Jump to content

loftus

Member
  • Content Count

    4567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by loftus

  1. I meant to post photographs of the housing and camera so here goes. The housing is shown with the magnifying viewfinder. Price quoted is with standard eyepiece. If you want the magnifying viewfinder, that will be an additional $900. (New $1150). Camera will come in additional box with charger etc.
  2. I am selling my trusted Nikon D800E and Nauticam housing. Both used but in excellent condition. One recent dive trip since service. Nikon D800E has 14997 activations. Nauticam housing includes vacuum pressure system and alarm. $2800 for everything. My email is jhartog@bougclin.com
  3. For me this is an awesome development particularly for my pool work where I often tend to frame and crop pretty tightly.
  4. This is really exciting stuff Alex. Great job. Can you spill the beans a little more about the exact construction of the lens, setup, optimum lens to port distances you have found etc. Is this essentially a flat port with a dioptre type lens element rather than a flat glass. Got thrown a bit when you discussed the lens threads; is there a component that screws to the lens as well?
  5. Not good http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/Shark-Diver-Goes-Missing-In-Bahamas.html As usual the media gets at least part of the story wrong - stating that Abernathy is controversial because of no cage shark diving - whereas all Bahamas operators do not use cages as far as I am aware. Unfortunately, I think night diving in these environments may not be the smartest thing despite having done it myself. My condolences to the diver's family.
  6. kun; unless it's clearly stipulated as part of the fee, in other words stated as gratuity added, you don't have to tip if you don't want to. But it would be nice for the crew. Even in Europe, restaurants frequently add a gratuity that's not optional. In this situation it is optional so be glad for that. So just do whatever you want. Nobody needs to justify things either way, it's neither right nor wrong, it's just the way it's done here.
  7. I agree this camera is expensive; but it will be interesting to see how the IQ compares to m4/3 and even Nikons own DX line like the 7100. With the lens convertor which I have there is a wide range of Nikon lenses that may make this a pretty impressive action camera. I have to wonder if anyone has tried the nikon 10.5 or even the Tokina 10-17 on this camera. How do the Nikon macro lenses perform on this camera? For me it's attractive to keep one camera system and have this camera simply add into my kit for use for travel diving. A lot will depend on the housing design as well. Allowing use of the convertor and standard Nikon lenses will help. I know this camera does not make sense for those already vested in m4/3, but it may make a lot of sense for those with existing Nikon kit.
  8. Impressive yes; one little drawback though - almost 20 x the price of a D800 for a functional system.
  9. This looks like a really exciting camera with some pretty impressive capabilities both on the video and still side. The V1 is really maturing into a serious camera I think. Some standout details for me: 20 fps RAW continuous focus, 60 fps fixed focus 1200 fps low res video Modular - strip it down to slip in the pocket, add grip, viewfinder etc as needed Use it with all my Nikon lenses, not new I know, but a 20 fps action camera with my existing 70-200 sounds impressive WiFi 18 MP high ISO capability - be interesting to see how the dynamic range etc compare to the DSLR's I think this could be a serious traveling underwater and wildlife camera particularly if Nikon get serious with some WA lenses; actually I see they make a 6.7-13. Hmmm getting better. Now what about housings Nauticam?
  10. Hey Cal, Thanks for dedicating that first image to me! Very nice. But yes, I am definitely not checking forums on WP as much. Just seems like one is so distracted with all the different forums, blogs, FB etc. Ironically it is Eric Cheng's fault as well for getting me into playing with quadcopter's. Sadly, I have not done much UW photography this last year except for drowning quadcopters. Let's see some more of the series.
  11. Yes, great to see, after all the posturing by some on my thread about Getty's heavy handedness.
  12. Personally I prefer DX as an underwater and topside wildlife camera. At both focal length extremes. 1. Availability of the 10-17 or 8-15 Canon 2. Further reach of teles for wildlife 3. Macro as noted above I love my D800 as a studio, landscape and underwater in the pool, for every other application I prefer DX
