Jump to content

Architeuthis

Member
  • Content Count

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Architeuthis last won the day on October 9

Architeuthis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Architeuthis

  • Rank
    Sting Ray
  • Birthday 11/06/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austria
  • Interests
    Diving / Photograpy / Video / Gardening / Cooking / Handcraft

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Austria
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Olympus OMD-EM5MII / Olympus OMD-EM1II / Lumix TZ-5 / Sony VX1000
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam EM5II / Nauticam EM1II / PT-EP10 / Origibal Lumix housing for TZ-5 / Sealux housing for VX-1000
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Two Sea & Sea YS-D2 / Two Gibielle video ligths / Weefine Smartfocus 2300
  • Accessories
    Zuiko 12-40mm 2.6 Pro / Zuiko 8mm FE 1.8 Pro / Panasonic 45mm Makro / zuiko 60mm Makro / Panasonic 7-14mm 4.0 WW / Zen DP170-N120 / Nauticam 45 Makroport

Recent Profile Visitors

16377 profile views
  1. I have an addition on the highest ISO values that make sense on MFT camera: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4406250 In the link above I made a test where the "isoless" range starts on the EM1II. The background is that digital cameras allow insane high possible ISO settings. These high ISO settings are only important for people that use JPEGs that come out of the camera, but not useful for people that do post-processing on raws (= UW photographers), since within the "isoless" range the dynamic range becomes smaller when increasing ISO, but SNR, after postprocessing and exposure correction, is more or less the same... The empirical finding for EM1II (I guess for EM5II it is similar) was, that ISO800 seems to be a kind of "sweet spot" for this camera (real live improvement of SNR after postprocessing (albeit at the cost of DR), compared to lower ISO settings). Above about ISO1600 the "isoless" range starts, meaning that SNR on postprocessed raws does not improve compared to lower ISO settings and one just looses DR at higher ISOs. Based on this, I use ISO1600 at the maximum with my MFT camera, even when the photo is underexposed at the end, and correct exposure afterwards in LR (as "Trimix"-Wolfgang already stated the noise looks disastrous then (especially at 100% magnification). This is the limitation of small sensors (I guess ISO1600 is no challenge for FF), but it can be fixed in postprocessing at the cost of (surpisingly little) detail). But of course, at some point the borders are reached and a physically larger sensor extends these borders (what I read in numerous reviews/tests, these borders are extended by approx. 1 EV (APS-C/DX) to up to approx. 2 EV (FF), but I cannot compare from my own experience)... Wolfgang
  2. Hi TimZ, I know Malapascua and thresher sharks, but did not have yet a camera when I was there. Now I have EM1II, before it was EM5II. EM1II "low light performance" is slightly better than EM5, but difference is not dramatic and both cameras are not famous in this respect. Based on my experience with hammerheads at Deadalus (30m-40m, early morning), I would take the following (maybe there is even better light in Malapascua since it is shallower and thresher sharks may come closer than hammerheads, but vis is likely lower): #1.: 12-50mm in the biggest domeport you have (You will not want CFWA there; do not take the planport!). Use 12mm as standard and zoom in just as much as the situation requires. The WA is likely too wide and the sharks, usually, too far (but of course, one never knows, do'nt blame me afterwards!). #2.: ISO400 (when needed 800) or even more, when required (If you have to choose at the end whether to increase shutter speed or ISO, take ISO, do'nt reduce the noise at the cost of motion blurr; noise is repairable). Aperture wider as you would use normally (f 5.6, maybe even wider, if dome/extension combination allows (I do not know the AOI dome performance with 12-50mm; corners are not important for thresher sharks in Malapascua)). Shutter speed 1/200 and (if possible) faster. #3.: While waiting for the sharks to appear, you can test out shutter automatic mode whether it works with shutter speed 1/200 - 1/400. When apertures at ISO400(or 800) are reasonable under the given light conditions, use shutter automatic mode (set to -0.7 EV by default to avoid overexposure). #4.: Use continuos shooting at 3-4 frames/s when the sharks pass by. No need to wait for the flashes to charge. Fast enough not to miss a nice posing and not so fast that you get thousands of images that you have to sort out later (only hundreds with 3-4 f/s). #5.: Afterprocessing in LR using (even heavy if required, do'nt be afraid of high ISO) noise reduction, followed by dehaze in Photoshop. No fear that you loose detail, there is not much detail existing in the image from the beginning... Waiting for your images... Wolfgang
