Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ChrisRoss

  1. The thickness of the S&S adapter appears to 19.9mm from the info you provided and the 18462 is 39.5mm. If you are prepared to use multiple extension rings there are lots of options: 19.9 + 39.5 = 59.4 19.9 + 16.5 + 25.5 = 61.9 19.9 + 21.5 +21.5 =62.9 19.9 + 16.5 + 28.5 = 64.9 19.9 + 21.5 + 25.5 = 66.9 19.9 + 25.5 + 28.5 = 69.9 So you could try it out with what you have - do some measurements and take a few dives to see if you wanted to adjust the extension amount a bit. A shortcut way to get the same extension you have now might be to measure the length of extension from the camera body inside the housing to the end of both the old and new extension tubes /adapter assembly. You should be able to do this my mounting the body with no lens into the housing and installing the extension tubes you are using without the dome. Next check the dimension from the end of the extension to the flat base inside the dome is the same for both domes. If they are different you'll need to adjust for that. You are trying to get the dimension from the camera body to the inside flat surface of the dome. For 180° fisheye domes this is also the centre of curvature for the domes. That way assuming they are both 180° domes you place the lens in the same spot relative the centre of curvature of both domes. Hope that makes sense!
  2. The missing pieces of the puzzle are how much "extension" is included in each dome and if there is any difference in how far back the camera sits in the S&S housing vs the Aquatica housing as both of those measurements will move the entrance pupil with respect to the dome centre of curvature. S&S port charts say to use 60mm of extension and Aquatica uses 2.5" or 63.5mm, so the optical centre of the domes and camera placement is likely in or close to the same spot in both systems. I don't have a good feel for it but looking at port charts supplied by various vendors indicates the 10mm error might be OK - but it depends on your standards. You could always do some measurements after you buy the dome and get a different extension ring or combination of extension rings. You know that the big acrylic dome is likely to be quite floaty and the housing is going to want to twist upwards and it may require the addition of some weight on the dome shade?
  3. That's a good approach , having a slightly negative housing is not a bad thing, much better than positive.
  4. Total UW weight =800-50+250= 1000 gr. The two Nauticam arms are 1020 gr, so 20 gr positive, however you also add 6 clamps and two ball arms which I think are around 650gr in total maybe a little less in water so you might be 500-600 gr negative when you add them in. You probably could use two of the big INON or Nauticam floats with that setup depending on the weights of your clamps. An alternative might be to add 2 INON ML arms at 210 gr each and be 100-200 gr negative. Or you could consider the Kraken adjustable arms if you want to get perfectly neutral.
  5. the long clamp goes in the centre between the two arms - it allows the arm to fold completely so the two arms are parallel. First though get your weight in water - you could have a different mixture of arms.
  6. The trick with the mega floats is to use long clamps - I have the small mega floats used together with plain non-float arms for my macro setup and find it works well. I can't use the same setup with my dome as it is too buoyant - domes tend to add some buoyancy to the system compared to macro setup - the bigger the dome, the more buoyant in general. The big mega floats have a lot of buoyancy and you generally need to use two of them for symmetry. So with either of these choices you are looking at 1.2kg of buoyancy as a minimum.
  7. Thanks for that, Nudis can be found in all sorts of habitats and generally on or close to their food source - in Sydney that is mostly on rocky reefs where they feed on sponges, tunicates, hydroids etc. Apparently nudis in this part of the world are bigger than in other areas like the Caribbean and they can be readily found on the rocks. The diving in Sydney is excellent so plan on doing some dives there - the visibility is quite variable and the dive sites are subject to swells so you can't just dive anytime. The water is also cold, it's at its warmest of around 20°C in April-May timeframe and dive conditions are mostly good. Plenty to see underwater including weedy sea dragons, giant cuttlefish, sea horses, nudis etc.
