Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


stuartv last won the day on April 6

stuartv had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About stuartv

  • Rank
    Sting Ray

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lexington, SC

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Sony a7r IV, Olympus OM-D E-M10
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam, Meikon
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Inon Z240 Type 3
  • Accessories
    Nauticam WWL-1

Recent Profile Visitors

2790 profile views
  1. Yes, I totally get that. I was responding to mjrovner's comment about publishing cycle times in W-sec.
  2. Yeah.... That would be nice, wouldn't it....? I very rarely fire at full dump. What I would like to see is cycle time when set to f/4 (on my Z240, or the equivalent exposure output from other strobes). I don't even think W-Secs is suitable. I know from working with other lighting that the "watts" of output is not necessarily comparable between different lights. Different lights have different output emitters and electronics that result in different efficiency and efficiency curves. One light putting out 50 W-sec could be brighter or less bright than another that uses a different light emitter or different circuit board. What I can say (to your earlier question) is that even my Z240 strobes will fire at around 2 frames per second, when set to something like f/4. So, multiple frames per second with the Retra Pro should not be a problem at all - IF you don't have them set to too high of an output setting.
  3. Question: Are the recycle times you're talking about for when the unit is firing at full power? If so, then are you making a fair comparison between the Prime X and Pro X? I think it would be more useful to compare the recycle times when the Pro is set to the same power level as the Prime. My guess is that, if that's all the power you need, then the Pro probably recycles just as quickly as the Prime. But, if you DO need more power, the Prime cannot deliver and the Pro can. In other words, my guess is that there is no downside to the Pro X, as you have suggested.
  4. Yep. That is exactly why I got the double-sided bayonet mount to go on one of my float arms. As well, I might have times when I want to shoot something of a size that I don't want the WWL-1 or the CMC attached.... I haven't actually used it yet, though....
  5. My port shipped with the focus knob installed. I don't recall anything in the box that would constitute a plug for the hole if I removed the focus knob.
  6. I could stand to remove mine. How do you plug the hole that is left?
  7. If the WWL-1B is rated to 150m, and the foam buoyancy collar is only rated to 50m, then I wonder why the WWL-1 is only rated to 100m? It must be different than the WWL-1B in more ways than just not having a metal buoyancy collar... Not that it's likely to matter to me... If I ever get to the point of diving deeper than 100m, I doubt I'll do it enough to get to the point of feeling comfortable enough to add a camera rig to all the other stuff I would have to be taking... I might do a few dives deeper than 100m eventually, but probably never while also carrying a camera.
  8. Thanks for that info. I think I will take the foam collar to 70m and not worry about it. I did know my Stix floats are only rated to around 40m. I was planning to get a couple more carbon fiber float arms to use instead of my Stix floats, for the deeper dives. But, it is interesting to hear that the Stix return to "like new" after a dive like that. I will give some thought to using them for that. I'm don't foresee anymore 100m dives for me any time soon. I did that on OC and I have no interest in doing it again on OC. My CCR limit is currently 50m, soon to be 70m. It will be a while before I advance my CCR training to the 100m ticket. And only after that will I get back to any 100m diving. 100m diving on OC is just too risky for my tastes.
  9. I'm glad you mentioned the depth rating. What I can see on the Nauticam website is that the WWL-1 is rated to 100m and the WWL-1B is rated to 150m. I can't see a depth rating on the foam buoyancy collar itself. I guess that means that the WWL-1 is rated to 100m, assuming you're using the foam buoyancy collar? And it's the foam collar that is the limiting factor? Are you aware of some lesser depth rating of the foam buoyancy collar itself? If the WWL-1 is identical to the WWL-1B, except for the aluminum collar, then I can't see how the WWL-1 itself (no collar) would not be capable of the same depth as the WWL-1B. I'm scheduled to dive the U-869 this summer and will probably take my WWL-1 on that. I would not have thought about making sure of a depth limit on my WWL-1 for that dive. It's only about 70m. I guess the WWL-1 with the foam buoyancy collar is okay for that...?
  10. I'm a little embarrassed to post such a poor quality photo on a photography forum, but, well, here it is. This is my WWL-1 with the foam buoyancy collar. It does look like it is bigger than the 1B collar. But, it doesn't look like the difference is all THAT much. Personally, being always on the hunt for bargains on used gear, were I shopping for a WWL-1, I think I would have no problem buying a used WWL-1 and using the foam buoyancy collar, if it saved me a couple of hundred bucks.
  11. Do you (or anyone?) have a photo that would show how the WWL-1 with foam buoyancy collar and WWL-1B compare size-wise? I'm curious to see how much bigger the one is than the other.
