Jump to content

hyp

Member
  • Content Count

    408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

hyp last won the day on June 28

hyp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

1 Follower

About hyp

  • Rank
    Manta 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

10364 profile views
  1. That post is still regularly updated and still seems to be going on...
  2. This is not my experience. When I dove both lenses in Lembeh I felt that the 45mm focussed a little bit better. I'd say that the difference is marginal in any case. I also felt that with the 45mm it's easier to shoot some of the larger subjects you might encounter, like frogfish. On the other hand, supermacro (e.g. shaun the sheep nudis) was much easier with the 60mm + saga+10. I think there is a reason to own both lenses, but as a general all around macro lens I'd pick the 45mm first.
  3. Yes they do. With the exception of the second image, I think none of the images you posted are really up to the results that most people here strive for. After people generally don't spend thousands on a setup to get reasonable results. They better be good... Generally though, the Wetpixel Forums are unfortunately not a place where it's easy to judge the image quality of any setup, because the forum software downsizes images to the point where you might as well take a phone underwater...
  4. I am no expert on Canon cameras and housing options so I leave that to the others. With your MFT setup, the 8-18 is a fine lens underwater.I think Ikelite might be your only choice with the G7. If you want an aluminium housing (Nauticam, Isotta, etc...) you will probably have to upgrade your camera. Once you find a brand that supports your preferred camera, have a look at the port charts to see what your lens options are. TTL is generally regarded as not adequate for underwater, although many still like the option for ease of shooting. Manual strobe shooting is not that hard though, if you have a grasp of the concepts at play. Personally, I don't use it. Generally most people build a system around an available housing and not necessarily the camera as this is often the most expensive part. Look at the whole cost of the system before making any decisions. Especially when buying used, you may get a better deal by changing the camera than buying a new housing for what is already a fairly old camera (although I agree that chasing upgrades for the sake of it is not smart). Those things also depend heavily on the amount of money you are willing to pay.
  5. There is a fairly indepth review on Bluewater Photo of the new Kraken/Weefine WFL-09s which seems to be a similar design. It has a shot of the same anemone at different apertures which is quite interesting. Generally it seems that you keep the reduced DoF from the macro lens, so stopping down is required for depth of field more than for corner sharpness (although both go hand in hand). This allows for an interesting look. I felt the Bokeh was quite busy though... I've also received some test shots from Marco at Uwcamerastore.com that he shot with the Olympus 30mm macro. Sharpness across the frame was very good at f20 or so. At f8 I felt the depth of field was already quite shallow, so the MFT depth of field advantage seems to be smaller than I personally expected. Interestingly the Bokeh on the Olympus lens was much nicer than on the Nikon in the Bluewater review. The lens is also compatible with the Olympus 12-50mm zoom and (according to their compatibility chart) even with the 12-45mm PRO zoom. I think it could still be a perfect one lens solution for dives that you don't know what will happen and also for close focus macro, but I'm not convinved, yet.
  6. What is the exact problem that you solved? Just curious.
  7. I think what is meant are dials, but I'm not 100% sure of the purpose of this post. With regards to setting up aperture and shutter dials on the camera (most cameras allow choosing which one does which) I think it really doesn't matter as long as the person who uses it likes it and finds their controls natural to use.
  8. Why do you even want to use that 35mm lens. Obviously all lenses that can be housed can also be used underwater, but most are not sensible, so three main types of lenses tend to be used. 1. The macro lens: This is used to photograph the tiny subjects that can be found underwater (in some locations in plentiful variety). Because they focus really close, you can get very close to your subject. Usually macro photography is done with additional lightsources. This is one of the most used lenses. 2. The wide angle lens: This lens is commonly used for reef scenes and large fish (sharks etc). The wide lens allows you to get very close so that your lights can hit your subject and still have a big scene. 3. The fisheye lens: This is used in a similar way to the wide angle lens. The benefit is, you can get even closer. The downside is you need to get closer so anything that you don't want to be close to, or that doesn't come near is not ideal. Not ideal for subjects like wrecks where you want to keep the straight lines intact. There is also a fourth type which is used but not as commonly, because it often results in a longer distance to your subject. The standard lens: You can use this for fish portraits and also larger subjects where it's impossible to get closer. You still try to get as close as possible so that your light reaches the subject. Remember that you want to reduce the amount of water you shoot through at all times. Always trying to get closer. A 35mm lens is kind of wide (so not that great for skittish fish) but not nearly wide enough that you can get close to the reef to light it up. That is why pretty much no one uses such a lens underwater.
