Jump to content

Architeuthis

Member
  • Content Count

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Architeuthis

  1. Regarding the "defished" photo from the 8mm circular fisheye I would like to say that the comparison to a regular rectilinear WA lens is not fair: The defished image has a diagonal AOV of almost 180°. A (hypothetical) focal length for rectilinear of 1mm would yield 175° and 2mm yield 170°. Such lenses do not exist and the AOVs of available lenses are substatial smaller and the focal lengths longer. One should crop the image e.g. to give diagonal AOV of 144°, corresponding to 7mm and then compare the corners... Similar is the situation when comparing corner sharpness of the 15mm fisheye (180°) with the WWL1 (130°)... Wolfgang
  2. Hi nudibranco, Sorry for the confusion. The numbers are the deviation from optimum (=extension recommended by the port table) in mm, when the lens is used with the 1x Metabones adapter. Negative means the overall extension is to short, positive means it is too long. Zero is exactly the optimum... The calculations for the different versions of the DP100 port are done with different additional N120 extensions that are available by Nauticam, in order to get the closest match to the optimum. I did not include them in the table (I thought this would be less confusing, but here we are...). The used additional N120 extensions were (ordered from the 34.7mm adapter up to the 55mm adapter): DP100-N120: 25/20/10/10/10 DP100-CR: no additional extension throughout (=None) DP100-T: 10/10/None/None/10(None would have been the better choice for this last case, but the 55mm adapter is not really of interest for this DP100 version) This reminds me that I promised to post some photos, taken with DP100 and NA140 domeports, for comparison. I will do so in the next days, when I have time. I can say already now that under real live conditions, that vary a lot from motif to motif, the differences are too small to be recognized by me... Wolfgang
  3. The decreasing demandon the market, together with the chip shortage, will slow down the release rate of new models and also will decrease the number of models available. This is bad news for us, but good news for our wallets... Wolfgang
  4. It is true that you could save some weight and volume (at the cost of a little IQ) when switching to a MFT system, but you say your husband has already a Nikon setup. When adding weight and volume of two different systems, the sum together will be more when using two different systems, compared to using identical systems together. When using the same, you could use synergy and share domeports, extensions and lenses... I am doing so with my wife, together we have two MFT setups (Oly EM1II and EM5II with Nauticam) with only one macroport (constant source of discussion who uses the macro setup, however) but two domeports (Nauticam 140 and zen DP170) that can be used with several fisheye, WA and normal range lenses. Since we share all lenses and ports, the overall weight is less than two separate setups... I also want to say that it is not required that one puts the housing and the domeports (and all other stuff that is not really fragile) in the carry on lugagge. At least Nauticam offers stuffed bags for the housings and domeports that can be put in the regular check-in lugagge without the danger of beeing damaged. This makes it much easier to pack and carry, we only have lenses, cameras, flashes, dive computers, accus and dive compasses in our carry on lugagge (already a lot) ... Since you say IQ is important for you, I would go for a Nikon FF camera and build a system together with my partner, where you can share as many ports and lenses as possible, e.g. the APS-C camera for macro and the FF for WA... Wolfgang
  5. My first clamps were the bargain type (brand was D&D), initally good performance but after about a year of use they became very weak. Now I use Nauticam and UCLS and they endure now for years... Similar situation with the arms: first cheap D&D, replaced later by Nauticam. No difference in the strenght of clamping, but Nauticam arms are considerably lighter, especially good for air travel... When I consider the amount of money spent for the entire UW photography equipment, the cost for clamps and arms is a very small part. I will not go for cheapos again, in the long term they are even more expensive since one buys double... Wolfgang
  6. I am preparing for a three week UW-photography trip to the Red Sea (we will leave in two days)... I want to put the "Preset MF" at minimum focus distance for the Zuiko 60mm (with and without CMC1) to the "C2" setting, so that I can start easily with macro. I see that the distance can be preset from 999.9 m in 0.1 m increments (EM1II). The minimum focus distance of the 60mm macro is 0.19m, so I have set the preset to 000.1 m, the minimum that is possible. It works and when switching to "C2" I have a very close distance, presumably 1:1. => I just want to ask whether this is correct or did I overlook a problem that I create with this inaccurate setting (000.1m instead of the 000.19m (that are not possible to set)). Should I set instead to 000.2 m (closest to 0.19 m) and sacrify some magnification, in order to be on the safe side (the writing on the lens says that at 20 cm the mag is 1:1.3)... => To what value do you guys preset to get 1:1 magnification? Thanks, Wolfgang P.S.: Although I have enabled focus peaking, I cannot see in focus regions in red, when moving the camera back and forth (what would be quite helpful). Does focus peaking not work in the "Preset MF" mode?
