Jump to content

Alex_Mustard

Super Mod
  • Content Count

    8602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alex_Mustard

  1. One thing to watch with XQD is compatibility between cards and readers. The card reader that came with my D5 is for G Series cards and won't read my older cards from D4 which are H series. Something to be aware of if buying secondhand cards. There is no issue with using these cards in any of the cameras. I don't know what the M stands for on the lefthand card below (but it does work with the G series card reader) Alex
  2. I've always used the second slot as overflow. The main use, however, is when I forget to put the first card back in after downloading. So I have a rule to never take out the second card, so it is always ready for mistakes!
  3. I have three friends with red ones. Don’t know anyone with a yellow one.
  4. Subal are currently working hard to deliver D850 housing orders and they are completing housings every day at the moment. They shared this special edition for Nikon 100 Years for a special customer yesterday on Facebook. Alex
  5. On my pump (with a pretty dodgy gauge) the pressure required to get a green light on a brand new Nauticam housing was -0.3 Bar. On that housing for the OM-D EM-10 Mk3 that is about 3-4 pumps. On my Nikon D5 housing when using a 230 dome that is about 20 pumps to get the green light! Alex
  6. Retra did test their strobes with the board in the Nauticam D5 housing in the summer. However, I think that there is a new version of the board now because that board would not fire at all Seacam strobes. I think that the Seacam problem is fixed now with the Nauticam housing for the D850 - although I am sure Pavel can confirm. Alex
  7. These are tests from Nauticam showing the image quality achieved by lens in air and behind different dome ports underwater. All ports (when in water) significantly reduce image quality towards the edges of the frame. But the bigger the port, the less this happens. As photographers we overcome this problem by closing the aperture. A smaller dome port is more versatile, but for the best image quality I would not go too small on dome ports. While the <180mm domes work well with the fisheye, the optimum corner sharpness comes at f/14-f/16 range. However, with a camera with the resolution of the D850, these aperture are not best for optimum center of frame resolution (because diffraction limits the maximum resolution achievable). A big dome 230mm ( allows you to shoot a little more open f/11-f/13) and therefore get a better compromise between center frame and edge of frame max resolution underwater. The attraction of a RS-13mm fisheye is that it does not have the port effect seen in the graph above. Giving it a wider range of useable apertures (and attractively for those with high resolution cameras) the ability to achieve more center frame resolution because the impact of diffraction can be minimised. Alex
  8. If you want to see examples from each you can use the Search tool on my website http://www.amustard.com/image-search/ Type 13.0 for images with RS-13 Type 28.0 for images with WACP The pictures are in chronological order with the most recent first (not necessarily the best examples of the lenses)! Also note that the 28.0 search actually picks up the 28-70mm lens - and therefore the older images (page 6 onwards are not with the WACP). Alex
  9. Sorry for the slow reply - I have only just spotted this post. I would definitely suggest a read of my article about this is FREE UWP Magazine (Issue 100) - the cover of which is taken with a WACP!: http://www.uwpmag.com Perhaps most important to state, I don’t see these two as an either/or - both are fisheyes - but they do not cover the same range of field of view at all. The RS-13 is a 175˚ fisheye. The WACP (with a 28-70) is a 130-57˚ fisheye. Of course, given that both are expensive, many consider this an either/or question - but that is a financial issue, not a photography one! Which is more useful comes down more to what you mainly shoot. I use the RS13 much more than the WACP on average, but on some trips (shooting big animals) I use the WACP more. I’ll add more in a second - just going to bring the article up to copy and paste some text!! Alex This is the start of the article:
  10. Just to clarify, I am only taking the Inon strobes (from Adam) with me to the Cayman Islands next week. But I am pretty sure that photographers in my workshop group have the Retras (I know one has them on order and is hoping that they make it in time), so we can probably do some back to back tests. Alex
  11. I don't have any insight at all - everything I know about this I have learned from this thread. My feeling is that this is probably not a big deal - and although sounds dramatic is probably just how they will restructure their business. I says people might loose deposits - but I am not sure if anyone is actually affected by this. Whenever I have ordered a housing, I have paid when I have got it - not given a deposit first. I think that Subal have already machined their housings in Serbia for a few tears. And this suggests that they will probably now completely build them there - rather than assemble in Steyr. I guess that they want to be thought of as Subal Austria - so don't talk about this in their release. It also seems very sensible to have a main showroom/operations in Vienna - which is much more accessible than the remote Steyr. While keeping the experienced service staff operating in Steyr is probably sensible too, rather than asking them to move to Vienna. Hopefully Subal will release a bit more information to answer specific concerns from customers. even though the BOOT show is just a few weeks away now - when people will be speak to them face to face. Alex
  12. So far the emphasis has been testing the WACP philosophy and I am sure that in the coming months as more people have a chance to shoot it - we will get better information on the best lenses to use. Alex
