Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Architeuthis

  1. Whow - I just watched this episode and can only say that I am impressed! I knew, from the forum here, that old Nikonos fisheyelenses can be converted to fit on modern cameras. I hear for the first time, that also rectilinear RS WA lenses can be used (and restructured as explained in the video). WA at f 2.8 at highest optical quality - so THIS is impressive. The WACP goes in similar directions (both in principle, weight and price), but good IQ at f 2.8 seems out of reach and the restructured lenses seem to be far smaller and lighter... Wolfgang
  2. In the case the videos are taken just with available light (e.g. snorkeling with dolphins), I believe the cameras with the larger sensor will be the better choice. D500 or D810 just in housing without any lamps or flashes will be easy to handle and motility will not be restricted more than with GoPro or TG... Wolfgang
  3. I have a question regarding this nice video: At approx 08:00 Alex demonstrates snoots at different diameters available for the Retra strobe. Later, at approx. 10:20 the Retra LSD. My question: Is the LSD just the better, "luxury", version at a higher weight, or are there different applications for the snoots and the LSD (e.g. narrowing the beam to reduce backscatter for the snoots and "creative" lighting for the LSD)? I am asking, since I consider the acquisition of a snoot for our Inon Z330's (no experience with snoots, so far): This here that looks similar to the traditional snoot shown in the video: https://www.panoceanphoto.com/inon-snoot-set-z-330-d-200 or the Retra LSD in Inon Z330 mount: https://www.retra-uwt.com/collections/shop/products/light-shaping-device?variant=12730263240746 Is it advisable to go just for the LSD and one has then everything, or should one have both snoot plus LSD for different applications (also the size and weight of the LSD may be worth a consideration)? Thanks for ideas, Wolfgang
  4. Why take an additional, separate, camera for video? The GoPro or TG will not substitute for a missing video light. I doubt that the videos will, technically, be better than videos from from D500 or D810. I make similar, occasional, videos with Oly EM1II and EM5II (mostly when motion is important, e.g. schooling fish; "moving" slides inbetween the stills when I present). As videolamp I use a single, stronger, focuslight, that serves also as very good mainlamp for nightdives. It has approx. 3400 lumen at its maximum (Weefine 3400). Of course, two lamps with 2x - 3x the power would be better and also not a big investment (e.g.: two X-LIGHT M6000-WRBT II, 6000 lumen each). And of course when two people go UW at the same time, it is always possible to equip one rig with a lens that fits for the projected video... Wolfgang
  5. Good to hear that Belize is open again for vaccinated people... In the meantime there are also guidelines from DAN for the safety of vaccinated divers (but beware and look again before diving, these guidelines are updated as more experience is gained): https://www.daneurope.org/readarticle?p_p_id=web_content_reading&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&p_r_p_-1523133153_groupId=10103&p_r_p_-1523133153_articleId=14891675&p_r_p_-1523133153_articleVersion=1.0&p_r_p_-1523133153_articleType=General+Web+Content&p_r_p_-1523133153_commaCategories=NEWS&p_r_p_-1523133153_commaTags=&p_r_p_-1523133153_templateId=5993844&fbclid=IwAR0j_61Kk3nxRM65z32QqrWNx5WGLWSTA61VkvZVpCRp9xREF9NEvZUXjZQ Wolfgang
  6. I am not a technical diver and use regular floats, designed for fishermen nets, for buoancy of the housing from the company below (similar depth rating as the Stix floats, but cost almost nothing). They have also special floats for deep-sea nets at low cost in their program, rated between 400m and 1800m, depending on material. The material can be cutted and holes can be drilled into it. Maybe worth to consider (unfortunately the site is only in German)?: https://engelnetze.com/tiefseeschwimmer Wolfgang
  7. Hi Craig, There was a similar tread recently: The Seaskin suits are made in U.K. and Stuart said shipping to US is no problem. These suits are entirely made ad measure and good quality for relatively low price... Wolfgang
