adamhanlon

@Davide DB I am very glad that people are discussing this camera. It is a sad day when people in our community are suggesting that people shouldn't "bother" to discuss on these forum. Wetpixel has always been a venue where people of all abilities and interests meet and share their thoughts. Discuss the topic, but leave the personal comments out of it....

Why? Have there been problems with the S1H sensor? I've not heard of any, but may well have missed the reports? The folks that I know that have shot the S1H underwater thought very highly of it, and didn't report any problems.

This discussion seems to be headed in another direction, which is a shame. The camera market and its "stagnation" is not related directly to underwater photography. We will only experience the effects of any "stagnation." These possible effects are (in my opinion) what this discussion started off about. However, I will bite a bit! "Top end" underwater photography has always been a pastime for "older" people because they have the disposable income to afford the gear and associated travel. SLR or mirrorless camera users that take their cameras underwater are at the top of a pyramid, (in terms of numbers) and so will always be relatively few compared to those at the base of the pyramid. PADI's median age for certification (since 2011) is between 30-39 years. So the majority of those entering the activity are not "young." Again this reflects the economic factors above. The simple fact is that there are now far more people shooting underwater now than there ever have been. When I first took pictures underwater in South Africa in the 80's, there were only 5 or 6 people in the whole country that were taking pictures underwater. Now there are thousands. I am not at all concerned how people create their imagery, or what devices they use to do so. In terms of the pyramid model above, there is every likelihood that a proportion of these people will continue to capture underwater images and to seek to create iconic, artistic imagery and hence find that their entry level devices are limiting. These individuals will invest in more upscale technology in order to do so. If there are more people on the base of the pyramid, this will be reflected at its apex too. Lastly, this is an interesting discussion in which people have expressed agreement and disagreement with a variety of points of view. There is nothing personal in it. If you wish to add a valid point, feel free to do so, but don't personalize any disagreements.

Fiery inferno

Hi all, I am reducing the asking price to $3000. PayPal OK, and shipping worldwide at buyer's expense. Adam

Hi all, Behind the scenes, we have been hard at work creating a new YouTube Channel and a series of hard edged and focused short discussions called Wetpixel Live. We are still working hard on generating content for it, but one of our episodes refers to and provides thoughts about this thread: The Wetpixel YouTube Channel is a place for sourcing inspiration, technical details and ideas. It will remain tightly focused on underwater image making (just like here on the forums!) We will formally announce it shortly (when we have bit more content), so you are all getting a "sneak" preview!

Nikonos V Then a Ricoh compact in UN housing.

Glen's review doesn't mention which camera he was using before! As I would expect, his images show that an 8" dome with the 24-70 is soft in the corners. Live view in itself of course is not new, and the iteration on the Z6/7 is no better or worse than that of the D5/D850/D500 series. Perhaps his exclusive use of it emphasizes that the EVF is not as good as the optical VF on the SLR cameras that he is used to? These things are all personal, but I have yet to hear of anyone going from D850/D500 to Z6/7 being happy with the change. As Alex has mentioned, looking down the road aways, it may not be a choice that we will have for much longer.

I think the issue with AF on the Z6/7 is not a function of the adaptor, it is that it is simply not as good as the AF on cameras with a dedicated AF sensor. It hunts terribly with the 105mm f/2.8 VR. To further confuse things, I think the single best camera out there for underwater use right now is the D500. The good news is that these are relatively cheap (although their housings are not...), their lenses are also relatively inexpensive and those that you used with the D810 will mostly work. Sorry

I don't think the Z series cameras offer a mature option for underwater photographers (yet). There is no doubt that Nikon's engineers have done clever stuff by redesigning the flange so that the lens:sensor distance is reduced. This has the potential to improve image quality and make the most of the camera's potential autofocus. But we cannot take advantage of this due to the lack of native lens support. Nikon has announced that they do have 60 and 105 mm macro lenses Z mount planned, but there are no release dates yet. There are no native fisheyes announced. Cn you use the FTZ with F mount macro or fisheye lenses? Yes, although this removes the potential advantages of the Z mount. My experiment with the AF suggests that it is considerable inferior to the excellent AF on the D5/D850/D500 series. I would suggest that in use, these cameras will give a similar overall performance to the D800 or perhaps D810 (underwater). The D850/D500 series are currently better cameras for underwater photographers. With rumors of a D860 (?), I would bide my time await before jumping over on to the Z system. Adam

