Jump to content

ChrisRoss

Member
  • Content Count

    694
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

ChrisRoss last won the day on November 6

ChrisRoss had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

117 Excellent

About ChrisRoss

  • Rank
    Tiger Shark

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.aus-natural.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sydney Australia

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Australia
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Olympus OM-D E-M1 MkII
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    INON Z-240

Recent Profile Visitors

31441 profile views
  1. I would suggest looking from a total system perspective rather than zeroing in on a model to buy. Full frame is in general more expensive than APS-C than m43. This applies to cameras, lenses, housings and domes. The options for lenses available are quite varied as well. You mentioned you were concerned about dome size, this scales with sensor size and focal length. For example a 16mm rectilinear lens (with a 16-35 zoom for example) requires a 230mm dome to get the best out of it in corners, while a m43 8mm lens (16mm equivalent) can be used in a 170/180mm dome which is much much smaller. With rectilinear removable lens models, the only thing a zoom changes is the length of extension required to get the dome to perform at its best and there is really no downside using the zoom from this aspect the modern ultra wide (weitwinkel) zooms are plenty sharp enough. If you are talking fisheye lenses it's a different story, they don't need big domes to perform at their best. I note that you are talking APS-C, if you are thinking of Canon I would suggest you don't discount the Olympus EM-1 MkII, it is very close in performance to the Canon APS_C sensors and not far behind the Nikon D500. It has the advantage of using smaller domes, housings will be cheaper depending on model chosen and lenses are significantly cheaper than APS-C and full frame Canon lenses with a great many choices of focal length. The smaller size is a significant advantage for travel. This link allows you to compare test data for a Canon, Nikon APS-C and the Olympus EM-1 MkII.
  2. If you look at the pics on Nauticam's page you could scale it assuming an N120 mount, so the mount would be 120mm diameter approx. This would mean the dome dia. would be 200-240mm. The MRSP is quoted as $5-7,000 USD. so not cheap! They are talking about a floatation collar so a bigger concern might be weight? There have been discussions in other threads about what the actual field of view obtained from WWL and WACP and the conclusion there was that they produced barrel distortion and is close to a fisheye and it extended the diagonal field of view more so than the horizontal and vertical, so for example with the WWL-1 the 130 deg file dof view ends up being equivalent to a 10mm rectilinear lens on the diagonal but on the horizontal it is equivalent to 14mm. This link explains: https://interceptor121.com/2019/05/ That is not to say it is bad just to know what you will get with the optics. The WACP-2 may or may not do this, it's designed to work with 14-16mm lens rather than 28mm lenses and is only 0.82x (instead of .36x of WACP and WWL). Probably need to wait to see what it actually delivers, in terms of distortion.
  3. Reading Marsh's post about shoe-horning lenses into non supported domes makes me happy I went with m43 where just about all the lens choices are available and work out of the box with a zoom gear already engineered and plenty of dome choices already sorted out .. With the EM-1 MkII the image quality is very close particularly if I do my bit and expose well and it all just works.
  4. It may not be possible as camera needs to know the characteristics of the flash to get it to time correctly. How are you triggering? electrically with sync cords or optically with a flash trigger or TTL converter? Underwater flash can be quite confusing and there's lots of ways of doing it, some TTL converters I think might be able to do it: https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Underwater-Camera-and-Housing-TTL-Reference-Guide
  5. its not hard to do, the gear slides over the split lens clip from the mount end of the lens and the gear itself is right close to the flange of the mount. There are little bits of rubber you press into the grooves of both the split lens clip and the gear to improve grip. You take the split ring in the right orientation and spread it a little to place from the lens mount end it so it covers the rubber grip for the lens zoom ring. jiggle it around till it clips over properly. you know it is right as when it is, it fits the zoom ring very closely. You work out the orientation from the fact the gear section only slides on the split lens clip from one end. Once the lens clip is on press the zoom gear gently down to slide it over the lens clip. remember the gear is towards the lens mount end. A lot easier to do than describe. This video shows how on a different lens - BUT you do not need to remove the rubber covering the zoom ring
