Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ChrisRoss last won the day on March 28 2020

ChrisRoss had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

150 Excellent

About ChrisRoss

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Sydney Australia

Additional Info

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

Recent Profile Visitors

33713 profile views
  1. the lens of choice seems to be the Sony 28-70 f3.4-4.5 lens with an adapter as it's the only one that gives you full zoom range. It is equivalent in field of view approx to a 10-25 rectilinear. the WACP-1 port chart is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bEtIGoZh1XAzrwolt9JNcUQ2_-XIygWh/view You can also consider the new WACP-C with the same lens and it is lighter and cheaper than a WACP-1. There is a seperate thread on the WACP-C. Of course if you really want to save weight and size you could go for a fisheye lens in a 140mm Nauticam port which should have similar image quality to a WACP in a lighter, cheaper , smaller package with a lot more barrel distortion of course. You would only really consider that option for reef scenics and CFWA, not so good for pelagics and wrecks for example.
  2. Your best bet would be to source a second hand copy, I,m sure there would be a few around.
  3. The close focus doesn't help with the corners if the center is focused on infinity. the problem comes down to focusing on both the centre and edge of the of the curved virtual image which are both very close to the lens. Depth of field varies only with f- stop and magnification, so you can stop down or as you found you can zoom out which decreases magnification to pull the corners into focus. I would expect that the new Nikon lens would perform similarly to your 14-30 f4 at the same focal lengths as far as corner sharpness goes. The usual caveat applies in that not all lenses work well behind dome ports and you would have to await someone doing some testing on the lens to be sure. But assuming all is well I struggle to see how it would be an improvement over your current 14-30 lens as it should perform about the same as the 14-30 does between 17 and 28mm again assuming corner sharpness is the only issue with the 14-30 lens. If the new 17-28 has better corners on land than the 14-30 it may help you a little bit.
  4. The 8mm is quite versatile for reef scenes, anything that you can approach. This link is from my website, most of this page is shot with the Panasonic 8mm fisheye in a 100mm (4") dome: https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Weda Resort Halmahera/index.html Mostly taken from 1-1.5m away. It was really my first serious trip using a fisheye and if I were doing it again I'd concentrate on getting closer for most of the shots. The diver with the sea fan is my daughter she is about 1-1.5m away.
  5. I agree with Massimo, most chargers should be able to cope with current variations as they have a multi voltage electronic inverter to produce a stable DC output. Maybe I'm a light user but I've not encountered difficulties with Eneloop or Eneloop style strobe batteries and Like I said for land use I run them empty and they'll generally do 3 dives on my Z-240s so I can generally soft charge them at 0.5A on my Maha charger which is what I travel with.
  6. I've been using this model charger for a long time and I have batteries that are 10 years old which are still going - they get used in my torches, it offers a choice of 1.0A or 0.5A charging rates. My standard approach for many years was to keep using batteries in my land flashes till they stopped charging and swap them over, these batteries still seem to have adequate capacity. These cells were Imedions and prior to that I had some that were labelled e-lock an early eneloop clone. They still run my torch for 2 x 1 hr dives quite readily. https://mahaenergy.com/mh-c800s/ I don't use those cells in my UW strobes as a rule and have been using eneloop/eneloop pro and running them to empty is not a practical option for UW work anyway. The point is the charger must be doing something right as the cells are surviving and still performing just fine. My Eneloop pro have a manufacturer date of 2018 and still can do at least 2 dives. They normally get used for a local double dives a couple of times per month and are recharged after the dive.
  7. This is a link to the UWL-95 lens: http://www.inon.jp/products/lens/uwl-95_c24_m67/top.html It's a little bit apples to oranges comparing to the WWL. INON only confirm UWL-95 for use on 1" sensor cameras like the RX-100 and the field of view is 95° (20mm full frame equivalent) with the camera lens at 24mm - so it would be less with your 14-42mm lens. You can add a dome for a wider view. If you were to go with INON the UWL-100 would be better suited as it is designed for 28mm lenses and gives a 100° field (18mm full frame equivalent) You can see some shots taken with the UWL-100 plus dome here and there are also WWL shots: https://www.housingcamera.com/blog/product-reviews/the-ultimate-wet-lens-sample-post You need to scroll down to find the images, they all have EXIF data to check focal length etc. The second WWL of the large cod is most relevant as it is at the widest setting on an APS-C camera. You can see the corners are better than the UWL-100 with a dome.
  8. It should read " all the controls worked a couple of time after each day's diving while being soaked for around an hour" I'm meticulous but not that extreme!