  8. The issue as I understand it that while you can fix a Raw image in post for colour temperature problems, video editing does not have the same latitude for correction as you are generally not starting from a raw image so you need to be close. Good sensors are one thing but if the camera lands you too far from the goal posts you might struggle somewhat. I guess filters are an option particularly if you are shallow. Video is really not my thing I know enough about it to be dangerous- if I might suggest asking in another post about current performance of the Sony sensors under the conditions you are talking about and recommended approach. I don't have a feel for how close you need to to colour grade in post. I find it odd that the 28mm f2 and 35mm f2.8 both are listed as working with the WWL-1 while the 28-70 f3.5-5.6 lens is not as that would be a ready solution for you. You might also consider the Zen DP-170 N120 dome port as an alternative to the Nauticam port.
  9. I'm not sure what you hope to shoot with the 35mm lens it's effectively a 45mm normal lens behind a flat port, you can as you say add a WWL-1 but that is a big chunk of glass you keep to keep somewhere when it's not attached to your port. It should be fine for medium sized fish around 300 - 400 mm long I would think, however it does not focus super close and only achieves 0.12x magnification, so a 290mm long subject would fill the frame horizontally at minimum focusing distance. I assume you are looking towards primes so you can shoot wider open? If I was looking at lenses in that range I'd suggest looking in the direction of the 24-70mm f4 lens which goes with the 180mm dome a fairly compact affordable solution which gives you more reach when you need it for smaller fish and wide enough for a man sized school of fish - but not really wide enough to stray into the issues with poor corners in wide angle domes. Or you could look at the Sigma ART 24-70 lens which achieves 0.34x magnification filling the frame with a 100mm long subject. As you previously used an RX-100 I'm sure you are aware of the limitations white balancing Sony cameras underwater.
  10. The WWL-1 port chart is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cyk7BxeB8sVcmnoG03Up4yilm0i62xFg/view these lenses are not listed as yet - the WWL-1 requires a 28mm equivalent lens at the wide end so the Sony lens may work. The Nikon would need to zoom to 28mm to stop vignetting and may also work. You would need a flat port of the right size available which placed the front element up close to the port glass - Nauticam don't list these lenses so you would need to work out the appropriate port yourself if you wanted to test the setup. The WWL-1 is mainly specified with compact - through to APS-C system lenses the only full frame Nauticam list is the Sony 28mm f2. I'm not sure why this is But I expect they would list more lenses if they worked for full frame cameras.
  11. Hi Apocolibri, If I may suggest, sometimes the point doesn't always get across well in printed format on a forum. Massimo makes some valid points as do you. To be strictly correct the Olympus 100-400mm lens has the field of view of a 200-800 on a m43 sensor and it is strictly equivalent to a 200-800 f10-12.6 lens on a full frame at least as far as depth of field goes, but has the advantage of being physically a f5-6.3 lens for light gathering capability. The implication of this is subject isolation using depth of field is more difficult on m43 lenses due to the greater DOF with smaller sensors at a given subject framing. It means the image looks like it was taken with an 800mm f12.6 lens, which would weigh about the same if one was made as the weight is set largely by the big chunk of glass up front. For a tele lens a 100-400 of a given maximum aperture and construction/optical quality will weigh about the same whether you design it for full frame or m43 as the diameter of the front element is set by focal length and f ratio not the image circle. Where m43 gets a real advantage is wide lenses as they can use smaller front elements and internal elements as they project a smaller image circle and also being mirrorless are not constrained by need to use retro-focus design to accommodate a mirror box. For example the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 has a 62mm filter while the near equivalent 24-70 f2.8 from Canon uses an 82mm filter. Optically they only need a 29mm diameter front element. This makes the m43 wide lenses significantly more compact. Olympus like any other company is sometimes a bit liberal with their specification claims - the 0.57x max image magnification for instance includes a crop factor which kind of defeats the purpose of getting more magnification. The point of all this is that simplistically the crop factor gives you 2x reach but after that it is not really fully equivalent to full frame as it's no different to cropping a full frame sensor - the magnification is lower with the same subject framing so depth of field goes up and less light is gathered due to smaller sensor area sensor area so image quality suffers somewhat. Most people are happy to just get the reach and it's good enough for many people. Having used both full frame and m43 super teles - the images are certainly different, getting a nice smooth background is harder in m43 and you have to be a lot more careful with your framing and background selection to stop the background going ugly on you.
