Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Architeuthis last won the day on August 5

Architeuthis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Architeuthis

  • Rank
    Eagle Ray
  • Birthday 11/06/1956

Profile Information

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

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
  • 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

16829 profile views
  1. I also have and can recommend the Anglerfish. This video here is useful for learning the complicated on/off procedure: https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-anglerfish-essentials Wolfgang
  2. I have a question: is there an advantage to store the keepers as TIFF files (I store them so far as JPEG (100% quality; Adobe-RGB))? Wolfgang
  3. Sorry for the confusion: I meant the difference fro Sony 6600 (APS-C) to Oly EM1II, that I have (MFT). In my case the 8-15mm performs best without teleconverter, that is not required for MFT (for APS-C, the 1.4x converter gives similar angles of view as 1x on MFT). Already at 8mm one gets a 180 degree diagonal fisheye without vignetting and longer focal lengths allow to zoom in further. I have also the Kenko 1.4x, that gives more narrow angles of view. Optically I cannot see degradation. AF becomes slower, sometime it does not work, especially when there is less light (deeper or sun is not shining). I also tested the Kenko 2x teleconverter with Canon 8-15mm on EM1II, that would provide perfect angles of view for a future FF setup: the images become very soft and AF very unreliable, almost impossible - so the 2x converter is unfortunately not an option... Great work - I did not know that macro-diopters can be used with domeports and still provide good IQ (this was the confusion and curiosity from my side). It would be great if you could provide a special tread on domeport/macro/diopter with sample photos, this sounds interesting.. Wolfgang
  4. Hi Marsh, This self constructed M67 swing mount on the FE domeport looks gorgeous, congratulations. May I ask what is the purpose to use a diopter lens in addition to the 8-15mm FE lens and the domeport? (I am using the Canon 8-15mm, most of the time w/o the Kenko 1.4x, and I can focus practically very close to the glass of the domeport (Nauticam 140). I am just curious what the difference to the Sony 6600 is and wha a diopter is needed) Wolfgang
  5. In case you will use it as night lamp and as focus light, the 1600 lumen red/blue is better. Only for video you need the high lumens (that will disturbe and scare away many animals). The red light is not seen by many marine creatures and after getting accustomed to frame and focus at night under red light it will open new possibilities. Look also for an automatic "strobe off" function, i.e. the light switches off automatically while the flash lights the scene. This will avoid that the red/blue/white light interferes with your photo (when the light has few lumens, there may not be much interference, if any, depending on aperture and shutter speed, but better to have it )... I have this one as focus light and night dive lamp and it is perfect (but with ball adapter), see e.g. here : https://www.hydronalin.eu/weefine-smart-focus-2300_695799_8408 (In case you are in the U.S.: Weefine is called "Kraken" there) Wolfgang
  6. I have a NorChill 48 can cooler, similar to this one (2018 version): https://norchillcoolers.com/collections/cooler-bags/products/boat-bag-xtreme-marine-cooler-bag?variant=22109546381360 It is similar to Diggy's and Pomacentridae's bag and serves very well the purpose at home, when I travel to the diving places by car and from there also on the boat. It is very well polstered and the Nauticam EM1II assembly fits without problem (probably any other camera would fit also). I did not take it on airplanes, since it is too bulky to fold and takes a lot of lugagge space in the suitcase. The solution of Pomacentridae looks interesting, but I wonder how this would fit in the cabin lugagge (does it?). I do not give camera, lenses and flashes into the check-in lugagge. For airoplane travelling the square grouper looks good to me, since the advertisment says it can be folded easily and fits better into the suitcase... Wolfgang P.S.: Only now see that Trygon confirms that the Grouper is good for traveling (I just ordered one for my wife as a birthday gift - probably the Grouper is the bag for all purpose, but polstering may be better in the NorChill)...
  7. I thank everybody for the great advice and discussion. At the end I just ordered a BenQ SW270c monitor and the x-rite i1display pro plus for calibration... Wolfgang
