Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Architeuthis

  1. I cannot say how the zuiko 9-18mm performs behind the 100 port, but we have the lens. My wife was using it first behind a flat port (also recommended as a solution by Olympus) and now is using it behind the Zen DP170 (170 mm) port. The IQ is no comparison, flat port @9mm is ugly... Wolfgang
  2. The major difference in weight/size is for wide angle. When using rectilinear WA lenses and a small sensor (MFT) a 180mm dome is o.k. with e.g. Pana 8-18mm, while for FF you will want at least 230mm dome, better one of the monstrous WACP's. Similar with Zoom fisheye lenses: I use the Canon 8-15mm with 1x adapter and 140mm dome on my MFT camera and it covers all my WA desires in very high quality. With FF sensor the same lens can be used with same dome and the rig would be very similar in size/weight, but the angle of view would be either circular fisheye or 180o diagonal fisheye, but nor narrower angles... For Macro I found out that, surprisingly and unexpectedly for me, there is also a hughe weight/size difference between MFT and FF. In addition to the Panasonic 45mm and Zuiko 60mm macros, I also use occasionally the Canon 100mm IS Macro lens with 0.71x or 1x adapter on MFT. While the Canon 100mm would be close to the Pana 45mm, when used on FF camera, this lens and the corresponding dome is a monster, when compared to the MFT lenses and the N85 port. The Canon on my MFT camera is the biggest rig version I have so far, even bigger and heavier than the WA configurations (With, e.g. a Canon R camera size/weight would be comparable at twice the angle of view. In case you are interested, I can make photos tomorrow, but I have to leave now towards Vienna)... I am squinting towards a FF system, because of the good low light abilities, sharpness, dynamic range and 14 bit resolution (postprocessing!), but the WA options scare me off, so far... Wolfgang
  3. Hi strandbygaard, Here a WeeFine (=Kraken) retailer from within EU (Vienna): https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/product_info.php?info=p6960_weefine-wf057-3000-smart-fokus-lampe-mit-strobe-und-strobe-off-funktion.html I have the WeeFine 2300 Smartfocus lamp and it is enough as main light for day and night. Good for approx. 45' to 1h of diving and much longer, when switched to less power and 100% only when needed... Unless you are a cavediver, who needs strong light for many hours, you do not need accu canisters in these days... Wolfgang
  4. The optimum for UW are lenses with internal zooming, i.e. lenses that stay constant in length when zooming in and out (e.g. Panasonic 7-14mm; an example of exteranl zooming is e.g. Zuiko 9-18mm). I personally do not know about internal vs. external zoom for every lens. A table that shows which type of zoom for each lens and hwat length difference between the extremes, will be very useful, at least to me... Wolfgang
  5. Hi Spitfire, I had a similar situation in February 2019, when departing from Hurghada airport (Egypt). I had 16 AA Eneloops in boxes plus other accus in my photorucksack when the safety officer told me they needed to be in the check in lugagge and he has to confiscate them now (the check in lugagge was already on its way). I started to contradict and a long negotiation started. Inbetween he repeatedly was murmuring something like "bakschisch". Just because of the principle I did not give him a single cent (I would not have left without my accus and was ready to give the Austrian embassy a phonecall). At the end he gave up. In the meantime my wife (also with photorucksack) was checked by another safety officer, no issues with her accus, but he gave her a lengthy talk about the quality of Egyptian men and offered her the possibility to marry him (unfortunaly for him there was no demand)... => These IATA regulations are nice (and very lengthy as the 27 page long paper just on Li accus cited above) but of little help, since the personell usually does not know them. Even here in the Wetpixel forum our experts have different shools of thought how to carry accus along. I think it is advisable to carry three copies of the regulations of the specific airline along (these people have the habit to grasp them and not give them back), just to be on the safe side... Wolfgang
  6. I am not very familiar with compact cameras, but in autumn an a dive Safari I met an elderly but in good shape photographer, who had a small Panasonic MFT camera (I think it was GX7, GX8 or similar) in Nauticam housing with standard zoom lens and port. He used it together with a wet wideangle lens (probably he also has a wet diopter for macro), just like a compact camera setup is used. His setup was visibly smaller than the setup of another peer potographer on board, who was using a Sony RX100 in Nauticam housing. This way you could have a light setup, but with a better sensor. Over the water you could continue to use your interchangeable lenses... Wolfgang