  12. Seeing as how you have all of your gear - assemble it with camera and lens and weigh it hanging off a luggage scale in a tub of water - completely submerged. Your YS-D3 is listed as -20g underwater (i.e positive bouyancy) and the Weefine light at 240gr UW. Add up all of the underwater weights paying attention to the signs and that is the amount of buoyancy you require. You of course also need clamps etc. which add a little negative buoyancy. I use a luggage scale - it's good enough just hang the housing off a rope or sling and let it settle and get the weight. It's best in a tub of water that is deep enough to fully submerge. Then select the float arms that add up to close to but not over the weight of your system - you do not want a positively buoyant rig - slightly negative is more stable. You can use 4 float arms or two float and two regular arms. INON provide a table of UW weight for all their equipment which may be helpful: http://www.inon.jp/products/armsystem/weight_table.html If I were to guess based upon my system I would say what you selected is too much buoyancy - but don't guess weigh it and calculate. It will be about 3% more buoyant in salt water - but that is normally within the margin of error of these calculations. If you use the Mega float arms I would recommend long clamps for connecting it to your other arm otherwise they won't be able to fold them to get the two arms parallel and it will limit how close you can get the flash to your housing
  13. Good topic Adam, - one thing not really mentioned about medication is that prevents seasickness but does not cure it. If you are going to take medication, take it 1/2 an hour before you get on board. Once you are starting to feel the impact it's usually too late. Interesting you talk about feeling ill in the water - I get seasick on boats and if I'm feeling a little queasy I feel instantly better once in the water - not that I've been snorkelling or diving in really big rolling swells, but I get surge on shore dives around Sydney all the time and it doesn't seem to bother me at all. Of course everyone is unique, but I always encourage people feeling sick on the boat to hop in the water. The other thing that can get you trough a rough patch till you get in the water is closing your eyes for long enough for the nausea to settle down. Lying down can help but you probably don't want to do it inside. Food can also make a difference - you probably don't want anything too acidic, greasy or spicey, so chugging back a big bottle of Orange Juice before hopping on board is probably not good as is travelling on an empty stomach.
  14. You could probably start here: https://www.stlfinder.com/3dmodels/zoom-gear/?page=2 There's a file for an olympus lens in an Aquatica housing and also one for 10-17 in a different housing - join the two together with the right length and it might save you some work. You would probably just take the internal dimensions for the 10-17 gear and the gear dimensions from the Olympus gear and join them together. This post may also be helpful: talks a bit about "assembling" the gear from parts in the CAD program
  15. A quick Google finds the only option being an EWA Marine bag housing - might be OK for splash work, Don't know if this is a newer model or not, but found older posts here: http://www.bmcuser.com/forum/blackmagic-camera/general-discussion/16779-no-underwaterhousing-for-ursa-mini-possible Indicates nauticam have no plans to house. You could maybe hire one from Hydroflex? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj5lczsxqvsAhWJ7XMBHYPgCG0QFjADegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhydroflex.com%2Fequipment-rentals%2Fcamera-housings%2F&usg=AOvVaw2Vg3fkAOKjBEXVdBCrruPu
  16. The WWL-1 gives a 130° diagonal field of view (equivalent to 10mm lens) from a 28mm equivalent focal length lens so that is 10/28 = 0.36x. So that makes the 14-42 into a 5-15mm equivalent lens. The WWL-1 introduces barrel distortion - sort of semi fisheye so while it gives you 130° on the diagonal, the horizontal field of view is more like 104° rather than the 121° you would expect on a 10mm rectilinear lens so that would be more like a 7-21mm lens for the horizontal field of view. Fisheye lenses are similar - while they get a 180° diagonal field of view their horizontal field of view is only about 135°
  17. The fisheye can be housed in a smaller dome - on Nauticam their 140mm glass dome is recommended, but it can be used in bigger domes or the 4.33" acrylic dome. The 16-35 lens is the most demanding and to get good corners you need the 230mm dome. The Nauticam port charts list options to use the 8.5" acrylic dome and smaller domes but don't expect good corners at 16mm. The S&S correction lens is also recommended to help with corners. The reality is that housing a full frame camera is an expensive option and made doubly so if you want to house a wide rectilinear lens. Having said that it does depend a little on what you plan to shoot - big animals with bluewater in the corners should be acceptable. It's hard finding images that show this online here is one link which gives you some idea what to expect: https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839 That link also talks about the S&S correction lens and shows the difference it makes. At top is a photo on full frame with a 170mm dome showing corner softness. The link also has a couple of frames from a 200mm dome with a 17mm lens showing that with the S&S lens an 8" dome is probably OK - depending on your standards. On the lens choice I would suggest the f4 lens - you will never need the extra stop underwater so save your $$ and put it towards a big dome! On Ikelite vs Nauticam or others - plenty of people are happy with ikelite housings - they are built to a price but they are cheaper for a reason.