  8. I have the Nauticam 45o viewfinder: it is possible to rotate it, also UW (e.g. for changing from landscape to portrait format). I never have tried to pull it out under vacuum and will not do so for testing, I find this crude. There is, however a relatively thick O-ring that is mounted at the very end of viewfinder (close to the inner side of the back-door), after the insertion of the viewfinder. This O-ring is there in order to secure the viewfinder, not for sealing (as are the other, thinner, O-rings that are permanently on the tube of the viewfinder). Maybe you did not mount this final O-ring? see at approx. 1:55 of the installation video here: https://www.bluewaterphotostore.com/nauticam-viewfinder-mil-32205 Wolfgang
  9. I was close to purchase a Loupedeck CT, since I find the LR sliders difficult to adjust precisely with the mouse, dials would be better for sure... Now a new Loupedeck console appeared: https://www.dpreview.com/news/9443152647/loupedeck-live-is-a-smaller-more-affordable-livestream-oriented-loupedeck-console I was close to purchasing Loupedeck CT, the new one is about half the price of CT (but it seems to be the upper part of the CT console only), now I am not shure which one to get... Wolfgang
  10. Thank you Chris, the cited reference is good and helpful (although it seems they are biased towards the trademarks they sell)... It seems 100% (or 99%) Adobe RGB and LUT are a must, otherwise better save the money and stay with the notebook monitor... Which Nec monitor do you have and can you recommend it? Wolfgang
  11. I am in the process to acquire a (27" or 32") monitor for editing my photos in Lightroom Classic and Photoshop. Up to now the monitor of my notebook had to be good enough, but sometimes (not always) I had some unpleasant surprises after some photos were printed out (the entire workflow, so far, was in Adobe RGB, but I am sure my notebook monitor does not support it 100%). Mostly I hold slideshows, my images are at Alamy and Adobe stock, sometimes my images get published in a journal. I plan to operate Lightroom in the two screen mode, still using the notebook as computer and as a display of the menue and the new monitor for display of the (hopefully!) "WYSIWYG" image. Iin addition I will acquire the Loupedeck CT, for more comfortable adjustments... I started to recherche in the internet, but in the lack of practical experience I am asking for help: #1.: How important is it to have the monitor calibratable by LUT (12, 14 or 16 bit) vs. software calibration of the graphics card of the computer? #2.: 100% sRGB seems to be a must, but how important is it to have +99% Adobe RGB? Already the two points raised above make a great difference in price, e.g. BenQ SW321C with 16-bit LUT and 99% Adobe RGB is available here for ca. 1700 Euros (shock (!), I am reluctant to pay so much for a monitor) and the similar BenQ PD3200U, no LUT and 73% Adobe RGB goes for approx. 650 Euros... #3.: UHD (4k) is certainly the future, but still expensive compared to the "old" QHD standard. How smart is it to go for QHD in these days? #4.: What hardware can be recommended for calibration? #5.: What is the optimum workflow? Working with the most comprehensive color gamut the monitor allows (e.g. Adobe RGB; How much % of Adobe RGB are required from the monitor for meaningful processing?) and then exporting the final, processed, image at the appropriate color gamut, e.g. sRGB for display via LCD projector and Adobe RGB for printing? Which ones of the points raised above are really important in practice and which ones are just important for gadgeteers? Suggestions for monitor models are also very welcome, but e.g. 4000+ Euro monitors from NEC are out of my scope (my budget is flexible, but I plan to remain in reasonable dimensions)... Thanks, Wolfgang
  12. The macro diopter story is very confusing: I just found that Inon is providing a lot of documentation for their diopters (including dioptries over the water as well as under the water). Regarding the two lenses that are here in question (UCL-330 and UCL-165), I also found compatibility charts (go to "Spec" to find the dioptries): http://www.inon.jp/products/lens/ucl165m67/compatibility.html http://www.inon.jp/products/lens/ucl330/compatibility.html According to these charts, the two lenses are not designed for larger sensors. Only "Coolpix" and the "J" cameras from Nikon are listed as compatible. I have no idea whatsoever will happen when used with APS-C (maybe vignetting or low IQ, Jef?)... It seems the UCL-67 and UCL-90 are the lenses designed for APS-C and FF (see specifications (including magnification with some common macrolenses) and compatibility there)... Wolfgang
