Jump to content


Super Mod
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alex_Mustard

  1. Saga makes ones that work both ways: https://sagadive.com/categoria-producto/aros-extension-y-adaptadores/ Alex
  2. Just in case it saves you money - domes referred to as 9" and 230mmm are usually the same size. The 8" is considerably smaller - and offers something different. The Zen 180 is also a good mid-sized option. Alex
  3. Not tried it on a dome - but this brought this D2 strobe back to life after a nasty battery flood.
  4. Yeah the leak detection is still part of the strobe. My video was a one-take-live effort - so I didn't remember everything - or explain everything quite as clearly as I would in an edited, written review. The App is awesome - they already added something for me to test in Egypt and I was able to update both strobes and to have a different function on one of the User modes! Alex
  5. The biggest limitation of the D2X is ISO. It is a base ISO camera (ISO 100) and increasing the ISO at all means the image quality falls apart by modern standards. Despite being just 12MP - the files still hold up well and process well and can be uprezzed. Therefore it is best for macro and wide angle in bright conditions with powerful strobes - so that you can shoot at low ISO. Shooting the camera - the LCD screen is very small these days. But the AF is still pretty decent. Alex
  6. A production specification pair arrived with me today. Just took the photo below. I haven't seen the email sent out to those who pre-ordered. But my understanding from Retra is that they are well into the production run now - and they are planning to have all the pre-ordered strobes ready at around the same time to send out in the second half of October.
  7. I have an M5 - it is lovely and small and I am considering taking it underwater. Think it could be a great combo with the Tokina 10-17mm. Has anyone got any updated impressions on this camera UW? Alex
  8. I regularly use Nauticam ports (including the WACP) on my Subal housings (type 4 ports) - I use an adaptor from Saga. I am pretty sure that the difference in port to lens difference is 30mm longer like this (Subal housing sticking out more and the adaptor - compared to the original Nauticam port on a Nauticam housing). Alex
  9. Had to check this thread to see whether the question was photoshopping it into or out of images! Photographers are well aware that images with trash in can be good sellers and we now show off about taking worthy ‘environmental’ images in the same way we used to humbrag about competition wins. I even hear stories (dunno if they are true) of photographers staging photos of marine life interacting with plastic etc. To get back on point - I think the most important thing to consider with manipulation - is if you do it - be open and honest about it (including a note about it in the image caption). I don’t think most people have an issue with photoshopping - as long as they are not misled. Alex
  10. I think it depends on what subjects you are planning to shoot. For me, on some trips it is my most used lens, on others I don’t even travel with it. It is great for big animal destinations with unpredictable diving (e.g. Galapagos, Maldives). But I prefer the straight fisheye when shooting scenics. Alex
  11. Not interested in trying them. But if someone makes a housing that takes Nikonos V lenses - that could change. Alex
  12. Thanks Tom. Hopefully a housing manufacturer will look into making a port adaptor for it. Alex
  13. Does anyone who if a Nikonos V 15mm lens could be adapted to work with the Z series cameras with appropriate adaptor - like it is on the Sony mirrorless cameras?
