Jump to content

Architeuthis

Member
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Architeuthis last won the day on November 4 2017

Architeuthis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 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

16262 profile views
  1. I just want to update my post on the Nauticam camera bags and report on the first practical experience (https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-housing-accessories/products/padded-travel-bag-for-mil-housings-w-handles) My wife and me have been in Zakynthos with two camera housings (NA-EM5II and NA-EM1II) plus the Nauticam 140mm minidome (that comes with a case intended for check-in lugagge). All three cases were carefully packed in the center of our hard-shell suitcases (e.g.: enrolled in the BCD west; additionally they were internaly stuffed with T-shirts and pants). Not the least problem occured. It is just the weight that helps to keep the camera rucksacks for cabin lugagge within airline regulations (8kg in our case) and prevents overcrowding of them. In the future we will always transport the housings and the 140mm minidome in our suitcases... Wolfgang
  2. A problem with the Loawa macroprobe is the depth rating: when using with Nauticam, the front part of the macroprobe is in direct contact with water. I was curious and asked at Nauticam (U.S.) to what depth the probe can be used. Nauticam replied it is not their responsibility, since the front is directly immersed, I should ask Laowa. Nauticam only guarantees for their parts, not for the probe. I asked at Laowa then and Laowa replied that it is not heir responsibility and I should ask the housing manufacturer (Nauticam in this case)... If I had the probe, I would be reluctand to use it in another way then just tipping the front into a puddle (this is what it has ben constructed for). I wonder whether someone has more information to what depth it can be used (but the information that I got is already offcial info from the manufacturers of probe and housing)... Wolfgang
  3. I have two broken Sea&Sea YS-D2 at home (the strobes refuse two power on after switching them on). I do not want to send them to the Sea&Sea representative in Netherlands, since I sent already one YS-D2 with same symptoms there (they pretend it is irreparable because of water inbrake, but there was never any droplet of water in the strobe). The defective strobe was also not sent back and just disappeared... => Is there a reliable workshop existing in Europe, where one could send the defective strobes in for repair (in September my wife and me are going to the next diving vacation in Egypt)? Thanks, Wolfgang
  4. The YS-D2 failure story continues: On Friday (August 9th) my wife and me returned from diving in Zakynthos and the two remaining YS-D2 stopped working during this vacation. The one with the "dent" (see my postings above) cannot be switched on any more and the second remaining sometimes can be switched on, sometimes not. Our updated overall bilance so far: Three YS-D2 for three years usage since 2017 (maybe 70-100 dives/year): #1.: No. 1 burned out completely (replaced under warranty), #2.: Second one stopped working (warranty denied by service in Netherlands, they say it was because flooding the battery compartment - but such flooding, even not a single drop of water, never occured!), #3.: Third one was close to breaking, now has a dent, but still was working. Now shows same symptoms as #2 (I will not send in to the deceivers in Netherlands (= European representative of Sea&Sea), maybe I can find a respectable repair workshop). #4.: the single remaining flash can be used sometimes, but likely will fail completely soon... => Three YS-D2 since 2017. All three of them consumed up till in August 2019! => At the end all three suffer from the same problem: power switch does not work any more (but none of the strobes ever had any water inbrake - there is not a miniscule sign of water inbrake in any of them). Since a year I am using two Inon Z330 and no problems so far (I do, however, dislike the two petite control buttons that I manage to press from time to time unwittingly. More often with gloves, but sometimes even without gloves). Likely we will acquire more of them (It is still uncertain when and if the Retras can be delivered and I am not aware about alternatives in a similar power and price class...). Wolfgang
  5. Hi Chris, I have the same camera and flash: never this was a problem (But I never jump into the water with my camera). Very likely it is the shoe of one of the flashes... Wolfgang
  6. It seems that all operations are manual with this lens. Over the water not a big problem, but underwater very complicated. The question is also the optical quality (I do not know, but Venus optics is not famous for high quality lenses). Underwater you achieve higher magnifications than 1:1 mostly with diopter (or extension tubes (mainly over water)). I would go for the Canon 100mm f/2,8 L IS USM Macro... Wolfgang