  8. Hi Polyroly, This was the company: https://tauchmaske.de/ustanovka-linz-226 They offer lenses made from glass with special refractive index for high dioptries, +7.5 should work... Only problem is that they are in the EU (there are several other companies here in EU that offer similar service). I guess there are similar companies in Canda and this will be better for you, but I do not know wich... Wolfgang
  9. Masks with pop-out lenses at different strength work only for divers that do not have astigmatism nor prespyobia. I have both and would not like to take different lenses for reading gauges and seeing UW on the two glasses. Here in Europe we have companies that glue optical lenses of all kind into a dive mask: You first select (almost) any mask that fits your face and then they glue the lenses, according to the presciption, into the mask. It is not cheap (approx. 650 Euro for a multifocal mask with correction for shortsightedness plus astigmatism), but it is worth every cent. I can see everything sharp, from gauges to the writing on the backscreen of the camera and also at far distance and this completely relaxed.. Wolfgang
  10. I have the Pana 7-14mm and my wife the Zuiko 9-18mm. We both use it behind Zen DP-170. 7mm is already so wide that the corners are not good with the 170mm dome (the DP200 is recommended for 7mm; Zen DP170 and Nauticam180 are too small. ). 9mm is better (Very similar IQ to the 7-14mm @9mm) and you can zoom out to 18mm, instead to 14mm only. Probably the Pana 8-18mm is the optimum in case you want to buy a new lens (for this lens you need the Nauticam 180 domeport), but the Zuiko 9-18mm is already very good (and goes with both Zen DP170 and Nauticam180); I would stay with 9-18mm and use the Zuiko 8mm fisheye for real very wide angle... Wolfgang
  11. Just a question, regarding the backscatter miniflash, yellowtang: Does the LED aiming light switch automatically OFF, when the flash becomes active? If not, is the spot visible in the photo? Wolfgang
  12. Hi Draq, Just my thoughts: Instead of investing 3k for experimenting with HSS, you could experiment with ND filter on the lens for few $ and report here. As far as I understand the HSS issue, the outcome should be the same (darker background as the fastest non-HSS sync. speed, lowest ISO and smallest tolerable aperture allow). And unless you have in mind what to do with TTL, you do not need it, most UW photographers never use it... In case you suffer from GAS (I also have severe attacks from time to time), there is no other choice than to go for the new equipment. As you already say you can sell the old gear to limit the losses... Wolfgang
  13. I can report a case with a new Nauticam extension/adapter (SKU # 36064): I ordered it new and after the first dive few drops of water came in via the opening of the locking mechanism. I assume the extension was lying around in the shop for long and the O-ring became dry and rigid. I solved the problem with a drop of this fluid: https://www.unterwasserkamera.at/shop/catalog/en/product_info.php?info=p6154_d-d-top-secret-o-ring-fluid.html Every year I treat all concealed O-rings via the opings of our housings with this fluid and there was never a water entry. I can also say that some controls of the housings, that were purchased second hand, ran noticable smoother after the first treatment... I agree that it would be better to remove the O-rings and grease them with original Nauticam lubricant (and replace O-rings, when worn out), but so far I was reluctant to do this substantial amount of work, hopefully I will never regret this... Regarding the problem of tobbe1, I would not risk another flooding by continuing to dive: the leakage has to be located (with paper towels as already suggested), the entire mechanism removed and the O-rings replaced. It is very likely a worn out O-ring that sometimes seals, sometimes not (unless it is a strange user error, impossible to diagnose this from remote)... Wolfgang