  7. Hi Jörg and Tom, A little bit off topic, but related, so allow me to ask: How is the image quality when using 2x Teleconverter with 8-15mm fisheye? Very soft? I am interested to know since I think about switching to FF sensor, but the options for WA optics for FF are not overwhelming (the new Kenko 2x Pro HD is said to have very good optical quality)... Wolfgang
  8. I had a look at www.Nauticam.com and saw that the housing for EM5III is already available: https://www.nauticam.com/collections/olympus-mirrorless-housings/products/na-em5iii-housing-for-olympus-om-d-e-m5-iii-camera I must, however, say, that I am still not convinced about EM5III over EM1II: the housing comes without the handles and the shutter release lever is inferior and needs an upgrade to become comfortable ("pistol type") - then it costs similar to the NA-EM1II housing that has the handels already built in and also a very fine "shutter-lever"... There is, by the way, aEM1III soon to appear. Presumably it will have the same sensor but better processor (=faster AF) Wolfgang
  9. My 2 cents regarding the initial question of the tread (EM10III). I am not a camera technician, nor a UW camera salesperson, but I believe my view is firm advise: The EM5II (and also the already discontinued EM1I) represent the climax of the Oly cameras with 16 Mpix sensor. As this era is coming now to an end, one can find used camera bodies plus Nauticam housings (EM5II and EM1I) here in the classified section on a regular basis for between 600 - 1200 $ (often including vaccum valve, tray and trigger (tray and pistol type trigger are a versatile, almost mandatory required, addition for the EM5 and EM10 type housings, while the NA-EM1II housing has these features already - this explains the higher price)). This is the way to go. In case there is money itching in the pocket, much more will go away for lenses, ports, extensions etc... (and at a later stage, when the time and the bank balance are ripe, one just upgrades to a new camera body with housing). When you look in treads of general photographers, e.g. DPreview, the EM10III itself is not regarded as a real upgrade to the EM10II by many: it is more a step towards automatic mode "point and shoot" photographers and less customisable as EM10II - many were disappointed by EM10III (they expected a step more towards the EM5II). I would not go for such a camera plus housing both new for approx. 3000 $ (gut feeling calculation, when one adds tray, vacuum and pistol trigger)... Regarding AF performance of the Zuiko 60mm and Pana 45mm macros, I only can confirm what Massimo and Chris are saying: Zuiko 60mm is difficult to use (Pana 45mm works better) with CDAF. Both 60mm and 45mm macros work flawless with PDAF (al least with EM1II). With both 60mm and 45mm macros the manual focus ring is unusuable as too much turning is required for focusing. MF, however, would be very useful for macro but it is practically impossible with both of these lenses. (With the 0.71x and 1x adopted Canon 100mm IS macro, the manual focus ring works very well, as it is expected and from here I know that MF is very useful for macros. AF with this lens is difficult, at most comparable to the 60mm with CDAF (this is the price for using a non-native lens via third party adapter). I personally like this lens as it allows great magnification even without diopter (up to 1:2) at a reasonable working distance, but I would not recommend this lens to a newby (I am probably an eccentric, even most swashbucklers will not like this lens on a MFT camera) - I write this just to add information to the AF/macro part of this tread)... Wolfgang
  10. I designed extension collars for the Nauticam zoomgears for the Tokina 10-17mm and Canon 8-15mm fisheyes with and without the 1.4x Kenko teleconverter using "TinkerCad". This was required since the original zoomgears fit to the lenses adapted with the Metabones 0.71x speedbooster to MFT cameras (EM5II and EM1II in my case), but I use them with the Metabones 1x Smart adapter that is 6.6mm longer compared to the 0.71x booster (the range of angles of view is more useful for MFT sensor with 1x adaptor compared to the 0.71x speedbooster). I printed out with https://i.materialise.com. One zoomgear extension was approx. 15 Euro (with VAT) and delivery was 10 Euro. I think this within range as long as I let not print out hundreds of them... Wolfgang
  11. To my experience, PDAF works better than CDAF for UW use. Before I had PDAF, CDAF was very well sufficient. I became, however, spoiled by PDAF. I would say it is nice to have PDAF, especially when it does not cost a whole fortune in addition... I assume that EM10III has similar AF than EM5II: AF with Zuiko 60mm Macro and Pana 45mm Macro became substantially faster when I switched from CDAF (EM5II) to PDAF (EM1II). I described my experience lately in a post in DPreview generally about PDAF vs. CDAF, have a look in case you are interested. In short: CDAF (EM5II) works fine for S-AF, while PDAF (EM1II) works in addition also with C-AF+tracking: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4455081?page=6#forum-post-63497234 Note that the example photo was even taken with Canon 100mm IS Macro lens, adapted with 0.71x Metabones adaptor, so focal length was actually 71mm (AF generally works less good when