with removable shade; and Occasionally a Subal 200mm dome with a Nauticam/Subal mount converter
  9. Wolfgang sent me a PM and asked me to comment on my experience with the AF performance of the Sony A7RIV and Sony 90 macro and the Canon 100 macro on Canon dSLR. I was a long term Canon dSLR user (20D, 40D, 50D, 7D, 7DMkII and 5DMkIII) all with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. Just over a year ago I changed to Sony A7RIV. Initially I used the Canon 100 macro on the Sony with a Metabones adapter but changed to the Sony 90 macro after 3 months. My wife still uses my 7DMkII with the Canon 100 macro so I was able to compare all combinations of camera/macro lens possible just now. Room was dimly lit. Results varied based on what focus point setup I used on each camera/lens. With all focus points in play and cameras set to AI Servo (Canon) AF-C (Sony) the winner in grabbing focus quickly was the 7DMkII/Canon 100 macro with the A7RIV/Sony 90 macro a very close second (it was occasionally faster than the Canon). The A7RIV/Metabones/Canon 100 macro was a distant third (Which is why I got the 90 macro 12 months ago when I did the same test). When I changed to my preferred mode of shooting with each camera - AI Servo with Expand AF (Canon) and AF-C and Tracking Flexible Spot (Sony) - things changed. The A7RIV/Sony 90 macro was first grabbing focus fastest and holding it better than the 7DMkII which came a close second. The A7RIV/Metabones/Canon 100 macro came third. Points to consider: Before I switched to Sony the 7DMkII was by far the best low light focussing camera I had ever used. Depending on how you set up the autofocus system the A7RIV is better than the 7DMkII with their respective native macro lenses The effect of the Metabones adapter on focus performance will differ from lens to lens. While the Canon 100 macro is slower on the Metabones adapter my Canon 8-15 fisheye (for which there is no Sony equivalent) focusses much faster with the Metabones adapter on the A7RIV than it did on the 7DMkII.
  10. I use Mothers California Gold Water Spot Remover For Glass, it works really well. Has a combination of mild abrasives and mineral dissolving chemicals.
  11. The various adapters are just spacers that hold the lens the distance from the sensor that it was designed to operate at. Canon EF lenses are designed to operate on Canon dSLR's with a certain lens/sensor distance. Putting a Canon EF lens on a Sony mirrorless camera with a spacer holding it the same distance from the sensor will result in no loss of image quality from the lens. If I wanted to use my Canon 8-15 on one of the Canon R series mirrorless cameras I would still have to use an adapter such as the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R. A cheaper option for a FF fisheye on Sony mirrorless cameras is the Sigma 15mm fisheye with Canon mount on a Sigma MC11 adapter. Works out cheaper than a Canon 8-15 fisheye alone. I have a friend who has just started using this combination on a Sony a7RIII.
  12. News to me, I must be doing something wrong! I've been using a Sony a7RIV for just over a year now. I use Canon 8-15 fisheye on a Metabones converter (and occasionally with Sony 1.4X teleconverter as well). Autofocus works fine (better than when I used the same lens on a Canon 7D Mkii). Never even contemplated having to use manual focus. I also use the Sony 90 macro, no hunting whatsoever and sharp as a tack.
  13. My experience with the Canon 8-15 behind a Zen 100mm/4 inch dome is that on a crop sensor camera the results were excellent. When I switched to a full frame camera the results were nowhere near as good. I switched to a Naurticam 140mm/5.5 inch dome and got excellent results again.
  14. I've used a Zen 4" mini dome for many years with the Tokina 10-17 and Canon 8-15 on a variety of Canon crop sensor cameras and have always been more than happy with the results. Earlier this year I got a Sony A7RIV and have been using it with the Canon 8-15 behind both an 8" Subal dome port and the Zen 4" mini dome. I'm more than happy with the results with the 8" dome. However, the 4" dome is not producing good results due to soft edges (something that never happened with the crop sensor Canons). I have just ordered a Nauticam 140mm dome port with removable shade to replace the Zen 4" dome.
  15. There are actually two, 18810 and 18811. Basically the same port but 18811 has a removable shade and is more expensive. If your port had been the 18811 version I would have grabbed it.
×
×
  • Create New...