  13. Steve, Of all the adjusted versions above, I like yours the best. And probably the most important reason is that you were there and you know best how to render it the way you saw it. One of the problems of available light in general, is the way you saw it, is not with a perfect white balance - you saw a cyan/blue/red deficient animal in front of you. Adding strobe actually changes the way our eyes saw it. So with available light, I think it's a compromise, white balance needs some adjustment but not all the way to keep it real. That's why very often I simply prefer black and white conversions of available light images.
  14. I can watch this and chuckle for hours http://dragonlaffs.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/14.gif
  15. Great stuff; but having dived there (unfortunately only once so far), I wish you would have shown more. The packs of Silky Sharks, Tarpon, Barracuda, rays, not to mention even the macro. I agree with Jose on the music, OK for some of the stuff, but too slow for some of the action and excitement I experienced there. I guess there needs to be a Part 2.
  16. If you search the forums, this topic has been discussed extensively. The most popular options that can be made to work well and predictably on FX format will be the 15mm Sigma and 16mm Nikon Fisheyes, and the 16-35 and 17-35 Nikon rectilinear wide angle lenses. The 14-24 is a spectacular lens on land, but difficult to adapt for underwater use.
  17. I no longer own this lens, but on my D700 used it with a diopter with the Zen 230, usually +2
  18. Thanks for that. What's not clear from their answer regarding ' What happens if I decide to stop my membership', is exactly what happens. My question is will I still be able to fire up Photoshop, edit my images exactly as I do now, or is there some functionality that I will lose for day to day work? They do state that one has to log on at least every 30 days. Put another way, I know there are advantages for Adobe to this idea, just can't see any real advantages for me.
  19. So every time I fire up an Adobe product I will have to have an internet connection to use it? Or is it just updates over the internet? If I have to have an internet connection to use the product, doubt I will upgrade. There could be many occasions were I don't have access to the internet. Even just my local Brighthouse service being out. CS3 already did everything I needed for photography, so even CS6 was not really an essential upgrade for me. Funny I was just about to switch from Aperture to Lightroom.... guess I will stay with Aperture for the time being. I hate being forced onto the cloud. Some things it's great to have on the cloud, others it's just fine for me to be in total control.
  20. Nice; my favorite is the 5th image of the first series
  21. I see they have a Light and Heavy Scratch remover - did you start with the heavy and then the light as they recommend for deep scratches, or just one stage?
  22. I like #3, #1 as well. A comment on model posing. Limbs towards or away from the camera and not in the image plane are distorted, so it's important to instruct the model on this. In image #1 the distortion can be assumed to be intentional and works, in #2, the knees and feet look too big and and hands too small, the distortion can be assumed to be unintended so it does not work.
  23. On my trip to Sipadan a number of years ago one of my major takeaway impressions of the area was simply one thing - human overpopulation relative to the resources available and all the consequences thereof. I heard and saw the effects of dynamite fishing all over the area, saw trash disposal directly into the water both from the rig off Mabul and the boat villages(I have a picture of Mauricio Handler getting covered in stool from above), rows and rows of boat people showing up all the time with every possible type of reef fish for sale etc, etc. It's so easy for everyone to blame everyone else, big oil, corporations, etc, etc, but honestly every single person posting on this forum probably fits into the top 5% or less of largest consumers of planetary resources. There is no one who has come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuels for example that can provide similar efficiencies, and without destroying other resources like battery materials, to provide for growing populations all aspiring to be middle class at least, and wealthy at best. It really only comes down to one thing on a planetary scale, too many people for too few resources - irrespective of who controls the resources it's still the rest of us who consume them. The planet simply cannot support so many people, particularly if every one of those people wants to live beyond a subsistence level. So the only solution is fewer people. And there are two ways to accomplish that - stop reproducing and suicide or killing people beyond a certain age ala Soylent Green, say 60. Population control by birth control alone creates distortions of age groups which is in itself unsustainable. So suicide or killing older people is just as important for serious population control and balance. I turn 60 next year and I'm not volunteering for suicide, and if anyone comes near my house to get me, I have a gun.
×
×
  • Create New...