  14. Hopefully the Z6 and Z7 are the first step on this path and they will be followed by cameras that are more suited to underwater shooting. Alex
  15. It is the best combination for the LSD - unsurprising as both are designed by the same company. Here is a photo from the recent Wetpixel workshop I ran in Lembeh: I find the bayonet mount for the different diffusers and rings a bit stiff on my Retra flashes - but it's strength makes perfect sense when using the LSD. Alex
  16. British photographer Will Clark has used the WACP on canon FF pretty much exclusively for the last year. He is a good source to ask questions: He recently posted his contact email on his Facebook page (second post down, currently): https://www.facebook.com/bifter?hc_ref=ARRKamIRyg6UCxxC5EHOQljXkS2jpXmg-3eZWyptir3raCmllXx1jJTQAtBrMW8F9j4&fref=nf
  17. My understanding is that the physically bigger the lens you want to use behind a lens like the WACP, the bigger the WACP has to be. And to make it work with a 24-70mm (f/2.8), for example, the WACP would have to much, much bigger to give any measurable image quality advantage over the current WACP and 28-70mm. And as such would weight 7-8KG and cost $10,000. So this approach was not considered because the current WACP and 28-70mm gives really noticeable image quality advantages over anything else available covering the same FOV underwater. I also feel that the simpler design of older lenses is better suited to being incorporated as part of the optical setup of the new lens (the WACP + zoom lens). I did test more expensive 28-70mm lenses with the early WACP prototype (not the production version) and these did not perform as well behind the WACP as they Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5. Despite being better lenses out of the water. The hard thing to get our head around is that a relatively cheap, old lens can out perform an expensive new one. Because we've all bought expensive pro-glass and seen the difference it makes to our pictures out of the water. What you have to factor in is how much image quality a dome port in water gives away. Which is much more than the difference between the old and new lenses. This is why the WACP works. The reason the WACP is not made for the latest pro lenses on land is that it would end up way too large to travel with and cost way too much (and actually gives relatively little improvement because there are diminishing returns on the water corrected optics). It is already at a size that causes production issues because of the availability of such large pieces of optical glass (bigger than even the mega expensive super telephotos). Alex
  18. This caught my eye: “two exciting new features exclusively for the new Retra Flash”. I guess you will tell us in November. Alex
  19. For me the main issue with the Z6 and Z7 for underwater use is that I don’t think that they AF with AF-D type lenses. This means lenses like the Nikon 16mm, Sigma 15mm fisheyes, the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye and the Nikon 28-70mm that we use with the Nauticam WACP, and any converted Nikonos RS lenses. In short a big loss for many underwater photographers. The only common lenses that work are the 8-15mm and 16-35mm. I have both of these, but for many people the need to have to but one (especially the 8-15mm) is a big financial penalty for switching to the Z-series. That said, I have not tried the Z series cameras yet. So I am not 100% certain on this. And Nikon’s promotional material isn’t exactly forthcoming on the matter - talking about what is compatible, rather than what isn’t. Alex Perhaps this Z discussion should be split into a new thread.
  20. I favour the D850. This is partly because I am invested in excellent FX lens options (Nikonos 13mm, Nauticam WACP, Zeiss corrector port, large domes etc) and partly because the camera is excellent. When the D5 was announced, I got mine without hesitation and have used it extensively underwater. I shot the D500 a little underwater back in 2016 and while I thought it was very good, it was no D5. A friend who is a D500 user and lover tried the D5 at the time and just let out an expletive about the difference. However, at the start of this year I also got a D850. And that camera has really surprised me. In the D4 and D800 era I shot the D800 quite a few times, but always wanted to go back to the D4. The D4 was way ahead at getting the shot. I also preferred the RAW files to the D800 for UW subjects. I expected a similar thing with the D5 and D850, but I found I was wrong. The D850 is inferior the D5 at getting the shot as others have said, but both are so good and the difference is definitely much less than with the D4 vs D800. Secondly, I prefer the the D850 raw files to the D5 for underwater subjects. So I keep using the D850. I will still do some shoots with the D5, but I haven’t used it since the Galapagos in May and have done all keep wanting to take the D850. I do feel guilty having a D5 on the shelf - although it will be getting some frontline use again soon. Alex Alex
  21. As a feeling - the 8-15mm is the best non-water contact fisheye you can use on a Nikon - it is noticeably sharper than other fisheyes. But it is not as good as the RS 13mm fisheye or WACP. But of course, the images are totally useable for any application. I was processing some recent shots of the Kittiwake wreck the other day and I noticed that the image quality wasn’t as nice as usual (most obvious as Chromatic Aberrations) and then I remembered that I had used the 8-15mm that day, rather that the RS13 or WACP I normally use for my wide angle. But of course the images are still very nice. It is a small difference - but when you know how it can be, you do notice it every time! But the main reason for using the WACP is that it has a totally different angle of coverage than the 8-15mm. The 8-15mm is 180˚ corner to corner @ 15mm. The WACP covers 130˚-57˚ corner to corner with the 28-70mm - making it a super versatile option. But I still always travel with a fisheye too - for shooting the biggest subjects (wrecks, scenery, very big animals, etc). I take the RS13mm when splits are not important and the 8-15mm when I expect to shoot some splits or want to use the 16-35mm too (they use the same dome). Alex
  22. I don’t know. I guess it might be interesting to have the numbers of all lenses - fisheye to macro to know what we are used to having underwater. But generating these numbers takes a lot of work and I am not sure that it will happen. Alex
  • Create New...