  7. more sample photos (part#2): one more photo (part#3): Wolfgang
  8. I use already the Canon 8-15mm fisheye with Metabones 1x Smart adapter with OMDs EM5-II and EM1-II (see here for description: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62974&hl=;http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62560&hl=). I am still very excited about this WA solution. This time I was interested to use a circular fisheye on the MFT camera system and purchased a Sigma 4,5 mm F2,8 EX DC HSM circular fisheye (Canon EF mount). The following combination was used: Nauticam housing (NA-EM5II or NA-EM1II) Nauticam 34.8mm N85-N120 adapter Nauticam 25mm N120 extension Nauticam 140mm N120 minidome (removeabel sunshade version!) 2x Sea&Sea YS-D2 I used this combination so far few times only (first example photo is from the first dive and one can see that I forgot to remove the focuslight ), but it is a lot of fun. The adapter lets the lens communicate very well will the camera, even AF works very good. IQ is not as tack sharp as e.g. with Zuiko 8mm or Canon 8-15mm fisheye, but still o.k. for a circular fisheye... Here are some sample photos (Real life IQ is substantially better than shown here, maybe someone can give me a hint, how to export the raw file from LR 6.14 to fit this forum here to results in better IQ, I will be happy to replace the samples by better ones):
  9. Here my personal opinion to your points raised: It is in this post here: http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62734&hl= I was the one who erroneously spread the rumor that the new Teleconverter is almost same length. I saw the physical total length in the specifications and confused it with the length it adds to the extension. Joss pointed out that in fact the extension differs by 7.8 mm (could well explain the worse performance and also might couse troubles with zoomgear) "Also, you say above the 10-17 "quality is miserable" but I have always heard that although not up to 8-15 standards, most consider it quite good. Perhaps you were talking about land use? I generally don't pay much attention to how a lens does on land when i want it solely for dive use. It seems there is little connection between the two." Yes, I was talking about land use. Underwater the difference becomes smaller (but of course a bad lens, what the Tokina is, will never become a gem), but with the teleconverter the problems become clearly visible on the small MFT sensor. When I use the Tokina with the 0.71x focal reducer (that also reduces the lens errors, see next point) the results are good - very good. I also think that the Tokina 10-17mm was used first underwater and opened new possibilities of perspective. Later the Canon 8-15mm and the Nikon 8-15mm arrived, not to talk about the WACP and WWL-1. We are talking here about technical performance, not about photographical skills. Give a big shot like e.g.. Alex Mustard a camera obscura in a nylon bag and he still will win every competition, no matter what cameras/lenses the others are using. A bit of purple fringing and softness (Tokina) will not matter when the photo is outstanding... "I was also under the impression that the recent full frame sensors actually revealed lens imperfections much more so than smaller sensors, not the other way around. Not arguing the point...just asking since I have heard it both ways." Probably both condsiderations are valid. I use the small MFT sensor and can talk exclusively about adapting FF lens to MFT. The outstanding sharpness of FF is also achieved because the sensor is 384% bigger than MFT. The sensor heights are 24mm compared to 13mm. When the optical resoution of a lens is a certain number of lines/mm of sensor height, the optical resolution for MFT will decrease by a factor 13/24 (=0.54). Any optical errors will be multiplied by 24/13 (=1.84). Just simple physics, no way to get around it. When the FF people moan that lens errors become worse because of higher pixels densities of contemporary sensors, one should add that a FF sensor with the same pixel density as the EM1-II (20Mpixel) should have 20*3.84 (= 76.8 Mpixel), a number that still has to be achieved by FF. So this fosters my view that smaller sensors require even better lenses than larger ones and explains why good MFT glass is so expensive... "I have used micro 4/3 for several years and the Nikon stuff is new to me, so I have some learning to do :-)" I followed your posts and know you had an EM1-II previously. I will be eager to read what you write in comparison about EM1-II and D500 (I started with MFT in 2017 and do not know the other camera systems)... Wolfgang