  14. I read here with interest (I own Inon Z330 and Sea&Sea YS-D2), since I consider adding a snoot to Z330. Weight: The Backscatter Miniflash with snoot is 750g. The Retra LSD for Inon Z330 is 600g. In addition, the Miniflash requires a special batterie plus charger and I hate the idea of carrying around multiple pieces of extra-equipment. Clear plus for Retra LSD, when airtravel is considered (The Inon Z330s go to the lugagge anyhow and are not considered as extra weight). However, when under the water, the Miniflash with snoot may be more handsome compared to Z330 with LSD... The build quality of LSD is probably way better than Backscatter. The missing accuracy of the pointing/targeting light (pilot light of Z330 via LSD), however, does not sound good and is a dealbreaker, when real. May this be an operating error? ... There exists also a snoot by Inon, designed for the Z330. http://www.inon.jp/products/strobe/snoot/z330.html. What is the problem with this snoot? Finally, how many snoots? Is one (plus a regular strobe without snoot) sufficient, or is it better to have two? Wolfgang
  15. This tread is interesting... First: The (diagonal) angles of view (AOV) between Oly 14-42+WWL1 (or Sony 7c/24-60/WWL-1) and rectilinear Oly 12-40 are different: Oly 12-40: 84°-30° AOV. Sony24-60+WAPC1 (Oly 14-42+WWL-1 or Sony 7c/24-60/WWL-1): 130°-68° ??? (I could not find AOVs for WWL-1, but guess AOVs are similar to WAPC1) Second: As others already said, sharpness and contrast in the posted images is produced by the far object distance, the lens/domeport combination has no effect under these conditions. => A comparison in contrast and sharpness at similar AOVs and at much closer objects would be really interesting for Oly 12-40 (in domeport) vs 14-42+WWL-1. I would be surprised in case 12-40 performs better, but who knows? Wolfgang
  16. Great additional info, Grudge - Thank You a lot! Wolfgang
  17. Voila - I have edited the posting above. We must not forget, however, that these are the sheer housings and the optics adds. But in case the new Sony lens really provides excellent IQ with WWL-1, this may be indeed a very interesting configuration...
  18. These shots look interesting. However, not typically fo rfisheye, the corners are blurred. What dome/extension and f-numbers were you using? Wolfgang
  19. I am also considering different systems at the moment and fabricated the graphic below, that illustrates how tiny the housing of this new FF is in comparison to other common cameras. The graph shows the volume of the housing (of a brick with the dimensions given on the Nauticam homepage) vs. its weight in air. While weight and volume of the housing for Nikon, Canon and Olympus go (roughly) inversely with the crop factor, Sony housings do not obey this rule... Wolfgang
  20. I am (almost) convinced that the native Canon EF to RF adapter does a great job on R5/R6: have a look into the Canon R mount forum at DPreview - dozends of of photographers state that their EF lenses focus faster and better on their new R5/R6 bodies compared to their DSLRs, the lenses have been designed for (except few reports with older, outdated EF lenses)...
  21. No fear Massimo - I will not decide now, I have plenty of time with the acquisition. I just start now to make up my mind, before I will invest many thousands of $ into a system, where I plan to stay for alonger period. I do not plan to change later the system just because a new lens or camera with slightly better performance shows up from another company. We are lamenting here about shortcomes, but we must not forget that this is at a very high level of technical perfection... I think that, when so many different people report controversial facts, likely both groups are right: it is just very difficult to find out what was the difference in the settings that resulted in the controversial final outcome... I thank you and the others so far for this interesting and stimulating discussion. Hopefully more photographers will share their experience... Wolfgang
  22. Precious information from someone who has practical experience with many different systems - thanks a lot Phil! I have the impression that Sony offers at present a lot of advantage (size, IQ, price), would there not be the controversial issue with macro, therefore I am eager to hear as many opinions as possible, before I decide... Since you have a lot of experience with EM1II (that I have now), may I ask you to compare AF with the Sony 90mm macro on R7iv (7c) with the EM1II and Zuiko 60mm (Panasonic 45mm macro may be even more appropriate. One may say also that the Sony 90mm should have an additional diopter to give 2:1 to be really comparable with Pana 45mm at 1:1). This would