using adapters). Here my post: "I can compare Olys EM5II (CDAF) with EM1II (PDAF) from my own experience: I take photos underwater. Especially for Macro Photography and fish portraits, where AF is difficult but very important, there is a clear difference. With wide angle the difference is not so dramatic, but exists also: I use only the smallest field in the center for focus. With C-AF+tracking, I can first focus on the eye of the fish (that is at this moment in the center of the frame), then I keep the C-AF+tracking active (I have separated this function from the shutter-button half pressed and assigned it to another button, so I can press it with my thumb) and move the frame until I have the frame I want and then release the shutter - the eye of the fish remains in focus all the time. Here an example photo, to demonstrate what I mean: View: original size With EM5II, that also has the same C-AF+tracking function, AF is, in my hands, too unreliable and I would too often loose the focus during framing, so I use just S-AF with EM5II. Also with EM5II I was happily taking fishportraits (I would not say CDAF has let me down), but with PDAF (EM1II) it is clearly easier. Since I am spoiled by it, I would not want to step back... Wolfgang"
  12. PDAF in EM5III and EM1II and the 20 Mpix sensors are clearly an improvement. The EM1III that is coming soon will have probably the same sensor. I do not see an advantage of EM5III over EM1II, to the contrary EM1II is slightly better. In case I would be someone who considers to upgrade from a 16 Mpix MFT sensor, I would pull the trigger now: From time to time used Nauticam EM1II housings are advertised here for approx. half the new price and the EM1II streetprice new is around 1000 Euro. No comparison with any other new MFT camera (with similar performance) and new housing... Wolfgang
  13. Hi, My wife and me have had similar problem: started with three YS-D2 (black) and had several issues (I reported here). Two repairs (one warranty exchange and one costing approx 250 Euro) and one complete loss... I have three Z330 now (no issues so far) and my wife uses the two remaining YS-D2. In case a YS-D2 fails again it will be replaced by Z330... Never again a Sea&Sea strobe! Wolfgang
  14. Hi pmk, I have the Zuiko 8mm fisheye (similar IQ with Zen DP170 or Nauticam 140mm) and the Pana 7-14mm (Zen DP170). Pana 7-14mm IQ is o.k., but 8mm fisheye is superb. Sharpness is generally better, also in the center. Almost no degradation of IQ (sharpness, CA) towards the edges with fisheye - performance of 7-14mm at the edges is poor... I guess the Pana 8mm fisheye gives similar results... Wolfgang
  15. When using two triple clamps (e.g.: https://www.nauticam.com/products/triple-clamp) on both balls of the housing (NA-EM1II in my case), which length and diameter are the optimum for a float buoyoncy arm (e.g.: https://www.nauticam.com/products/o70x200mm-carbon-fibre-aluminium-float-arm-buoyancy-370g-lifetime-warranty) that is attached crosswise to hold a wrist-computer? With such an arrangement, how do you fix a focus light? There is no dealer nearby where I live so I can not test out arrangement by myself, therefore the question... Thanks, Wolfgang
  16. I started with the black ones, fearing that the white ones will not last long enough. I read in treads here that the black ones have shorter livespan than the whites (some say the black are also not so good for the flash, as far as I understood them)). My experience is that more black ones became defective than white so far. Numbers too small for meaningful statistics, however... Now our stock of black ones is shrunk and we have more white than black (Two photographers with YS-D2's and Z330's). Together we take 32 accus to vacation and load half of them, while the others are in use. The white ones deliver power for at least 3 dives (usually approx. 3h-4h of use). After maximum three dives (normally an entire diving-day), they are replaced by the freshly charged ups (Also the black ones. Never tested how long they would last - end of the day is a good occasion to take care for the gear). Often I replace accus after two dives, when the time scedule of the day allows. It never happened in hundreds of dives, that there was no power in a strobe... Wolfgang
  17. Hi Interceptor, It seems the different camera models have different designations for the modes (maybe even the modes are not exactly the sames). There is e.g. no AFF mode on Olys.. With EM1II (and EM5II) there are, besides manual focusing modes: S-AF: focus once, when shutter half pressed (better assigned to thumb than to shutter) C-AF: focus continuosly, as long as shutter is half pressed. C-AF + tracking: as C-AF, but when the camera is moved, the focus field remains on the subject that was focused first. I am using C-AF + tracking on EM1II (on EM5II, that does not have PDAF, S-AF is the better choice in my hands as AF is less good). I understand that Phil is using a similar focusing technique, but maybe I took him wrong, hope he will tell... As region to focus I always use the smallest field possible in the center of the frame... Wolfgang