  6. it may automate things but once you run out of red light when things get deep enough you will be back where you started I would think. I also noted for example at 1:30 or so the scene looks great on the reef but sucks the rich blues out of the BG water it seems.
  7. I tried finding instructions and there is nothing out there I could find, closest I could find was this: http://cerella.fi/?product=aquatica-18583-replacement-lens-for-flat-macro-port which states that the replacement glass includes installation instructions and you would need to pressure test after installation - dive it empty or vacuum check. Maybe you could contact a dealer like this asking for guidance on how to?
  8. it would be nice to have the same colour balance between the examples as that distracts from the other differences for me, clicking between them on Flikr is interesting the first one the LH side of the top school seems to be more forward in the frame and more prominent when you switch between them rapidly, but the effect ssems hard to see when either image is viewed alone. For me the differences are subtle and I guess the one with sharper corners is preferable if only because the fish are not being chopped off in that version in the corners and I'd like to see it with the Lightroom colour/tones.
  9. You should be able to obtain a carnet - you provide a guarantee that you will take the goods out of mexico: https://www.atacarnet.com/mexico They may have changed laws recently or be interpreting them differently but it would be worth talking to a specialist as mentioned in the link. Even if you are paying by card they may be siphoning this off. If a carnet does not solve your problem then the only real solution would be to cancel citing this behaviour by customs officers. Depending on the value of your housing it might exceed the cost to obtain the carnet. Many countries have laws around what you can import but I expect enforcement is not always carried out.
  10. you will be struggling for light by all accounts I've seen, both for AF and for the image itself. If your BG is going to be water you will probably be able to open up the aperture a little, I'm guessing the 9-18 would focus a little better and you might try shooting that at f5.6 or maybe a little wider if things are close. Normally you would stop down for corner quality but the corners are likely to be water so not so critical for sharpness there and of course ISO needed for reasonable shutter speeds.
  11. The Sigma should fit, the port charts tell the tale, the 105mm takes the compact port 50 with compact port base 18211 and extensions. The Can 180 mm also uses compact port base and compact port 50 and 70mm of extensions. It is 82.5 dia x 186. The sigma latest model is 79.6 x 137mm if you look at the differences you need 186-137 = 49mm less extension. so take the 70mm extension used by the Canon 180mm and subtract 49mm = 21mm . This means you need a 20 or 30 mm extension with the sigma. Depending on which port option you have for your 105mm you probably have the ports required to try it.
  12. I would agree with that, though if you want to add wet lenses a closer fit is more important. A non extending lens is preferred and I'm pretty sure the Sigma lens does not extend. It just has not been measured up for a port combination. If there is a nearby UW retail store visiting to try out some port combinations would solve that issue.
  13. Nauticam's port charts list support for the Canon 180mm macro lens using a port base, and 30 + 40mm compact extensions with compact port 50. the specs say the 200mm f4 micro-nikkor is 7mm longer than the 180mm macro, so more than likely would fit if you substituted the compact port 60 for the 50, or used 2x 40mm extensions. The Canon 180mm macro is not a particularly snappy focuser though, not sure how it compares with the Nikon 200mm f4. The Sigma 150mm f2.8 is reputed to be a snappier focuser, and it is stabilised - specs say it is 150mm long and has narrower diameter compared to the 186mm long Canon 180mm macro, so needs 34 mm less extension so swapping the 50mm port for a 15mm port should work, but you'd need to check as the accuracy of the specs may not be perfect.
  14. I don't think anything has changed, most people don't want to pay for imagery, love your images but sorry we have no budget -how about a credit for exposure?? . The primary skill needed is being shamelessly good at self promotion!
  15. regarding choice of Oly vs Pany lens, maybe go a retailer and try both, using AF inside the store to see which AF's best on a lowish contrast target in store lighting close to 1:1 to see if there is any difference in AF performance. I woud guess there is little to pick between them in sharpness. My Pany 30mm autofocuses quite quickly on my EM-1 MkII in fact better than the 60mm.
×
×
  • Create New...