  13. It is difficult to compare the different diopters for two reasons: #1.: Some companies give the refractive power of the diopter only in air, not in water. There is no simple formula to convert the power of diffraction in air to the one in water, since the change in refractive power depends also on the refractive index of the optical glass that is used for making the diopter (the refractive index of optical glass, depending on the type of glass is variable between approx. 1.4 and 1.9 - so one cannot just mulitply by a factor). As far as I understand the Inon descriptions, they give the refractive power in water, so this seems to be solved. In case the diffraction power in water is not known, you can empirically measure the refractive power of the lens under the watery, using paralell light beams (=e.g.: sunlight): the distance to a projection area (e.g. the bottom of a swimming pool), required to give the smallest bright point of the light, is measured. The reciprocal of this distance (in meters(!)) gives the dioptries. E.g.: the distance, where the sunlight is focused to a single point would be 10 cm (closer or further away gives a disc instead of a small point). Then the refractive power is 1/0.1 (10 cm = 0.1meters), i.e. +10 Dioptries. #2.: In geometrical optics one can just add the refractive power of lenses (e.g.: the Nikon 100mm has +10 dioptries and an additional +10 diopter would add to +20 dioptries in total). The bad news is that this works only for very thin lenses (i.e.: thickness of the entire lens assembly is small in relation to the focus distance). Our lenses are very far away from beeing thin in comparison to the focus distance, often the focus distance is shorter then the entire lens is (therefore lens construction is an entire engineering science by its own and not covered by experimental physics)... Still you can ESTIMATE the magnification by tools like these here (but deviations are no surprise, because of the two points described above: It is certainly more accurate to measure magnification empirically, as e.g. Masssimo (=Interceptor121) did in a former post here for several lens/diopter combinations): https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm Accordingly, the magnification with the 105mm Nikor would be 2.02x with the +3 diopter and 2.75x with the +6 diopter, instead of the 1.3x that the lens alone provides (1x in air, but 1.3x because of the refractive index of water (="diving mask" magnification effect of a planport))... Wolfgang
  14. The situation is completely different between DSLR and mirrorless system cameras: #1. DSLR: The OVF is the primary instrument to focus, frame etc. The OVF is difficult to see through, when the camera is in a housing and wearing a mask. 180o and 45o VFs allow the diver to look through the OVF of the camera, when in a housing and wearing a mask. Liveview is possible with DSLRs, but not the standard mode, hence performance is lost when using it (e.g. useful only when it is very dim). No doubt, additional 180o and 45o OVFs are the way to go. #2. Mirrorless system camera: There is nothing as an OVF, just an EVF that can be viewed through and allows to photographers to maintain their habits from the old days of mirrorreflex analog cameras, imitating an OVF (useful, however, in very bright light conditions). I prefer the EVF on land (I am old ), but UW liveview and watching the back screen is the standard mode of operation for me. In my hands, viewing the EVF through an additional OVF (180o or 45o) and the mask is more complicated and difficult than viewing the backscreen. I like the 45o OVF for macros (EM1II in Nauticam housing), because a 45o view spares the muscles of the neck and are more relaxing compared to bending down to achieve a good angle. I would still prefer an optional modification of the housings back door, that would allow the backscreen to be tilted out approx. 45o (I would not go for an additional monitor as suggested by Hypi - too much brimborium for me)... Wolfgang
  15. @Minister: This is strange behaviour. I only had red/blue so far (I cannot remember the exact sequence of red/blue now), when the battery was weak. 4 years, two housings, approx 400 dives and the following problems arose: #1.: Two alarms before immersion (green => red). I will never will know whether these were right or false alarms, but , of course, did not take my camera underwater (I think the vaccums were, at least weak after opening). I believe these alarms were right ones and prevented flooding... #2.: Many false alarms upon switching on the system, before even applying vacuum (blue => red; NAEM5II and NAEM1II). This was not due to the vacuum system, but due to the moisture detector, that is, in my hands too sensitive (always occured when the humidity was high; e.g. in bow of a boat or at the equator during rainday). Cleaning, drying, alcohol, re-soldering of sensor - nothing helped. I could only solve the problem by clipping one wire leading to the moisture sensor - never had this problem any more. Some may find this method ruffianly, but the moisture alarm, in principle, still is working (I now have two moisture "sensors" in series ), but less sensitive. I regard the vacuum detector to be the real important alarm (and the vacuum holds the entire assembly together)... Wolfgang
  • Create New...