  9. I have no particular experience with the Sigma Fisheye or the Isotta port system. If you're going with a similar port size I would suspect that the IQ difference will be marginal. Isotta recommends all those domes for the 8-15 fisheye zoom, but then they also recommend the 4,5" dome for the Panasonic 8-18 in MFT and that will definitely not give nice results so their port charts are pretty bare bone... If you want to do splits and don't mind the additional volume get the 6,5" glass or 6" acrylic (mostly depending on your budget). If you want to keep a compact setup for travel you should be able to get away with the 4,5" glass dome. That's probably what I would do but I'm not sure how the requirements are for FF.
  10. Generally if choosing between acrylic and glass domes there are a few pros and cons to each. Acrylic domes are lighter (good for travelling) but that also means they are often very floaty underwater, especially 6" and up. Acrylic domes scratch easier, but if they do, you can usually polish it out. Glas scratches harder, but if it does you will have to live with the damage or prepare for an expensive repair bill. Glass domes are said to be better for splits and also resist flare better, but generally image quality between both is very similar.
  11. My understanding is, that the GH5mkII will be the medium tier video focused camera and a new GH6 that will also be announced (but not available straight away) will then bring the upgrades that many are looking for. For me those cameras are way too large anyway and the housings even larger. I'm still longing for a proper successor to the Panasonic GX8 in a housing that weighs less than 1.5kg, but I'm afraid it won't happen. I have no desire to go FF or even APS-C because I like the option of a portable long tele (600mm equiv) for topside and generally size and cost.
  12. I think they have a remote which can operate both lights at once and also set brightness in smaller increments. Not sure if all lights are compatible though, but maybe worth looking at.
  13. It's possible a GH6 with more significant upgrades might also be announced. At least some rumour sites believe that.
  14. 1500$ is a really tight budget to bring a FF camera underwater. If you already own the A9 then obviously it makes sense to try and bring that camera underwater, but there is a reason the Seafrogs housings are much cheaper and the port selection will make things difficult. One way to make using smaller domes possible is using a fisheye lens as they are much more forgiving behind a domeport. Most people use a 230mm dome for rectilinear wides and even on micro four thirds I use a 7" dome for my wide angle lens. It doesn't sound like you're too ambitious with your UW photography, so maybe you can live with the 6" dome and soft corners. The further you zoom in the better they will be so at 24mm they might be ok already. The 28-75 should be fine. If you're really just snorkelling then I think you can get away with no lights and maybe a red filter. Up until about 5-6m the camera should have no trouble white balancing. Make sure that you shoot in RAW so that you have the best options of fixing colour in post. That way you don't have a complex system with arms and tray (although a handle is still recommended).
  15. This once again shows that it's important to check out the full system cost before deciding on a camera. The A9 belongs to the highest range FF cameras and you want to put it into a cheap chinese housing with a 6" port that will give you really soft corners most likely. Strobes, arms and trays are one of the few things that you take with you when you upgrade systems and move housings. As the way you light your shots can make or break the image they are quite important too. If you can return the whole setup, I would highly recommend it. Going with a cheaper Camera (maybe Sony A7RIII) would give you enough budget to invest into a housing from a reputable brand with a port selection that is compatible to your lenses. Generally it's said that the camera only makes up about 1/3 of the total cost of bringing a camera underwater with decent lights etc. So if you have 6000$ to spend, buy a camera for 2000$. I'd guess that if the cheaper the camera becomes the lower that ratio gets so if you have 4000$ to spend, buy a camera for around 1000$. On the matter of strobes, I have seen very few reports on the Seafrogs strobes, but those I have seen were largely positive (although I don't really trust the source here, but nvm). Maybe you can get away with them, but my experience generally says that if you buy cheap, you buy twice. On paper they should be powerful enough. Also, to save some money, check out the thread on the DIY strobe sync cables.
×
×
  • Create New...