Hi, You are in good company regarding the Inon manual! For TTL: Advanced Cancel Circuit button in its "Off" position (i.e. Up). Main switch set to STTL or STTL low Ev Control switch in position "B". If this is not exposing correctly, you can use position "A" or "C" to lighten or darken the image respectively. For Manual: Advanced Cancel Circuit button in its "On" position (i.e. In). Main switch set to "M" or Full. Exposure control from -0.5 to 16 via EV Control Switch. If in Full mode, the EV control switch does not affect the output. This should get you going. Cameras can be a little quirky too Adam

The "official" depth that the Keldan filters work to is 18m in blue water. Beyond that depth, there is practically no red left in the spectrum. Keldan's classification of their Spectrum filters is that they offer an effective correction shallower than the actual depth that they are used at. For example, the Spectrum Filter SF -4 B offers a 4m reduction. So the spectrum at 12 m is corrected by the filter to be the equivalent of shooting at 8m. At 18 m, it is the equivalent of 12m and so forth. The "B" designation refers to it being a version optimized for blue water. The problem is that all filters are by their definition reductive. Small sensor cameras, like the TGs and GoPros have a limited practical ISO range and so at some point you just run out of light! You need to manually white balance your camera at the depth you are shooting at, with the filter attached and I would suggest, lights off. The problem now is that one white balanced for a depth, if you add a "white" light source, this will appear very orange and unnatural. You can add your blue filter to your light, which may help correct this. However, the Keldan filter solution is very carefully graded specific to depth, and I have no experience of Weefine's blue filter. Suffice to say, typically, it is not quite as simple as using a "blue" filter. If the water you are shooting in is green, the blue filter will not work too well either. Despite a lot of marketing to the contrary, lights are not great for still images. The energy produced by a strobe is measured in Watt/seconds as opposed to lumen. Effectively what this does is reduce the differential between the light source and the ambient light. This limits your exposure option.

It is important to reiterate that the Sea&Sea correction lenses are specific to lenses and dome ports...do they work with other combinations? Perhaps. The only way of knowing whether they will help is by testing the specific lens and dome port combination. In an ideal scenario, they will get you 2 stops, so if the combination normally offers acceptably sharp corners at f/13, you might be able to use f/11. The Nikon 20mm f1.8 is tested here: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nikon-fx-wide-angle-lenses Adam

Sadly, the underwater photography market is tiny, and the group that uses interchangeable lens camera is even smaller. I doubt that we are a consideration when they design camera and I really do not see this as ever changing. When Nikon released the 8-15 fisheye, I went to a Pro meetings and none of the Nikon staff had even considered it for underwater use. Considering how rarely fisheyes get used at the surface, this should perhaps put our "importance" in perspective. While I agree that I have never had a camera that couldn't take better pictures than I could, things like improved high ISO performance make some shots possible, that were not previously. Being able to get these makes your images more commercial/win more prizes etc. Improved autofocus performance makes a huge difference to success rates. When I first used the D500, I had to modify my first cull on import, because there were so few out of focus It is true to say that many of the images that we look at now may have been possible with previous generations of camera. However, when I look back at published images (mine and others), there is no doubt that their quality has improved. My point is that the same shooters are getting better pictures thanks to improvements in technology.

I don't know if it a good thing or not. If you had told be back in 2002 that I would be shooting a 46MP SLR with amazing dynamic range, superb resolution and spectacular performance, I would have probably though you were nuts! The fact is that the camera companies will continue to seek improvement and release new models. Some of these will not have huge performance advantages and some will. This is the nature of progress. Most camera manufacturers (with the notable exception of Nikon) tend to drop some hints about new models early in the development cycle in order to gauge reaction from the market. This is what @Interceptor121 describes as "old news." So the a7s project was deliberately leaked early last year to see whether it was worth continuing. This does not detract from the possibility that this camera may be a game changer for those shooting in low light. Most of these companies have to continue to create new models in order to produce revenue. If they stop designing and innovating new models they will fail. So new models will be continue to be released, even in these strange times. Nikon's poor financial position in many ways forces it to not only produce new models, but also to produce models with innovations that they can persuade people to buy! Survival is a powerful stimulus. My experience with Nikon is that each model that I have upgraded to was better in terms of performance than its predecessor. Sometime these gains were small (i.e. the D810 basically fixed a lot of the problems with the D800), and sometimes they are huge (D5/D500/D850). Fact is, they were better cameras in each case. If I had never shot a D850, would I be happy with a D810? Probably, until I started noticing that people were pulling off shots that I couldn't. At that point it becomes a simple benefit vs cost decision, which each of us will decide in different ways. I completely agree on the travel issue. Topic for another discussion perhaps?