  3. Hi Gonzales, Beautiful photos... Can you please state which camera,lens, extension and domeport was used? Wolfgang
  4. Here my 2 cents on the excessive noise problem with small sensors: Trimix-Wolfgang's observations on excessive noise with MFT are supported by the testshots of DPReview, so this are not just subjective impressions and his observations are substantial. This is, however, only the case when comparing the cameras at the original manufacturers ISO settings. To have a look on your own, open this link: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-gh5s-review/6. Select as cameras OMD-10III (similar sensor as EM5), EM1II (for best MFT sensor), D500 (for Z50 comparison, likely similar sensor) and D850 (for FF reference). When selecting ISO100 and pushing up exposure +6EV with the Nikons, and ISO200 (=base ISO with olys) and +5EV with olys, one can see excess noise with olys and D500 performs much better as expected by the small difference in physical sensor size (384% for FX, 165% for DX and 100% for MFT): Manufactureres ISO settings can, however, not always directly be compared: DxO measure the actual ISO sensitivity by themselves to make the ISO information provided by the manufacturers comparable. Then, at comparable ISO sensitivity, the SNR of D500 is almost identical to EM1II. According to DxO an ISO200 at the EM1II is in fact ISO83 (="DxO ISO ?"), ISO100 in D500 and D850 correspond to ISO70: Wolfgang
  5. The shark is unsharp. Is this a problem of the combination used (camera AF, lens (adapter?), extension, domeport)? Wolfgang
  6. I fix the clamps very tight while on land so they hold better. When in the water, I lossen them a bit so that I can adjust the strobes easily. Initially I was using cheap D&D clamps. They did not hold any more after about one year. Now I have more expensive Nauticam clamps and they hold much better... Wolfgang
  7. Hi Howard, Guided group diving and taking photos is indeed difficult to combine... Best solution (as Tim already suggests) is to bring your own dive buddy, who likes to go with you, and dive independently. Very hard to find (I was such a patient buddy and diveguide to my wife, before I started UW-photography by myself). Second best (situation now for me and my wife): both take pictures. Second best, because sometimes buddies are a little far away(even more inmportant to have perfectly serviced equipment). The dive experience is less social: before we enjoyed diving and all encounters together, now everybody is diving, most time more or less, on his own, looking for photos... In case you cannot bring such a buddy with you, you can look for another UW-photographer (or a very patient diver, difficult to find) when you are at the vacation... Nowhere we had problems with this kind of diving, so far: we just tell the guide that we are going in with the group, go with them until we know where to go and then we go our own way. When the dive is very difficult (e.g. strong current) we stay of course with the group, but this is seldom happening. It is, however, very important to return at the maximum allowed divetime and not later... Wolfgang
  8. I do not think that "cropped sensor" cameras (I think this is any camera with a sensor smaller than FF?) will dye out. To the contrary, several people here state they prefer DX over FX Nikon systems, because of smaller overall rig and WA lens choices. Last week I was on an exciting UW-photo workshop at the Red Sea. The major goal was, of course, to learn photographic skills (hope it worked a little ), but a minor goal of myself was to compare the different camera systems by looking at the different images, how they are processed and talking to people. Before the workshop I was strongly inclined to acquire an additional FF body plus housing (Canon or eventually Sony with adapter, as I have already three Canon-EF mount lenses that I am using on my Oly EM1II MFT body by using Metabones converters). After the workshop this inclination is reduced, at the moment I see only little reasoning to go for FF and several against. Here are my (subjective) impressions: #1.: When viewed on labtop screens or the big HD-TV screen that was on the ship, it was not possible for me to judge, whether an image was acquired with a 1" compact or an FX Nikon D850 (at magnification to view the entire image. Of course, these screens are not good enough to see subtile differences). #2.: The only differences that I could see easily were with cave photos: Here the photographers with FF sensors could switch to high ISO and use short shutter speeds. The MFT photographers could easily compensate the ISO weakness of their cameras by longer exposure times (made possible by the superior image stabilization). At the end, however, the light beams captured with small sensors appear uniformely smeared, while (some) images captured with FF sensors (at high shutter speed) showed razor sharp light