Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


hyp last won the day on February 25

hyp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

1 Follower

About hyp

Additional Info

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

Recent Profile Visitors

10210 profile views
  1. Most people underwater are not still. Which is why they like tracking. You can say that being still is better, but that argues besides reality. It also has nothing to do with tracking fast birds. Anyway, I'm out. There are no points for being right on the internet.
  2. I guess low light is a question of Definition then. Personally, I think it's low light, when it's dark. Examples would be Mandarin Dives at Dusk, where you can't have artificial light. Also some dive spots with low visibility and deep depth will be pretty dark. As far as I know, cameras AF with open Apertures so the maximum Aperture determines how much light is available for the AF system. It doesn't really matter if you close down the aperture for DoF. This is maybe different for Video. I know that you think that tracking is overrated and unnecessary , but it has been quite clear to me that a number of people on Wetpixel seem to enjoy putting a Focus Point on a subject and having it stick there no matter who moves. I don't own a camera modern enough to have access to this technology, so in part I agree with your assessment that it's unnecessary, but it sure sounds nice. I'm also fairly sure that @Architeuthis shoots that way from previous posts he's made. Telling people that a feature they inquire about is useless is really not all that helpful in their search for answers. Especially when he was quite specific in asking for real world experience. The Specsheets from manufacturers are there for all of us to google.
  3. I thought the question was about macro stills photography. It’s not low light! And if it really is bring a focus light (preferably with red colour mode).
  4. Acrylic domes are generally very floaty, so moving to a glass dome will increase weight for travelling but improve handling underwater significantly. Generally, I think your pictures just demonstrate the age old of rule of getting closer in underwater photography. It's quite possible that with the Sony you will get better AF and also better image quality, but the first photos of distant dolphins and the shark will never look good even on the very best camera. The closer dolphins would probably also look pretty good with the WWL-1. In my opinion it is not really worth chasing after improvements on a type of shot, that will just never look good. On the other hand you should just do what brings you joy and if these are the type of shots you generally shoot, maybe it's worth it for you. Maybe also worth looking at the WACP.
  5. The problem with the WWL is that it's so huge that you basically have to do make the decision of what you're going to shoot before the dive. If the 12-45 works well behind the 4" dome you could go to 1:1 with a macro lens and still have 24mm equiv which is not amazing, but decent. That would be a pretty cool setup for Video or just when you have no idea what you're going to see on a dive. The 12-50mm with the MWL-1 would also be able to do this. Not sure about IQ though as there are very few reviews.
  6. Problem with the 12-40 is that is requires a larger dome, so you cannot fit a wet lens like with the 12-50. I wonder how the 12-45 PRO would perform behind something like the 4" wide angle port that also allows attachment of a flip adapter. Nauticam Port chart has very little info on this lens (macro port 35 + 2x 20mm extension). No idea if that lens would even work, but it might be a better iq alternativ and it allows 0.5 magnification through the whole zoom range, which is better than both the 12-50 and 12-40.
  7. Yep. If you're happy with SLRs I would suggest exactly that. Personally I prefer the EVF and I also prefer the slightly more compact size, as a camera for me always is for above and below water. Definitely no point in going after the latest and greatest just for the sake of it.
  8. I own the 12-50 with port and gear. It’s a pretty cool piece of engineering but it’s not exceptional in terms of image quality. The macro mode is quite nice but for real macro you still need a wet lens. Wideangle is what you would expect for a 24mm equivalent lens behind a flat port. Compatibility with wet wide lenses is not that great. The electrical zoom is quite annoying and consumes a lot of power. There is also an option to put it behind a dome that has a flip adapter for wet macro lenses. You lose the macro mode, but this may actually be a better option. I’ve not had a chance to try this though.
  9. This is true, but when speaking of adapted lenses for which there is no mirrorless alternative it doesn’t really make a difference. It really just means that in theory a smaller lens with the same functionality or better is possible. But right now it really is just that. A possibility. If you are happy with the lens on a DSLR you might as well use it on mirrorless. It‘s going to be a long long time until we get a native fisheye, let alone a fisheye zoom for FF mirrorless.
  10. I have good enough buoyancy to go without but it’s still more comfortable to use one. I’ve done muck diving with and without a stick and I really think that it’s just a matter of preference. Some people surely use it in place of good buoyancy but I wouldn’t assume that’s the reason everyone who is using one is using it for. Also if there is a little current all the buoyancy skills in the world won’t help you stay in place, but you can easily anchor yourself in the sand with a stick.
  11. The optical advantage is really just an advantage in lens design opportunities. And that doesn't necessarily mean higher quality but also maybe smaller size for similar optical properties or otherwise. If there is no glass in the adapter - and there isn't - there will be no difference optically. There may be in terms of AF ranging from complete incompatibility through much slower operation all the way to no noticeable difference. There have been plenty of people reporting that lenses are even faster on newer bodies despite the adapter, just because of the advances in tech in the camera bodies.
  12. I really don't think that gear availability should be a hindrance to anyone using a lens, as long as it is compatible. It is really easy to adapt existing gears or completely design new gears using 3d printing. When I bought my setup used it only came with a gear for the Olympus 12-40 lens but I wanted to use the Panasonic 8-18 lens. I just designed an adapter that made the old gear fit onto the new lens. Got the adapter printed by a 3d-printing service. I'm a teacher by trade and I don't have any sort of engineering back ground. If I can do it, anyone can.
  • Create New...