Jump to content

Stig

Member
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Stig

  1. If the stick-on lenses are flexible then I guess that would work. It wouldn't work for rigid lenses stuck inside a prescription dive mask though as the inside surface wouldn't be flat.
  2. I hadn't thought urchin, again because of the width of the spines, but that's very likely what it was. Thank you.
  3. Spotted these on a dive in the Maldive last week. At first I thought they were some kind of razor shell but also wondered if it was just spines of a lion fish hiding in a hole although they seemed a bit thick for that.
  4. Yep, I've used YS-25's for a few years and on setting 1 it will fire on the first (pre) camera flash but only have enough juice for the second (exposure) camera flash on very low power with a very pale subject. Put it on setting 2 (as Pandit presumably has been) and use both strobes on manual (well, the YS-25 will try to adapt to the scene brightness). After one of my YS-25's died I got an Inon S2000 and that combination seemd to work OK (Inon in manual), but I've only been on one trip since then so can't claim a wealth of experience.
  5. Aqaba, Jordan would be an alternative to Egypt, mostly small stuff there but not the diversity you'd get in Philippines . Should be direct flights available in Feb.
  6. There are a couple of articles describing the technique. A non-technical one: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-thru-brings-clarity-to-underwater-photos1/ And a technical paper for geeks like me: http://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_CVPR_2019/papers/Akkaynak_Sea-Thru_A_Method_for_Removing_Water_From_Underwater_Images_CVPR_2019_paper.pdf
  7. Sorry, I can't see what to click on there either. Sea&Sea Motormarine MX10
  8. I tried a cheap +10 dioptre "close-up" lens in water and can confirm that it does work. Sure, you don't get +10 in water - it's more like +4 but that can still be useful. Having had a play with it on a couple of trips I then bought a 'proper' Nauticam CMC with flip holder and that's got noticeably better corner sharpness and a bit more magnification but it was the flip holder that made it worth the money. Be careful if you try using a dioptre inside the port that the combination still fits and doesn't hit the glass port when zooming or focussing as getting any scratches out would be a pain.
  9. I've been using an Oceanic mask with bifocal lenses - top 2/3 is flat, bottom 1/3 is +1.75 dioptre (or similar) for a few years now (I tried the XS Scuba one initially but it didn't fit my face very well so sold it on). I find that in good light I can look through either part to see the reef but need to look through the bottom part for the camera screen. In poor light (esp. night dives) it's a bit restrictive as I can only see the reef clearly through the top part (unless it's really close but I don't like to be that close in case I hit something ) The idea of only correcting one eye wouldn't work for me as I'm very left eye dominant and never get a sharp image with just my right (lazy) eye.
  10. Kevin at Aquaphot was recommended to me: http://www.aquaphot.co.uk/ He was very helpful when I called him about my old YS-25A a couple of years back (sadly there aren't any spares for it any more).
  11. I just meant that 1/2000s shutter might be cutting off some of the strobe pulse which is about 1/1000s long (well, that's what mine are). Strobe power settings generally work by shortening the pulse duration so a big pulse from a more powerful strobe at, say, half power (i.e. duration) would work better that a full duration pulse from a weaker strobe when using such a fast shutter speed. Probably a pretty rare issue in practice though.
  12. Cool, that makes sense. I didn't realise the RX100 could flash sync at that fast a shutter speed, I guess it's down to electronic rather than mechanical shutter. Mind you, 1/2000s is going to start cutting into the flash duration requiring you to have a more powerful flash to compensate...
  13. Really? It's a smaller sensor than full frame so gets fewer photons. For the same sensor technology a larger sensor is always going to have better sensitivity. The difference in f-stop is down to the different focal lengths required to get the same angle of view.
  14. Couldn't you just get a 67mm one and fit it on the wet side of the port (assuming you already have a 67mm thread there)? Then you could rotate to your heart's content.
  15. I have the right upright close enough to the housing (Nauticam NA_NEX5) that my index finger can still reach the shutter lever without much of a stretch - I can still just get the other fingers in the gap to hold it securely. Not sure if that's do-able with a housing having a button rather than a lever though.
  16. If you try looking through the diopter lens with your eye and move it closer / further away you'll find it doesn't make much difference until it's quite some distance from your eye. I did have all the optics equations somewhere but a practical demo will have to do for now!
  17. I attached a small clip to the wrist lanyard so I can clip it to a chest D-ring and poke the other end between the BCD cummerbund and waist strap. Seemed to keep it out of the way without it digging into me or anything else when I wasn't using it.
  18. Yep, the only budget option I can think of involves a 3D printer and a lot of free time. I did try a DIY approach using a 58mm +10 close-up lens screwed into a 72-58mm adapter ring mounted on a plastic lid which worked (though with soft corners) but was cumbersome to take on and off the port. I eventually paid the money for the flip adapter and CMC.
  19. What's the advantage of using a fisheye lens with a teleconverter? To the uninitiated (i.e. me) it just turns a 15mm into a 21mm but I'm guessing there's more to it than that...
  20. I found this useful when I was researching close-up lenses: https://www.scubageek.com/articles/wwwdiop.html
  21. I'd suggest cleaning with vinegar before resorting to glass polish. I had a similar 'bloom' on mine (perhaps not quite as bad) and vigorous rubbing with alcohol and then vinegar seemed to improve, if not eliminate, it.
  22. I'm going to be awkward and say "it depends". Zooming to 35mm has the advantage that you are using all the pixels of your sensor (better resolution & sensitivity -assuming identical lens performance) but you may find you don't always need to zoom/crop that much as the vignetting will depend on the aperture chosen for the shot. You can't really judge exactly how bad the vignetting is until you look on a larger screen, and of course without vignetting it's best to zoom out as far as you can and get closer (rule no. 1 in u/w photography). You could try zooming so you only get a little bit of vignetting and crop as needed for each photo. On the other hand you might quickly get bored with always having to crop your photos and just zoom to 35mm!
  23. I used to carry my dome port in its original box in my hold luggage but after the box deteriorated I bought a plastic food container with a clip-on lid, it fits in quite snugly with a single layer of bubble wrap. My dome port is half the size of yours but maybe you could find something big enough to protect it in the same way. I always carry the housing & camera in my hand luggage as that fits in a 30l backpack with a little padding of clothes or bubble wrap and is only 5-6kg.
  24. I flew back from Hurghada last month. Camera in housing in hand luggage, strobes, torch, tablet & Kindle in hold. I even took an old camera body to hold the spare camera battery as spare batteries are not allowed -all batteries must be fitted in a device. No problems but all the extra security does take a while - even longer for women as they were short of female staff for the pat-downs so an even longer queue...
  25. When I first had my Nauticam housing I occasionally got a small leak which seemed to be due to a poor quality o-ring. It once happened on the safety stop at the end of the dive having been fine at depth - I guess the pressure made it seat better. Renewing the o-ring sorted the problem. The original felt like it had a slight 'bump' at one point - not enough to see but just detectable by touch.
×
×
  • Create New...