Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ChrisRoss

  1. Microscope mode is purely designed to allow it to focus closer. It however changes some settings when it is activated and locks out some flash options among other things. Better to use aperture priority and AF-super macro mode which allows the same magnification as microscope mode but without the restrictions. You need to be zoomed in at least 1.2x for this to work. Yes the zoom switch is purely optical zoom is you turn off digital zoom in the menus.
  2. If I was doing it I'd go with the INON, nice little strobe, reliable and use the same batteries as your current strobe.
  3. Currently you have a olympus 60mm macro which will do 1:1 which is a frame 17.3 x 13mm. If you refer to the Nauticam N50 port chart I linked above it gives the min frame size. A G7XIII can do down to 23 x 13 so not as good as you currently have. The RX-100VI/VII can do a smaller frame of 14.3 x 9 but only focuses 84-94mm from the port which means you have a big gap between what it can with the diopter and the bare lens. In other words you are stuck around the 14 x 9mm frame size with a big gap to the bare lens. You would be really hard pressed to match the experience using the 60mm macro if you change to a compact. As for the EPL-10, the AOI housing for that really is quite compact, but the AF won't be a match for the EM-1 MkII.
  4. Unfortunately that is not what is happening. The correct principle is Le Chatelier's principle. If the concentration of salt in the water is lower the ions will tend to move towards the area of lower concentration. What is correct is using warm water, salt is more soluble in warm water. The corrosion products are also soluble in case of aluminium chloride. What you do need to do is soak for a long time, the driving force to move the salt out of the small gaps is quite small. Salt water hangs around in those small gaps for a long time. My INON strobes are soaked for an hour after a day's diving and the gap below the o-ring remains full of water and even after an hour it is still salty. If I leave them till the next day to change batteries salt crystals form. The lesson here is this is why you need to break down your equipment - any salt water left behind slowly evaporates and becomes extremely corrosive.
  5. Buoyancy requires volume, if you want it more buoyant it has to be bigger. The other part of the equation is the port, dome ports being more buoyant, so you can't make the housing buoyant independent of the port. The last issue is that the rig will be more stable if the buoyancy is located above the rig, so with the float arms above the housing it can effectively hang below them and won't try to twist around. To try to do it all the housing you need to take the volume inside the floats and add it to the housing and some extra volume to compensate having the extra metal to enclose that volume. This means a bigger block of aluminium and more machining to remove the volume you have added so expense goes up. I would argue if you have arms for strobes anyway the additional volume in the float arms won't add a huge amount to the drag.
  6. It's not so much the AF as such, it's what happens when you want to shoot macro and add a wet lens. The working distance is a lot less than a dedicated macro lens and the working range can be extremely small making them fiddly to frame your subject and light it. If you want to achieve life-size macro it can be done on certain compacts only and even then there are significant limitations. Larger subjects are relatively simpler.
  7. ISO 50 is extended ISO, the camera takes a shot and over exposes it by one stop and then adjust the exposure in processing and you lose a stop off the highlights. Highlights riding on the edge will clip when processed and not be recoverable in post.
  8. Even without spares working cameras will be available on the second hand market for quite some time. It's not the DSLR that needs to show a benefit, it's the newcomer that needs to convince you to part with your hard-earned to upgrade.
  9. Those lights should be fine. Think about the sort of quality you really need then start adding up costs for various systems. The lenses you can use with each system will be quite different - for example for Canon you need to use a WACP in wet lenses, but Sony and the GH-5 you can use a WWL. Similarly a full frame 16-35 rectilnear if that is the direction you want needs a 230mm dome, but you can use the 170mm Zen dome with the Panasonic 8-18 on the GH-5, much cheaper and more portable.
  10. If you are primarily shooting video you want to read the fine prints on what each of the cameras can do - some cameras crop in different formats or have various means on down sizing from the high MP sensor to a 4K output, others do it directly. It's quite a big jump from Go-Pro to a full frame setup in terms of expense and size of equipment. Rather starting at the camera I would suggest starting with your subject and working back through lenses and ports you need to the camera. I would suggest you also include the GH-5/6 in your list they are very capable cameras for video work. On your video lights what output are they? Go-Pros are f2.8 and with full frame you'll probably be shooting at f8-11 due to dome port optics and DOF considerations, which requires significantly more light output.
  11. Agree, and we should be able to make points without getting personal. I have already had one member report this post, so please keep it civil and stick to the topic being discussed.
  12. The link has been fixed - it was previously pointing to a WP post
  13. I can't comment specifically on the quality and usability, however on the lens front you can have a bit of a jack of all trades setup with certain drawbacks. Firstly the bare lens is not a particularly usable range so you will be using wet lenses. On the wide end you can use a WWL and get good results, there is however not really an equivalent to a fisheye lens for reef scenics and things where a fisheye works so well. You need to pick your compact carefullt as not all give you the maximum working field with wet lenses. On the other end of the range a closeup wet lens is needed for macro work and the quality can be decent at the cost of having quite a limited range with not much working distance for macro work. You can see this in the Nauticam port chart here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MDc77-ZaL4CKXwgstW9KcyoaqA2BO58H/view For example the 24-70mm equivalent RX-100 can use the CMC lenses, which for the CMC-1 will shoot an area of 35 x 23mm which is about equivalent to life size framing with a full frame. This is achieved at a working distance from the front of the lens of 55mm which is pretty short and the setup will only focus between 55 and 75mm working distance. By comparison the Oly 60mm macro will cover 18mm x 13mm at min focus with about 80mm working distance. It will focus from this point to infinity. This allows you to fill the frame with a critter about half the size of one that fills your frame in compact like the RX-100 and will be easier to use for framing and finding your subject. While you can certainly take nice shots with these compact for macro, the flexibility is significantly reduced with limited working distances and less magnification. The longer focal length compacts like the RX-100VI and VII allow more magnification but with additional trade off like the need to change ports for best wide angle and narrower working distance in macro. So yes you can downgrade but there are trade offs, I wouldn't do it, but your requirements could well be different.