  18. A lot of people swear by the S&S correction lens on the 16-35 even in the big dome for better corners and less need to stop down. Which dome do you have? Fisheyes are less demanding on dome size - the recommended dome size for a full frame fisheye from Nauticam is their 140mm glass dome, but it can be used in the bigger domes as well. Strobes, the INON strobes are well proven as Tim says and you can't go wrong there. The Retra strobes do seem to be very good by all accounts and are worth looking into.
  19. Maybe - it should allow you do a more or less true multi purpose rig - as the lens length doesn't change much as you zoom as far as I am aware - so you could use a double flip holder with a wide lens and a macro lens - the wide lens would be something like an INON 100° model smaller and cheaper than the Nauticam WWL options which are too big to keep on flip holders. They would both work well as the end of the lens remains at the minimum distance from the port glass. The INON wide lens is not zoom through so you pop it on, use it then pop it off. Something like this one: http://www.inon.jp/products/lens/uwlh10028ld/top.html You can also add a dome to this lens for still wider field - but not underwater - it is a dry dome with an o-ring seal With the LX100II you would lose too much wide angle off anything but the big 130° WWL options to make using a WWL worthwhile without changing to the short port - and because the port is short you have either the WWL field of view or 24-30mm equivalent as the lens can't zoom in anymore because it hits the port. When it hits the port it will probably throw an error requiring you turn the camera off and on again. So it's either very wide or sort of wide - probably too short for any but the most tolerant or very big fish. The bonus with the EPL-10 option is you can get ports to do macro and also the 8mm fisheye if you want to down the track. Also on the AF - I am guessing it should be similar to the EM-5 II which will hunt a little with macro and give you problems if there are particles in the water that it wants to focus on. Usable - but not perfect.
  20. I keep my layered tiffs as 8 bit files a bare 20MP image is 42MB and a layered tiff around 100MB - I'm not a huge shooter so my main image folder with processed images is 300GB with 5000 files, plus a number of smaller folders adding up to at least that much again. My underwater raw file folder is 400GB and has many more files - including sidecars and files generated by my image processing programs. For me quite manageable - for others with much bigger libraries it could present real challenges. I could see it being viable to convert your selects to Tif and leave everything else as Raw. The premise of lightroom of course is to store Raw files and a catalogue with all your processing steps effectively stored there. Capture One does something similar and you only produce a tiff or jpeg when you specifically export it. In theory it should be the most economical way in terms of file sizes to store your images.