give me a reference feeling how AF works with the Sony... What regards my personal experience, S-AF with Pana 45mm on EM5II (CAF) was good, but Zuiko 60mm a little cumbersome (when I just had EM5II, I did not regard S-AF with Zuiko 60mm cumbersome). Since I have EM1II (PDAF), C-AF, both with 45mm and 60mm is the method I prefer, not th eleast issue with 45mm, with Zuiko 60mm (probably depending on light), sometimes I have to try several times until C-AF is maintained during reframing. The example picture was (even) taken with Canon 100mm IS macro, adapted with metabones 0.71x (so 71mm in fact), C-AF to the eye and then reframing (but this really is the limit of the system, AF with the adapted 100mm is really cumbersome...): Wolfgang
  23. I start to decide which mirrorless FF system to acquire and ask for help. At present, no system offers a complete set of lenses for UW with the corresponding mirrorless mount. While I think that adapted DSLR fisheye lenses (except Nikon where some DSLR lenses do not work properly, even with native Nikon adapter) will not be a problem at all, macro lenses with focal length around 100mm certainly may be. This will be an important factor for decision making. There are plenty of reports/reviews of a single lens existing, but what is fast and accurate, is certainly a subjective statement, especially when there is no practical experience with other systems and therefore no comparison... Therefore I would greatly appreciate if UW photographers that have practical experience with more than one macro setup could state, how they would rate AF speed/accuracy (and eventually also other relevant features) of the different system configurations in comparison (and maybe relate to more common setups as e.g. Oly EM1II with Zuiko 60mm macro (this is what I personally have at present) and/or Nikon 105 mm macro on D8xx): #1.: Sony A7RIV (or RIII) with: Sony 90mm macro, native E-mount Sigma 105mm macro, native Sony E-mount Canon 100mm IS macro, adapted via MC11to Sony E-mount => While Sony seems to be the most mature mirrorless FF system at present, there are several reviews and reports by users here, that state AF speed of the Sony mount macros is very slow. I found a remarkable statement by Backscatter's Jim Decker, regarding the A7RIV: "For macro, the Canon 100mm IS macro lens with the Sigma MC-11 Mount Converter focuses much faster than the native Sony 90mm macro. ...": https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Sony-a7R-IV-Underwater-Camera-Review Can this be real and if yes, how is performance of Canon 100mm IS on A7RIV compared to the same lens on a Canon R body??? #2.: Canon R5, R6 or R with: Canon 100mm macro, EF-mount adapted with Canon adapter Canon 85mm macro, native RF mount Thanks, Wolfgang
  24. I agree, there are more obstacles to consider, not just personal infection and virus spread. We will refrain from air travelling to distant destinations in the foreseeable future. It is too uncertain for us (we can not effort the time for cancelled flights and weeks of quarantine after holidays). Only single day diving to nearby lakes at the moment. As soon as my wife will get her vaccination also (she is younger than me and not working in a hospital environment, so it may take many weeks from now), we will, however, make diving holidays by car to the Mediterranian, as always... Wolfgang
  25. Hi Massimo, I have used the Kenko 1.4x (and also 2x) with Canon 8-15 and also can compare to Tokina 10-17mm on MFT: The bottomline is: #1.: The 1.4x TC has little effect on IQ of the Canon 8-15mm, but has noticeable effect on IQ with Tokina. #2.: AF becomes slower, especially when there is not much light (EM1II). #3.: UW IQ of Canon 8-15mm and Tokina 10-17mm (1x and with 0.71x speedbooster) is comparable. I find this very surprising, since the Tokina is such a bad lens on the surface (see.: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4299636) #4.: On land, out of curiosity since I thought the 2x TC would be fantastic for a future FF camera, I tested the Canon 8-15mm with 2x TC. AF was very slow and unreliable and IQ bad (unsharp and soft). Tue to the unreliable AF the focus distance in the example below is behind the children, but even there the image is soft. I rfrained from testing the 2x TC UW: Wolfgang
  • Create New...