  7. I never had our NA-EM5II and NA-EM1II housings, that my wife and me bought already second hand, serviced by a dealer. As stated above the cost would be around 500+ Euros/housing... Once a year, I put the assembled housings with vacuum in the dishwasher and wash with lowest temperature and without detergent. Afterwards I put a drop of this solution, that is supposed to lubricate the O-rings, on every button: https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/product_info.php?info=p6154_d-d-top-secret-o-ring-fluid.html I case there is some defective O-ring of a button, I would not hesitate to replace it by myself. I would not send the housing in to a dealer who does the same procedure and it costs many weeks and $$... Wolfgang
  8. Hi Diggy, I have zero experience with the Amazon blocks, they look to me like some sort of styropor that is prone to crumble, when under mechanical stress. They also look expensive compared to a very affordable solution for buoyancy that I use for years: these are the floats that commercial fisherman use for their nets. They are of the closed cell foam type and can be cut to the desired size without soaking water and are available in very different sizes for little money (fishermen use hundreds, if not housands of them on one net, therefore they are a mass product). The standard floats tolerate similar depths as the expensive Stix floats. In addition special floats for deep sea fishing are also available that tolerate depths of many hundreds of meters and may be of interest for technical divers. I buy them from a german factory (unfortunately their homepage is in german language only), but there will be more producers worldwide. See here an example for a standard float (The hole in the center needs to be widened and drilled to 25mm diameter (very easy to do with a long 25mm drill), then they can be put easily over the standard arms): https://engelnetze.com/schwimmer-t-680g-auftrieb-95x149mm-16mm-bohrung Wolfgang
  9. Thanks - exactly - the photos look terrible: unsharp and distorted... Wolfgang
  10. Hi Andy, I have limited experience with the Oly PT-EP10 housing, as years ago, my wife was using this housing with an EPL-6. I can confirm, that Olympus had (at least) three different port mount systems that are not compatible per se (I have heard that some adapters exist, but cannot confirm or give advise on these). This means domeports for OMD housings for EM1II are not compatible.. When you look at the original PT-EP10 port chart, you can see that this housing (in contrast to OMD EM1 housings) was not designed for interchageable ports (therefore no special ports are listed, everything on this chart goes via the standard flatport). The Zuiko 9-18mm WA lens is stated to be compatible with the standard flat port, my wife was using this combination and I can assure you that the photos @9mm are awfull and certainly not worth the efforts: https://asia.olympus-imaging.com/content/000083914.pdf As stated already by others, third parties as AOI produce "PEN mount compatible" domeports for several WA and the 8mm fisheye lenses, that are apparently compatible: https://www.aoi-uw.com/media/wysiwyg/AOI_Ports_Chart_for_OLYMPUS_Housings.pdf Also the Zen ports suggested by Bill seem feasable. See here the info by Zen, but make sure that the mount for a selected port is for PEN compatible housings: https://www.zenunderwater.com/collections/pt-epxx-ports ... Eventually also other third parties produce compatible domeports, others with practical experience will recommend... Wolfgang
  11. I confirm Chris' observation that AF, when using the Zuiko 60mm Macro is substantially better on the EM1II PDAF sensor, when compared to the EM5II CAF, leading to more focus hunting on the latter. The situation is, much better on EM5II, when the Panasonic 45mm Macro is used (My wife and me own both the 60mm and the 45mm, I use both lenses UW). Therefore I recommend Dann to acquire the Panasonic 45mm Macro, instead of the 60mm, when staying with the EPL-10 (on EM1II, however, I prefer the 60mm, because of the somewhat greater working distance, when "real macro" is desired; but working distance ith the 45mm is still o.k.)... Wolfgang
  12. I use EM5II and EM1II UW. EM5II has a very similar sensor to EPL-10, while the sensor (and PDAF AF) of EM1II is very similar to EM5III. Clearly the EM1II is a little better (mostly DR and AF; also more MPixel), but I am not sure that the 20 Mpixel sensor justifies buying a new housing (I was glad to have a reason to purchase the EM1II plus Nauticam housing because my wife flooded her EPL-5 with Olymous housing and took over my EM5II)... I believe that only a future generation of MFT camera, with stacked sensor (=better AF) and BSI (=less noise) will be worth upgrading and spending the money not only for the camera, but also for the housing... Wolfgang