rays within the big beam, what is, of course, more beautiful. #3.: After dinner there was always the "image review", where every participant could submit two images that were critically discussed, also postprocessing was improved. Here I had the impression, that the "reserves" for post-processing (e.g. increasing the shadows, stretching dynamic range, clarity etc.) increase clearly with the sensor size, beeing the smallest with 1" compact and biggest with FF (APS-C, DX and MFT in the middle). With "reserves" I mean the extend a slider in LR can be adjusted, before the image starts to look "artificially" overprocessed. The differences are there, but they are not overwhelming. Alex Mustard, who organized and hold the workshop and held all seminars, said that a FF raw image that is acquired under critical conditions and not exposed to the optimum (e.g. low light in caves) will have less IQ than an image of the same subject, acquired to its optimum, on a camera with smaller sensor. #4.: Sharpness of the images: Regardless of the electronic poperties of a sensor, bigger sensors have the potential to yield sharper images, just because of the laws of optics (Huygen's principle, i.e. light behaves as a wave and it is intrinsically impossible to resolve an indefinite number of detail in a given area). This means that on a sensor that has 4x larger area (the relation of different sensor areas to MFT (1x) is as follows: Canon APS-C (1.46x), Nixon DX (1.65x) and FF (3.84x)) one can resolve, just by the law of optics, 2x the amount of detail (e.g. lines resolved per height of the image, what is often takes as a measure of sharpness), using the same lens at identical settings. This, of course, can be only seen when the digital resolution of the sensor is not rate limiting. In practice, however, image sharpness is mostly compromized by motion blurr (even when body/lens have image stabilization) and/or unprecise focus. Only with images without any motion blurr that are perfect in focus one might see better sharpness using FF (I doubt this would be possible to see on a normal screen without heavily magnifying the image). In summary there IS, of course, better IQ with FF cameras, but the differences are not gigantic... I also could see clear disadvantages of FF systems: Of course, the enormous size, especially when using the WACP, but also the big domeports that had to be used for rectilinear WA lenses. Second, the lens choices for very wide WA (the workshop was entirely on WA photography ): While many APS-C and DX cameras were using the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye as standard lens (I was using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, adapted with my Oly EM1II MFT camera (=> at least as good, I think)), the FF photographers had to use 15mm fisheyes, sometimes with teleconverters, for comparable angles of views (there is no zoom fisheye available for FF that would cover a comparable range). Still I feel a little like testing out a FF rig, but this probably will not take place in the near future ("thumbs up" for cropped sensors for me personally). But who knows for sure? ... Wolfgang
  9. Yes, caves and dolphins natural light (except the diver's light in the middel cave photo)... Wolfgang
  10. I do not have a flickr or other account. Here one can view them at better quality: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4431096?page=2 Wolfgang
  11. I deposited some sample images for the Canon 8-15mm, 1x adapter and EM1II that I took during last week's exciting workshop at the Red Sea: Wolfgang
  12. I just returned from an exciting photographic workshop at the Red Sea, organized by Alex Mustard. All photos were taken using Canon 8-15mm fisheye with Metabones 1x Smart adapter, Nauticam 140mm minidome, 34.7mm N85 to N120 extension, 35mm extension on Olympus EM1II camera and two Inon Z330 flashes (caves and dolphins were taken without flashes). Wolfgang
  13. The level of fisheye distortion becomes reduced as the FOV is reduced upon zooming in. My guess is that the WWL-1 (and also the WACP) have similar amount of fisheye distortion when compared to "zoomed out" fisheye lens at comparable FOVs Sharpness of Canon 8-15mm @15mm on MFT is superb as @ 8mm and with every fisheye (is'nt the Zuiko (or Pana) 8mm providing superb optical quality ?). The trick how WWL1 and WACP manage to get such IQ might well be that they produce zoomed-in fisheye optics together with the standard zoom lenses. I did, however, never use WWL-1 nor WACP, so I cannot say for shure. Really interested to hear from someone who uses both WWl1 and Canon 8-15mm on MFT and can compare in practice... Wolfgang
  14. I am really eager to hear what your practical experience will be (I am very fond of the Canon 8-15mm with 1x - it became my standard WA lens). AF performance will depend on camera body: with EM1II C-AF+tracking work very well, while with EM5II S-AF is o.k. ... Wolfgang
×
×
  • Create New...