  18. Phil, I read your Sony A7IV reviews with great interest. In the article, quoted above, you say that you are using C-AF and it works very well with this camera. I (and others) use similar C-AF technique (e.g. spot in the center to focus on an eye of a fish, then move the frame and the eye still remains in focus) with Oly EM1II (60mm Macro, 45mm Pana macro, 12-40mm Zuiko, 7-14mm Pana and even Canon 8-15mm FE with metabones 1x adapter) and it works very well. I remember you also were using and testing EM1II - therefore allow me a question: How would you rate and compare C-AF on both cameras with similar lenses (e.g. EM1II with Zuiko 60mm (or Pana 45mm) compared to A7RIV (and A7RIII) with Sony 90mm (or adapted Canon or Sigma 105mm)? I am interested to know since I consider to go to FF (not now, but I am reading here with interest and some day will do so - maybe just to find out that MFT fits me better). Some people here say that AF (and more even, C-AF) on the Sony with the 90mm macro lens does practically not work, while others, like you, say it "is the best macro and AF ever". A comparison of C-AF between A7RIV (and A7RIII) and EM1II would give me (and others) an idea how good AF is in the real world with Sony A7 cameras and help to decide whether to go for Sony A7 with superior sensor. The other choice, for me, is the Canon (mirrorless) camera body. From Canon camera body I expect superior AF (dual pixel AF in combination with native lens mount). Also the macro lens choice is far better than Sony (105mm, but also 150mm and 180mm Canon macros look very promising to me for FF). Sony just has the 90mm macro that is similar to the 45mm Panasonic Macro on EM1II - I already now prefer Zuiko 60mm that would be similar to a 120mm macro lens on FF body. Sometimes, when vis allows, I even use the 105mm Canon on EM1II for macro... Wolfgang
  19. Clamps: Cheap D&D were my first clamps. At the beginning o.k., after about 1 year they were unusable - did not hold any more (new O-rings, dissassembly and ultrasound cleaning, greasing did not help). Now mostly Nauticam and some UCLS. No issues wit hthem so far... Arms: D&D at the beginning. Now additional (more expensive) Nauticams. Both arms equally good in usage, but the cheaper D&D are heavier (less good for air transportation)... => Often buying cheap means buying twice and is expensive... Wolfgang
  20. Hi nudibranco, I would not be surprised if Nauticam decides not to make a housing for EM5III: EM1II has lower street price than EM5III (https://www.e-infin.com/eu/item/3239/olympus_om-d_e-m1_mark_ii_mk_2_mirrorless_digital_camera_mft_(body_only)?gclid=CjwKCAiAt4rfBRBKEiwAC678KcwH2c1zPeiWrd0_sWCMCpOn0kpUNUzA_Js9PBPFSSzx13lUs3ymJhoC9PUQAvD_BwE; https://panamoz.com/digital-cameras/olympus/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii-mirrorless-micro-four-thirds-digital-camera-body-only.html) and the size/weight difference for UW is small (considering housing, arms, flashes, focus light, extensions, port). Most important, according to the latest DPreview review ( https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m5-iii-review?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source), C-AF is noticable slower and less reliable than EM1II. In my opinion the EM5III is not a good choice for UW... Wolfgang
  21. I would like to resume this tread. I am just sitting here and try to postprocess some video that I recorded with EM1II using OM-Log400 with Adobe Premiere Elements 15. Already with the linear encoding white balance was difficult. Now I find it impossible to end up with results that are sufficient even at lowest expectations... Is there a standard procedure how to postprocess this footage? Thanks, Wolfgang
  22. My wife and me have now sucessfully used this travel bags for our Nauticam housings twice in 2019: https://www.nauticam.com/products/padded-travel-bag-for-mil-housings-w-handles The Nauticam 140mm N120 domeport is delivered with a similar travel bag and also goes to check in lugagge. For our Zen DP170-N120 we plan to acquire a similar travel bag before our next airoplane trip in February: https://www.nauticam.com/products/padded-travel-bag-for-n120-180mm-optical-glass-wide-angle-port All bags with housing or port are stuffed in addition with e.g. T-shirts and go to hard chase check-in lugagge without problems. No more UW-housings or domeports in cabin lugagge. Only cameras, lenses, flashes, accus, dive computers, compass, lamp heads and laptop go to cabine lugagge (photo-rucksacks). I also wear a photo west, just in case, as my rucksack is still above 7kg, but so far never had to use it... Wolfgang
  23. Did someone already test the Sea & Sea corrector lens on rectilinear WA lenses with front thread for MFT (with thread adapter, e.g. Zuiko 9-18mm, Pana 8-18mm)? Would not be a big surprise if the lens would work equally nice and be a great solution compared to all these wet correction lenses/adapters... In case it works in practice, the lens is certainly worth the money... Wolfgang
  24. 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
  25. 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
  • Create New...