  13. Maybe it is just too much vacuum? In the beginning I had a similar problem with my Nauticam housing and vacuum system, when I was pumping first like crazy (I believed the more vacuum the better... ). Some buttons stopped to work ... When I pump just one or two more strokes more after the blue light has changed to green, I do not have any problems with camera controls... Wolfgang
  14. I am also interested in third party vacuum systems... May I ask Tinman, why you install the leak sentinel in a Nauticam housing, that has the vacuum system already preinstalled and just needs addition of the valve? I am also interested to hear, how long do the batteries last. I have two Nauticam housings that use single CR2450 batteries for the vacuum and have to exchange them every 1-2 years (estimated after about 150 dives). I frequently assemble the rig in the evening and leave the vacuum on overnight until the next day. How does this compare to the leak sentinel? Thanks, Wolfgang
  15. Hi Ant, Se my personal thouhgts above... Good luck, Wolfgang
  16. I checked the Zen domeports that I have: DP170-N120: there is a plate at the base that is screwed on via many screws: => seems compatible with Sea&Sea adapter... DP100-N120: the base is machined and not "screw-on". Only a small piece of metal is removable and screwed on via two screws. => presumably not adaptable to Sea&Sea type. => this is what I meant with "eventually": one assumes that every Nauticam compatible port can be adapted to Sea&Sea/Isotta via adapter, but for a given port (Zen DP100-N120) a unforseeable detail in construction makes adaption impossible. But obviously my English is not good enough - I apologize... (I just checked the dictionary: "eventually" means finally, while the German word "eventuell" means possibly. So "eventually" and "eventuell" have different meanings, this explains everything) Wolfgang
  17. I got new Info from Ms. Elisa from Isotta: => Nauticam Zoomgear is not compatible with Isotta housings => In case a lens is not in the Isotta portcharts (e.g. Sony 28-60mm), they will be happy to make a new zoomgear => as already mentioned above, they do not have a own vaccum system and will not make one. Every third party system works via M16. Wolfgang
  18. I am using a pair of the AlienExpress Tooke coiled multicore cables, cited above, for Inon Z330 and Nauticam housing (NA-EM1II) since approx. 2 years and I am 100% satisfied (I must say I use my flashes exclusively in manual mode and did not test TTL). They are as reliable as the coiled multifiber Sea&Sea cables that I used previously with YS-D2 strobes and were more expensive. One has to take care to select the right type of connector, when ordering, as many types are offered (as with all premade fiberoptic cables). I always have spare cables with me, when I go somewhere for diving, but do not take the spares under the water (my wife had the tendency to break her fiberoptic cables several times, when she was using cheap prefabricated cables from a local vendor; since she is using my old Sea&Sea cables no breakage occurred any more). The cost of shipping the Tookes to Austria/Europe is < 2 Euro, but it lasts approx. 1 month until they arrive here... Wolfgang
  19. Hi Stenella, A lot of good advice here... I have good experience with dolphins in ambient light with Canon 8-15mm fisheye, but with Oly EM1II. One should emphazise that your dolphin photography is for scientific pupose to identify individuals, while ours is "artistic", just to get pleasing pictures. This may well demand different lenses. While most like WA for "artistic" purpose, maybe a regular range zoom lens is better just to take photos of the animals for identifying them and other metrics. These photos will be much less pleasing, since they are made from greater distance, have less contrast and one cannot see the "big scenery", but they mayserve better the scientific purpose. Just an idea, only you can decide what serves your needs better... Generally, when making photos of fast moving animals using ambient light, you will work with a fixed shutter speed (e.g. 1/400s to avoid motion blurr of the fast moving animals) and aperture is set automatically to get the right exposure. With the small MFT sensor I have, I do not