  12. 1) the WWL-1 does not come with a buoyancy collar. They sell a hard foam one. The 1B has a metal buoyancy collar that comes on it. If you get the 1(A?), I think you really want a buoyancy collar for it. AFAIK, the lens itself is the same. At least, optically speaking and how it mounts to your camera. 2) You don't need a focus gear - unless you want to use Manual focus. I don't have the focus gear for the 28-60 lens and I can't see myself ever needing it. For fine focus, I would be more likely to just let AF get it very close and then rock back and forth a little bit to adjust the fine focus. 3) If you want to use strobes, you need a strobe trigger. It doesn't have to be the Nauticam one. I am using a UWT (Underwater Technic) and would probably buy another one. It supports using TTL mode (which I have not used, but do intend to play with that soon). I tried a Trt S-Turtle trigger and had poor luck with it and Trt's customer service. I don't know if the Nauticam trigger supports TTL. You have to decide if you want that option (to be ABLE to use TTL) and then make sure the trigger you get does support it for your camera AND your strobes (if you want that option to be available to you). 4) You don't HAVE to have a vacuum valve, but it is highly advisable. The Nauticam one is working very well for me. I think BS or BW also has their own branded one, that you could go with. Which one is really up to you. The Nauticam housing should have a built-in moisture and vacuum detector. If you don't have a vacuum valve, then you won't be able to take advantage of the vacuum detector (which detects LOSS of vacuum). You'll only know if you have a leak when water gets in and sets off the moisture detector. A vacuum valve is cheap insurance for an expensive camera. 5) My Inon Z240s have been rock solid. I had a terrible time trying to make a new pair of Sea&Sea YS-D3s work for me and ultimately sold them. If you search around this forum, you'll find many others with the same complaints I had regarding using the S&S. People with offboard LED flash triggers (like you will have with an a7c) struggle to get the S&S strobes to fire reliably. People with cameras that have a built-in flash, generally have good luck. Also on the subject of strobes, my opinion is to buy the biggest/best you can afford. If/when you ever change camera systems, strobes will move right over. Unlike your housing, etc.. Strobes are an even more long-term investment than the camera itself. I'd take Inon Z330s over Inon D200s - unless you want the D200s for size/weight considerations. If necessary, I would even buy 1 Z330 over 2 D200s, to get started, then save up to buy a second Z330 later. 6) You don't HAVE to have a focus light at all. But, they really do help the camera focus more quickly and accurately in low light. I use my focus light all the time (for wide angle) and for small (but not macro-small) stuff. I haven't ventured into actual macro shooting yet. Fortunately, a focus light does not need to be expensive. Low power is better than high power. You don't need it to automatically turn off when the strobes fire. Strobes are so much brighter, a low powered focus light won't affect the picture when it stays on during the exposure. So, pretty much any small, low powered dive light will work just fine. I use a very inexpensive, relatively low-power video light as my focus light. It throws a nice wide beam, so I don't have to worry about aiming it precisely, and I can get focus lock on a subject, with tracking, and then recompose and my subject will still be illuminated to help the AF tracking.
  13. I had asked the same questions to the guys at Reef Photo a couple of months ago and they gave me the same answers that @ChrisRoss gave you here. In other words, they DO know their stuffs. They also have awesome customer service. And, Reef Photo's Return Policy will allow you to return something for a full refund. Backscatter's Return Policy does not allow for refunds. You can only return an item for credit or exchange - even if it's brand new and unopened. Just an FYI there.
  14. Fred Miranda posted a review recently on his site of the Sony 28-60, comparing it to some well-known and well-liked prime lenses. It turns out that, even though it is inexpensive and lightweight, the 28-60 is very high in image quality. It actually bested some primes in most ways. At the apertures it can offer, of course. You can't compare the 28-60 at f/2.8 to a prime, since the 28-60 doesn't go that big. I was shooting an E-M10 with the 14-42+WWL-1 for several years. I upgraded to a Sony a7rIV last year and just got the 28-60 a couple of weeks ago (still using the WWL-1). I just got to shoot it this past weekend. It looks pretty good to me, so far. But, Phil is the man and, well, it's clear that he thinks the Sony/28-60/WWL-1 is going to be better than the Oly/14-42/WWL-1. LOL My agreement really means nothing next to his wealth of knowledge and experience (yet I DO agree). I know you are looking for compact, so you're thinking about the a7c. But, I would just throw this out there: The a7rIV (or a7rIII or an a1) has a lot more megapixels. I can switch my rIV to APS-C mode and still get a 26MP image while also narrowing my field of view to the equivalent of 1.5X focal length. I think all those extra MP really add flexibility to the setup. You can shoot in crop mode, or you just still shoot in FF mode and crop in post. Regardless, with that many MP to work with it's almost like having a close-up lens to use at will - without having to actually physically change the camera. The extra weight and bulk of a housing for an a7rIV (etc) may not be worth it to you for that extra flexibility, but it's at least something to consider. Also, regarding AF performance, I found that my E-M10 benefited from using a focus light and so does my Sony rig. If it's anything less than "good" ambient light, I'll turn my focus light on, just to make sure my AF has the best chance of getting a good lock on my subject.
  • Create New...