  9. A few thoughts; The Canon 8-15 is basically a circular fisheye or a full frame fisheye lens not really a zoom, so unless you particularly want the circular look, the Sigma might be a good cheaper option. On the fisheyes on the Nauticam port chart the port wit the "*" for most optimized is the 140 mm dome. Fisheye lenses are less dependent on dome size as they don't need deal with pulling the corners into focus like a rectilinear lens. I doubt there would be much difference between your 8.5" and a 230mm dome. What those options are not quite so good at are CFWA as you can't get as close as the smaller dome. The 14mm options are rectilnear so corners will be worse than your 16-35 at 16mm in the same dome. Neither will take the S&S correction lens and they really need a 230mm dome. The general consensus seems to be that the WWL will beat out ultrawide (weitwinkel) rectilinears even behind a big dome at the cost of a little barrel distortion - the WWL is not rectilinear so not a full substitute if you really need straight lines to stay straight, however it will be perfectly fine for big animals, reef scenes, CFWA etc. There is some overlap between the WWL and fisheye lens but it is not really regarded as a fisheye substitute - but for big animals it of course has the advantage of allowing you to zoom if your subject won't come close enough, unless you are talking really big subjects like whales, a fisheye is often a little short on reach for pelagics.
  10. A true white or grey card are actually the same colour, the grey just has lower reflectivity. A camera meter will try to render a white piece of paper as 18% grey. If you use a white piece of paper the camera will try to make it 18% grey - which is the colour/reflectivity of an 18 % photographic grey card. I suspect the reason they want you to center the exposure is to get a strong signal to work from to determine the balance. I would just try it and see, if the white balance comes out acceptable just keep doing the same thing. It sounds like you have been doing manual WB already. Is there anything you don't like about the results so far?
  11. A similar question was asked a while back and I posted some comparison shots between a fisheye and 7mm (114 deg diagonal) rectilinear. Not exactly your two choices but close. You know how large a door is so it gives you an idea of how close you need to be. The shot was taken about 800-900mm from front edge of door frame, so really quite close. Read the text in the link to help understand distances etc. Moving on from that the question gets back to what you shoot the most. You van control how close you get to the reef or a seafan or other fixed feature quite easily and do general reef scenes or CFWA and here the fisheye is probably a good choice. For pelagics you don't have control over subject distance so much and if you swim at the subject it might leave, so ability to zoom in is invaluable and you would probably choose the WWL, unless the subjects were huge like humpback whales for example. In theory you can take off the WWL and use the bare 14-42, in practice it is rather difficult. With the WWL 1B when you take it off your rig is suddenly 120 gr lighter and could go positive. The WWL is a big hunk of metal over 150mm across - the problem is where to put it when you take it off It doesn't have a tether point either so you don't want to drop it !! It's a bit large for most pockets, some people talk about having a docking station on a strobe arm but this is a big piece and will likely get in the way if stored there. This question has been asked a number of times before and it generally gets around to that in practice most people tend to leave it on for the entire dive. The fisheye will allow you to focus all the way to the dome, At that point a subject about 100mm or so across is a nice size in the frame, but that subject is probably not a fish as most will leave if you get that close.
  12. The specs are available here: https://www.nauticam.com/collections/water-contact-optics-for-nav There's a minor difference in weights in air vs water and the diameter is the same. They will both be negative setups overall in the water unless you add flotation. I would think that for pelagic work where you don't have so much control over how closely the animals approach a zoom capability would be invaluable, compared to minor weight differences. Size wise they would have the same cross sectional area with the dome facing forward so nothing much there.
  13. One thing to be aware of is that for cameras and lenses if they have been in Saltwater most repair facilities won't repair them - quite often they repair what they find then corrosion from the salt continues and something else fails - it's generally a total loss for anything electronic in salt water. Housing are not so bad as you only need to replace the vacuum electronics so the cost is not too high.
  14. There's quite a few sites on the web for dealing with this with various solutions. here's a few links: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjOmtjch5j6AhUI3nMBHQKjCO4QFnoECAoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DY1SBCMlPogU&usg=AOvVaw1eRbx-dm1T58gWwMRtupFk or Saliva: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjOmtjch5j6AhUI3nMBHQKjCO4QFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theinertia.com%2Fsurf%2F4-tips-to-avoid-pesky-water-drops-while-shooting-surf%2F&usg=AOvVaw0g-HGvA9EeyZXJj-ePXgDL or this one: https://saltysurfhousings.com/prevent-water-drops-ruining-photos/
  15. It's really no different to any computer backup except the files are larger. Cloud is probably impractical due to file sizes, but that will depend on what sort of a deal you can get on cloud storage and your connection speed. Otherwise it's a matter of routinely backing them up onto HDDs and keeping several copies. The external drive should only be connected when you are actually backing up.
  • Create New...