  14. In fact the horizontal field of the 10-17 with 1.4x is about 57° which is about the field of a 34mm full frame equivalent. So the Tokina becomes around a 20 -34mm FF equivalent lens or in actual focal length it's like a 12.5- 21.3 mm rectilinear in terms of horizontal field. So in terms of horizontal field it's very close to the 10-22mm lens. So I would argue that the 10-17 with 1.4x is also a reasonable substitute for a 10-22 as long as the barrel distortion is not going to be a problem.
  15. Yes, you add a 20mm extension tube and you would need a different zoom gear - the Kenko 1.4x is what you would need to use and it is 20mm thick.
  16. With those sorts of problems I would expect the strobe is probably toast unfortunately. The problem you describe sounds like an issue that others have reported in this forum and I don't recall anyone getting resolution. Depending on where you are located you might be able to find an independent repair shop to have a look at them, unless you happen to be an electronics wiz, self-repair is probably not an option. Sending them back to S&S often means you are without them for a long time and they have been reported to just say it's flooded and not repairable quite often. Probably cheaper to keep an eye out for a second hand strobe to replace it.
  17. I saw you also posted this in a different forum. I have deleted that post as we only allow for sale posts in the classifieds forum.
  18. Locking this topic as it is also posted in Photography Gear and Technique forum. Please only post in one place I will delete your other duplicate post.
  19. The WWL-1B has an inbuilt Nauticam bayonet so you can't add a third party bayonet to the lens. There is no M67 thread, so really need to get the Nauticam bayonet for your lens port. The WWL-1 has an m67 thread and you can use other bayonet systems but no guarantee if they will vignette or not though.
  20. The main difference between Ikelite and the Al housings apart from materials is ergonomics and wider range of lens ports. For your camera the Ikelite lens port for wide angle is limited to an 8" port either full size or the travel dome, no small ports for fisheyes. For the 7D housings are mostly discontinued now, though it appears you can still buy the ikelite new. You should be able to pick up an aluminium 7D housing for a bargain with patience, have a look in the classifieds.
  21. The choice of lens is really set by what you shoot the most. The 10-17 and 10-22 are really not interchangeable, the fisheye lens gives you a 180° diagonal down to 98°/81° diagonal/horizontal, while the 10-22 zooms from 106°/96° to 63°/54° Diagonal/horizontal. In 35mm equivalent terms the 10-17 is like a full frame fisheye to 15.5mm lens while the 10-22 is like a 16-35mm lens, so there is no overlap in focal length. The best way to compare a fisheye to a rectilinear lens is to convert the fisheye horizontal field to 35mm equivalent focal length of a rectilinear lens as the fisheye stretches the corners the most and comparing diagonal field of view can be misleading. In addition you could use the fisheye in a very small dome (100-140mm) but would need a larger dome for the 10-22, the Nauticam port charts suggest that the 230mm dome is most optimised. The big dome is harder to travel with and quite unwieldy. You could add a 1.4x to the 10-17 to give you more reach if needed - it would require another focus gear and a 20mm extension to use it. The fisheye effect is really only noticeable with subjects having straight lines, you can see the effect on reefs if include the reeftop in the frame, but if you shoot upwards, this is very rarely noticed, so mostly you may want it for shooting wrecks. I would think for big animals the 10-17 would be most useful, adding the 1.4x for example if shooting sharks that don't come so close. The benefit of the fisheye is that you can get closer and shoot through less water. A multi purpose alternative with a bit more reach might be a WACP-C, it still has barrel distortion and is probably quite suitable for large animals, you would use it with the 18-55mm lens and it would give you 130°-46° diagonal field of view. Roughly equivalent to a 16-50mm rectilinear in field of view.
  22. It's relatively easy to work out what to do for the 24-105 RF, if you look at Nauticam's port chart the 24-105 uses 40mm extension and the 24-70 uses 60mm extension, so the 24-105 uses 20mm less extension so as the 24-70 uses 70mm extension you would use a 50mm extension for the 24-105 lens. That leaves you looking for a zoom gear of course and if they don't produce one you might need to get one 3D printed. Of course an adapted EF 24-70 is already supported.
  23. Some nice shots, here I agree with Tim on his comments, though You might be better served by going back to the Raw file and if if you raised shadows there backing off a bit, it's very easy to turn things milky when using an overall shadows boost, my preferred approach is to us luminosity masks which works best in full Photoshop. A shadow mask pinned low to stop lightening the darkest shadows does wonders.This I mean click the curve and adjust the low point on the curve to 10 in to 8 out, slightly pulling down the very deepest shadows before pulling up the rest of the image. This would work well for the B&W wreck shot as well. I use the free version of the Tony Kupyer luminosity masks.
  24. Oftentimes you will be better served by a slower lens such as the 24-105 as apertures in the f2.8- 4 range aren't usable in dome ports due to dome port optics making the corners incredibly soft wide open. Having said that 24mm is wide but not that wide in UW terms and you need to back off further from the subject putting more water between you and the subject. The 24-70 does have a small advantage with closer focus distances than the 24-105. In that range an adapted EF 24-70mm f4 might be a better option as it focuses very close.
  • Create New...