dare to use "Auto ISO" to get better exposure, since too much noise is added at high ISO (I just increase ISO a little to a fix value of 400). With a FF camera "Auto ISO" can be used readily for this type of photography, this is clearly an advantage. You also will want a lens/port combination that allows making photos at wider open apertures to get the maximum of ambient light. Such a combination for R5 is the WACP1. When using Sony A7x (or A1) you could use WWL1 and save money. I do not see the fisheye distortion as a problem - you can easily "defish" the image in LR and perform then your scientific measurements. It is even possible in LR to make a lensprofile for a WACP or WWL1/lens combination by your own and using this profile you get perfect defishing of the image without any distortion... Wolfgang
  20. Since I got the info directly from Isotta technical service, I count on it that Nauticam ports are compatible with the Sea&Sea adapter (she also wrote BTW that Sea&Sea ports are compatible as they are). It would be very valuable if someone could confirm the compatibility from practical experience (and maybe also report about eventual problems)... Wolfgang
  21. Great information, thanks to Oliver and the others! The custom made rear window to use the 45° viewfinder sounds good. What about the Nauticam zoomgear, does it fit? Are you continuing to use the Nauticam ports on Isotta (but maybe you had the N85 versions)? Wolfgang
  22. I suspect that this is marketing strategy: in practice we all have to acquire the stuff and test it out by ourselves. Afterwards we know whether we are happy with it or not. If not, we acquire an alternative and the old items are little used and rest on a cupboard attracting dust - this strategy brings the most sales. When everybody could find out easily what is the optimum for her/him personally, sales would be clearly lower and also focused on a smaller number of items, while others would be difficult to sell... I started this tread here to get the maximum information from first hand experience which WACP1/lens combinations give best results. Already we have a lot of good information... Wolfgang
  23. This is great information! But is not an improvement in IQ always a good thing and the opposite of good is bad? The question is, how big are the differences in IQ in the real world. I have no idea, the only information I have, are your reports and the low resolution images of different scenes do not allow me to judge and compare IQ. Test images under controlled conditions of the same subject would probably show differences and everybody could decide then what his/her personal optimum is, based on the facts. But do'nt be afraid, I am not proposing that you do it - you already do a lot. Thank you once again for the hughe amount of work you do to provide us with this great information ... Am I right when I interpret your post that your personal optimum is WWL1-B, since the improvements in IQ by WAPC1 (and even WACP2) are too small to outperform the increase in weight and price? For instance, when you go on a trip by plane, the increase in IQ is too small for you to drag around the WACP-1, you just do'nt bother to do it? When reading your tests, I interpreted your tests and comments that WACP1 is significantly better, worth the additional weight and investment and thought to myself that weight and price is still o.k. (WACP2 would be definitely too big and also too expensive for me, personally)... Wolfgang
  24. I agree that the WACP1 is not ideal for cropped sensors. For APS-C there is the Tokina 10-17mm (diagonal AOV 167° - 92°) and for MFT the Canon 8-15mm (dAOV 170° - 85°), that can be used behind a 140mm (even a 100mm) domeport and provide similar (but not identical) AOVs compared to WACP1. I believe that IQ and fisheye distortion are pretty similar to the WACP1 on FF at the same AOV (dAOV 130°- up to 59°, depending on lens), when compared to the fisheye lenses on smaller sensors. I currently use the Canon 8-15mm with 140mm (sometimes 100mm) dome on my EM1II and to not feel the faintest urge to acquire a WACP1, that according to the Nauticam portcharts would be compatible with the Zuiko 12-40mm, as I do not see how this could lead to any technical improvements in IQ over the Canon fisheye. I did, however, not see such a direct comparison so far, this is my assumption, I am eager to learn more from real worls comparisons... When we come to FF, the situation is completely different, since there is no zoom fisheye lens in sight that covers the 15mm - 30mm range (and