  10. I use Canon 8-15mm with Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x on EM1-II and EM5-II (similar situation to Nikon 8-15mm on D500). => The newer 300 HD 1.4x converter differs in length and current extensions are tailored to the older 300 Pro converter. That is why the 300 HD may give worse IQ, despite its better optical performance. In case you want to use the 300 HD converter, you need to find the correct extensions and modify the length of the zoomgear too. Then you may get indeed better results... => I also have the Tokina 10-17mm and used it with the small sensor, but its optical quality is miserable: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4267346 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4299636 Under the water and without teleconverter, the performance is good and comparable to the Canon 8-15mm. WIth Teleconverter the IQ is noticably worse to the Canon with converter - so I use almost exclusively the Canon. Keep in mind that with smaller sensores optical imperfections of the lens have considerably more impact on IQ than with big sensors. This may be the reason that the big guys use Tokina with teleconverter on FF cameras... Wolfgang
  11. Hi Paolo, Great photos from you, as always! I have two questions: #1.: How did you manage to get directly the sun into your photos (especially 3rd photo, but also the others, from first post), without getting ugly artifacts upon post-processing? I use OMD-EM1II and when I have the sun directly in the frame, the colors become very unpleasant after processing. According to DxO, the EM1II has even better dynamic range than the Canon 80D: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___1076_1136 Is my post-processing too rigorous? Or is it the 14-bit digitalisation of the Canon vs. the 12-bit of the OMD that makes the difference? Would you mind to disclose your settings? #2.: In February 2020 I will go to Sorong, also via Jakarta. We arrive at 06:30 and depart at 00:30 - the traveling agency offers a day hotel where we can check in only at 14:00. Is it easily possible to go without prior reservation and find something, where one can check in just upon arrival? Thanks, Wolfgang
  12. So far my wife and me were using Lowepro camera rucksack plus camerabag each, for all gear including housing and domeports. Certainly safe, since we have the control how the bag is handled - no dropping or other shock as can occur with check-in lugagge. We always exceeded the weight limit for cabine lugagge, however, but no problems so far.. Instigated by Interceptor's post and after asking back at Nauticam's Ryan Canon, who confirmed that the bag is clearly intended to carry the housing in check-in lugagge, I just now ordered two Nauticam camera bags: https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-housing-accessories/products/padded-travel-bag-for-mil-housings-w-handles Next dive trip (2nd August) to Zakynthos, the two housings and one 140mm minidome (that also has such a bag, unfortunately the other domes (45 N85 planport and Zen DP170-N120) do not have such bags) will be in the check-in lugagge. I will report how it worked... Wolfgang
  13. Similar impressions as Chris: AF better and IQ a little better, but not a hallmark-improvement. I would not have upgraded unless the flooding of my wife, but now I am happy... => If on budget, stay with EM5II or go for used EM1 with housing in case you switch to Nauticam. You have time to acquire ports and lenses and in case some day Olympus or Panasonic come out with something substantially better, you just upgrade camera body and housing... Wolfgang
  14. Hi Divingmama, This sounds horrible. What happened to the cameras and lenses? My wife had a very similar PT-10 housing for the EPL-5. She also flooded it totally after approx. 2 years resulting in total damage to camera and lens (housing was o.k.). In her case it was improper assembly (O-ring was not correctly in place), because she assembled in very low light condition for a night dive... I had EM5-II at this time in Nauticam NA-EM5II housing. The flooding was a good reason to give her my camera + housing and upgrade to EM1II. I bought both Nauticam housings second hand for approx. 1000$ each. If I were you, I would look for second hand Nauticam housing for the EM5II (if still working). Not only is the vacuum system a very good insurance against flooding, also the Nauticam system is compatible and upgradable - Olympus has already three different types of port connections for their housings .So in the midterm it is not only better but also cheaper (money for ruined cameras not even included)... Wolfgang
  15. Hi Draq, I assume it is a very small area of the entire image at the corner that you have posted? Still the fringing should not be so pronounced in the out of focus regions- I would expect this at most from the Tokina 10-17mm. Mabe you can show the entire image and also write the settings (aperture, exposure, extension, dome...). There may be a problem with the lens (dropped?). Or maybe you use just the wrong extension... And please be careful with these highly toxic sea kraits - not a good idea to aproach them so close with a fisheye lens and push the dome on such an animal... Wolfgang
×
×
  • Create New...