  13. I am not really involved in the Sony mirrorless community, but I am sure lots of people have shot that. I have seen Cheungy Diver shooting the WWL-1 and 28mm back in 2015. Alex
  14. I couldn't get the WWL-1 to mount close enough to my lens to use it with Nikon with 28-70mm (this was 18 months ago): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156695440455713&set=pb.796325712.-2207520000.1507125929.&type=3&theater The WACP is the solution for this failed attempt! Alex
  15. But with the Sony setup you will be limited to only 130˚ with the WWL-1 or the WACP. You still need a 180˚ fisheye. Also while it is possible to shoot splits with the WWL-1, it is not advisable - as there is water in front and behind it to contend with. Again you want a fisheye and normal dome for that.
  16. Hopefully the WACP will get much more testing soon - I don’t think the WACP has been tested on a Sony yet. During the development of the WACP, I shot a prototype version in the Red Sea that was half way between the WWL-1 and the WACP. On my Nikon this was about a stop better than a dome and a stop worse than the the final WACP. So maybe this is a guide for now. Alex
  17. I have shot both underwater. The 16-35mm performs well underwater, the 14-24mm does work, just not quite as well. I have made 100s of dives with 16-35mm, I have never bought a 14-24mm. Alex
  18. In comparison to the two RS lenses the WACP is a very useful addition with a 28-70mm. RS 13mm - FOV 170 degrees WACP + 28-70mm - FOV 130-57 degrees RS 20-35mm - FOV 68-42 degrees (from what I understand) Although if you owned the WACP you could easily use a longer lens behind it to cover the whole range of the RS 20-35mm. Alex
  19. Hi All, Sorry to be late to this discussion - my wife is overseas and I was looking after our baby daughter alone this weekend - so no internet was possible! Physically smaller diameter lenses are definitely better with corrector ports, which tends to mean using older lenses. The large front elements of the latest generation of lenses would require huge corrector ports to work as well as the older lenses. And as Ryan says these would just be too heavy and too expensive - importantly with very little improvement in image quality - remember it is the port that the bottleneck on image quality, not the lens. Nauticam ran lots of tests to settle on the size they did. (This is also something I have found with my own rectilinear corrector port - (http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=54681), which after much testing I now use only with 20mm f/2.8 (90˚ FOV). My own corrector port is an Ivanoff style port, made by Carl Zeiss, it is rectilinear, and does out perform a dome port, but is outperformed in image quality by the WACP. Plus is FOV 90˚, rather than 130˚) To answer Fred's question - the lenses I tried behind the WACP have been Nikon 28mm f/2.8, Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 and Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8. I know that Jason Isley also used the Nikon 28mm f/1.8. I don't own the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8 and considered buying one second hand. But speaking with Edward at Nauticam he thought that it might not offer any advantage over the f/3.5-f/4.5 with the WACP - which is actually a sharp lens, despite being small and slow. I will try it one day. I tried the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-f/2.8 with an earlier prototype of the WACP and also send my lens to China for Nauticam to test in the lab with the production WACP. But for luggage allowance reasons I haven't retested in the field (I was also testing the Retra strobes and 8-15mm (reviews on Wetpixel) on these same trips - as well as doing my own photography. I would like to try more lenses - but the focus thus far has been evaluating the WACP - and it was sensible to all be using the same lenses to do that, rather than introducing another variable. For me the best lens was the 28-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5. I liked that it is small, it is also a very useful travel lens for topside stills and video. Picture below: The WACP allows you to focus to the port with all the lenses I tried. I guess this is partly because the WACP sticks out so far, but I guess it is also designed to help lenses too. Here are two shots of my fingers on the dome - one at 28mm and one at 70mm. These are on the preproduction prototype (from Oct 2016) - which is why there is cut off from the dome shades @ 28mm - you don't get this now. Alex
  20. I am excited to see people using them too. It was interesting to lend them out to the guys and gals on my workshops, but with lots of people wanting to try them, nobody got more than a couple of dives - so didn't get to know them in detail. So it will be exciting to see owners put them through their paces. Alex
  21. Hi Rob, My Seacams are my main wide angle strobes. They are the strobes I use for all my wide angle in blue water. I know their light and how to make it do what I want. So I will continue to use them as such. I also own 6 Inons, so I plan to get a pair of Retras, though, to use where I was previously using Inons. I don't always travel with the Seacams - as their long length makes them less suited to macro shooting - and the wide beam angle isn't always beneficial in murky green water. And baggage allowances are not unlimited! Alex
  22. Report here: http://wetpixel.com/articles/field-review-retra-flash-by-alex-mustard-and-friends Hopefully more people will get to try them in the coming days as orders begin to ship and we will hear more opinions and see more images. Alex
  23. That's interesting and concerning, Adam - that your photo has exactly the same flare in the same place as mine. Alex
×
×
  • Create New...