the existing, beautiful, 8-15mm fisheyes can be used just as two mode lenses, toggling between circular fisheye (requiring dismounting the dome shade and seldom used) and 180° dAOV). I believe such a 15-30mm zoom fisheye behind a 140mm port would be the WA lens of choice for many UW-photographers. Here comes the WACP1 into the play that allows to use the low light advantage of the bigger sensor by providing sharp images at relatively low f numbers (compared to rectilinear WA lens behind a (large) domeport). MAYBE an alternative is the Sony 28-60mm lens with WWL1 as described by Phil, but he says the IQ is not as good as the same lens behind WACP1. My thought on the WWL1/WACP1 choice here is: Who wants to have a good, but not the best, configuration, when investing 10k++ into a FF setup? Nikon may be different case, presenting even more problems to the customer. I am not familiar with this system, but have heared that some of the old Nikon lenses can not be used in automatic mode on the new Z mirrorless cameras to which every Nikon user will have to upgrade, sooner or later (but I did not study which of the lenses are those). This is an additional obstacle that prevents investing into a WACP1, when with Nikon... Wolfgang
  25. I am considering to acquire an additional FF setup (at present MFT user). Currently my wife and me have NA-EM5II and NA-EM1II and a moderate size collection of N120 (dome)ports and extensions plus two FF lenses (Canon-EF 8-15mm fisheye and 100mm IS Macro) that we use via adapters and plan to use also on FF. We also plan to use a WACP1. The logical housing brand for the next camera (not yet decided 100% which model) would be Nauticam and this is likely the way we will go... I have however read a lot of good things about Isotta housings: They are lighter and (a little bit) cheaper than Nauticam. I have asked at Isotta about usability of Nauticam ports on Isotta housings, since such compatibility is for me the prerequisite for considering an alternative. Ms. Elisa from Isotta wrote me that any N120 Nauticam port or extension can be used on Isotta housing (I guess the ones with the big openings) right away and according to the Nauticam port charts, without considering any additional distance correction, when using this adpater: Nauticam to Sea & Sea Port Adaptor. This is good news and makes Isotta an interesting alternative to consider, but there are additional questions: #1.: How is the ergonomy of an Isotta housing compared to Nauticam? (From my personal experience I know that the Nauticam housings I have used are perfectly tailored to my right hand, e.g. I do not need to search for back-button focus or shutter, they are naturally at my fingertips. A downgrade from this situation would be an unpleasend experience, making a change not worth). #2.: Vacuum system: I see Isotta works with third party vacuum systems. According to my internet recherches, the battery life of such third party vaccum valves is 40-100h. This is contrasted by thousands of h with the Nauticam system. I often assemble the rig in th eevening and let the vacuum on overnight before the diving day. When using a system with 40h battery life, this means I have to exchange the battery every few days (with Nauticam this is, at present every 1-2 years; this also would make a change unattractive for me). #3.: The mechanics inside Nauticam housings looks a little bit "grafted full" compared to Isotta that looks much more simple and slim. On the other side, I never experienced a problem with mechanics with our Nauticam housings. Is the mechanics inside Isotta housings maybe just too simple? Did anyone experience problems with mechanics using Isotta? #4.: Nauticam 45° viewfinder and zoomgears: I also asked at Isotta, whether they are compatible with Isotta housings, but did not get an answer so far. Hence I guess they are not compatible (by default one would think that zoomgears and viewfinders are not compatible between different manufactureres; compatibility would be a positive surprise). Having to acquire new zoomgears and a viewfinder (and several adapters for Nauticam to Isotta) makes Isotta an even more expensive alternative to Nauticam and less attractive... If corona allows, I plan to go to a divers trade fair and talk to the representatives and hold the housings in question in my hand, before I will order one. In addition it would be very interesting and helpful to hear about experience when switching from Nauticam to Isotta, or even considering and thinking about switching... Wolfgang
×
×
  • Create New...