Jump to content

hyp

Member
  • Content Count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

hyp last won the day on October 18

hyp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

1 Follower

About hyp

  • Rank
    Sting Ray

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Germany
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Olympus EM5 (mk1)
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA EM5
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Sea&Sea YS-02

Recent Profile Visitors

10134 profile views
  1. I'd probably go with something a little bit more than 2500lm. My father uses a 5k lumen weefine light (same as kraken I believe) and is quite happy with it. A single 3000 lumen light was really only good enough for close up work.
  2. I've used flip and just screwing the lens on. Can't imagine bayonet being significantly better than normal screwing. Flip adapters are really nice for macro lenses (sadly incompatible with most wide lenses). I don't know of any disadvantage apart from the price, which in the grand scheme of underwater photography is not that high.
  3. Do you want to compare with FF or APS-C. I know another poster already accused you of moving the goal posts and I am right now experiencing the same thing. No point in pursuing the argument. All I can say is that the differences in IQ are minute when you also take size and weight into account. People should think more for themselves instead of blindly trusting reviewers who are largely interested in selling stuff (because new gear is their content). In the end, there is no free lunch. If you want significantly better IQ your equipment will be significantly larger and more expensive.
  4. If this difference is not significant to you, I don't know what is: https://camerasize.com/compact/#629.689,682.442,ha,t The prime will also allow faster shutter speeds than f.e. a 100-400mm zoom. That people don't know how to use primes may be a problem, but if skill is a problem people should really just stop throwing money at it and maybe just book a workshop. Much better ROI.
  5. I don't know where this idea came from on the internet, that it's the professionals who are constantly chasing the latest and greatest. It's amateurs with too much money on their hands. Professional wildlife photographers have probably been locked into their respective systems (nikon/canon dslr) for years because you don't just replace your long tele glass easily. When you look at some of the (very few) wildlife youtubers (Morten Hilmer comes to mind) they don't carry zoom lenses. They use primes because zoom lenses at that range have only ever been consumer grade. It's the same thing in mu43 too with the 300mm prime and the 100-400 zoom which is nowhere near the same quality. If the 150-400 f4.5 TC ever comes out that will be an actual Pro Telezoom for mu43 and something that really no other system offers. The usual setup for a wildlife photographer seems to be one 600mm/800mm prime (because most of the time you'll be zoomed in all the way to the long end anyway) and then something like a 100-400mm zoom (for when stuff actually comes closer). Cropping from twice the resolution also gets you nowhere near mu43 reach. You would need four times the resolution for that. Personally I find that the kind of shots that become accessible only because we can carry smaller gear anywhere is much more important than some marginal image quality gains that only become apparent when pixel peeping. You can easily print 40x60cm from the 20mp mu43 sensor. Tell me, when is the last time you printed larger?
  6. Remember that for Super-Tele more often than not FF shooters stop down for DoF (at least those using f4 primes). At that point all the low light and DoF advantages of FF are lost, if you compare to something like the Olympus 300f4 or Pana-Leica 200 f2.8. What's left is the extra resolution which is the only real benefit I can see with FF together with Dynamic Range (but you don't always need that). Most people are not willing or able to afford a 600mm f4 prime at 10000€ so they really get to choose between something like the Sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3 or Olympus 300 f4. So FF only gains one stop after all the equivalence stuff + extra resolution. It's everyone's own decision on whether the extra money (on average a FF system is still much more expansive) and weight (I calculated my own current mu43 lenses and equivalent FF lenses and it was around half) is worth 1 stop of DoF at a distance where DoF is usually shallow enough. Even if you are able and willing to pay for a 600mm f4 that becomes a significant problem if you are travelling for your wildlife photography. I can imagine going on a diving trip (e.g. sardine run) to South Africa and than doing a land based wildlife excursion as well. All I would have to pack is my tiny Panasonic 100-300 (or more likely if I had the money to do such a trip the PL200 f2.8). This would not be possible with FF. In my opinion the gains are marginal and people (reviewers especially) are blowing them up big time, because they need to for their own economic good. After all, reviewers get paid by adds from the same people that manufacture the gear they review. A full system change (including UW) to FF would cost me upwards of 10000€. If I wanted to actually gain all the benefits of FF in terms of image quality it would probably be closer to 20000€. I don't really see that many people having that kind of money in the current situation (or even before that). When I tell my friends what my UW gear cost (most bought used) people already shake their head... Last I heard selling UW images doesn't provide that much money either.
  7. Magnifications comes from a combination of base lens and wet optic. For Costesielle you really need as much as you can get, which is a dedicated macro lens (probably the already recommended 60mm) and the CMC-1. Also focus (manually) as close as you can and then move into focus with your camera. Quite often AF will not go all the way to maximum magnification on its own.
  8. First get a GoPro. Then get proper lights and arms. The lights will already cost multiples of the price of the GoPro. Then you can decide if you want to push further and buy a dedicated housing for a proper camera. You can keep using the lights in that case. If you find that a GoPro with lights is already too much you've not lost too much. If you sell the GoPro to get a better camera you will probably lose only a tiny amount of money.
  9. I don't think there will be a noticeable difference in AF within the next generation or two. Already we're at the point where people are arguing that there is no difference at all, so we are probably very close. I think shooting experience with SLRs is very different to mirrorless. Some prefer SLRs, others prefer mirrorless. I also agree that with UW cameras the size of the camera itself is not an actual factor and housings don't seem to be that much smaller with mirrorless. Lens size and (dome)port size (scaling with sensor size) is much more important for total travel size. If you want the absolute best performance I think DSLRs are still the way to go, but the difference is tiny and if you prefer mirrorless for whatever reason I don't think it will make a big difference.
  10. I print all my zoom gears. Much better than the insane prices of OEM gears. Exceptions are special gears like the one for the Olympus 12-50 which is a marvel of engineering (and even more expensive).
  11. Just keep your Em5ii as a second camera dedicated to UW if you can’t afford housing the Em1mkii. I shoot an Em5 (original) underwater and a GX8 on land for the same reasons although I’d love to upgrade the housing to get access to focus peaking.
  12. Just as an additional thought. You can use the Olympus 8mm fisheye in the Zen 170mm Glas port. This will not give you additional resolution, but you do have the option to shoot larger domes with a fisheye on MFT. Generally though, I think that one of the biggest draws of fisheye lenses is the ability to use small domes for travelling and close focus wide angle. I think with Sony at the moment you only have the choice to adapt. I think the Canon 8-15mm is a popular (but pricy) choice. I think Nauticam provides a N100 to N120 adapter that is the exact size for use with the Metabones lens adapter. This lets you choose whatever you want from the Canon N120 Port Chart. You can use both 140mm and 230mm Domes.
  13. It's possible, but you better have sure hands or don't change lenses in the blue. And with lenses like the WWL-1 they become a bit too unwieldy to swap. I think with that lens it's really a choice you make before you start the dive and you stick with that, same as if you had a dome and wide angle lens.
  14. What is the reason you jump to photoshop so quickly? Maybe my editing style is different, but for underwater images I pretty much never need photoshop.
×
×
  • Create New...