  21. The domes are expensive for a reason the Isotta dome is glass while the ikelite acrylic. Acrylic domes are buoyant and scratch easily but you can polish out the scratches. Glass is harder to scratch but really not possible to polish out damage and handle better as they are not trying to float up. There are adapters available to adapt to other systems but they normally add extension which might be a problem and they might need to be custom made. Backscatter has some available: https://www.backscatter.com/department/SLR/type/Port-Adaptors They are mostly for adapting Subal to Nauticam or similar expensive systems though there is one for adapting an 8" modular Ikelite dome to Nauticam. If you went with Nauticam you could buy the 8" Ikelite dome plus the adapter for $400 plus $240 for the adapter = $640 or get the Nauticam 8.5" acrylic dome for $724. (backscatter prices) To me saving less than $100 is not worth it - for the hassles in sorting out correct extension and there may be other compromises. There's nothing listed for Isotta adapters. This shows the importance of looking at your housing selection from a complete system standpoint. In Aluminium housings you can often buy for example a m43 housing , the camera and one of the lenses you want for the cost of just the full frame camera housing - depending on the specific model you look at. m43 housings are smaller and importantly the dome ports are smaller and lenses are cheaper. Yes you have a smaller sensor - but it's fine for many purposes. If you are shocked by the price of the domes then maybe it is worthwhile thinking about a different approach. By the way a 9" dome is huge and can be a problem for traveling - which lens were you proposing to house in that dome?
  22. This looks very much like a particle on the sensor. how big is the spot on the port? the spot will be extremely out of focus on a flat port and would only show up I think if it's a significant size and sharp edged or if you were stopped right down. It's easy enough to confirm the port is giving you the trouble by taking a shot of a white wall with the same aperture with the camera alone. A waterspot is not going to cause that sort of shadow and they generally disappear UW. it would need some sort of solid particle cemented onto the glass. You should be able to feel it with your fingernail. As for cleaning you need to be careful but it's not that difficult - unlike a camera lens it's waterproof so you can soak it with cleaner - something like eyeglass cleaner should be fine - that will be fine for either acrylic of glass lenses as most eyeglasses are acrylic. Spray it on generously and leave for a few minutes - but don't let it dry out. Then try a microfibre cloth. You could also try vinegar which may help loosen what ever is cementing the particle on. As a last resort I would assume the glass in the port is replaceable.
  23. Sounds promising - definitely try it with the new cable.
  24. The EPL-10 seems like a neat package. Though I don't have experience on how good the AF is I would guess it's the same as my old EM-5 mkii which was OK but would hunt a bit on the 60mm macro. The EM-1 MkII I have now is a lot better at AF. If you are planning on adding wet lenses for wide angle I would suggest looking into how well they perform on the LX-100 - the WWL-C which is designed for 24mm lenses only gets full range by using the short port option on the Nauticam housing which means it will be compromised on macro when diving with that setup. You can use it with the standard port but you need to zoom in to stop vignetting and you lose field of view as you zoom in. You can zoom into about 30-32mm on the WWL-C and still get decently wide but with a 100° wet lens (18mm equivalent ) you would only have about 84° of equivalent to a 24mm lens . This problem will occur on whatever wet lens you use - they all use M67 attachment thread on the port and this is what causes the vignetting and you zoom in till you can't see it to get rid of vignetting. I use the WWL-C as an example as it has data on what the field of view is - but it applies to other wet wide lenses. With the 14-42 lens in a flat port wide is not that wide - about equivalent to a 35mm lens and it only gets 0.32x by itself so could fill the frame with something maybe 60mm long. It's about the same range as you G15 without the close focus macro capability. So you would need a wet diopter to get closer for small subjects. As far as longevity goes - it's anyone's guess and probably only time will tell.
  25. Tiff is defined as lossless and JPEG is not . It used to be said that opening and re-saving a jpeg causes the quality to deteriorate - though now it seems many say it doesn't if max quality is used. But if you open the file and re-edit it a number of times you risk issues surfacing. I save mine as layered tiffs in 8 bit uncropped so I can change edits in the future losslessly - you can use LZW compression and remain lossless. LZW however doesn't make the file smaller in 16 bit. Some would argue saving as 16 bit is better - but my view is you only need the 16 bits when stretching the image during editing. You can always re-open the file and paste in a newly processed RAW layer of the image . I keep both the raw and tif files.
  • Create New...