Jump to content

horvendile

Member
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About horvendile

  • Rank
    Wolf Eel

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Sweden
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Nikon Z6, Z7
  • Camera Housing
    Sea&Sea
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    S&S YS-D1 x 2

Recent Profile Visitors

3744 profile views
  1. I really don't know. I have until tomorrow to decide. It's definitely a "nice to have" rather than "need to have", but nice is... nice.
  2. Update regarding the Z 105 mm macro: I just saw that Sea & Sea has updated their port chart, and the Z 105 uses the same port as the F-mount 105 mm macro. http://seaandsea.jp/products/system_chart/mdx_nikon.html This is what I expected, but nevertheless nice to get a confirmation. I suppose the same will hold for other brands of underwater housings. Edit: incidentally I just got an e-mail saying that my Z 105 has arrived and now I have to decide pretty quickly whether I will buy it or not.
  3. Thanks! I've received the lens and confirmed that it's functional, but testing underwater may not be until November.
  4. Since you're all wondering how things are going: I have ordered an 8-15. I found a used one (demo in a shop) for a decent-ish price and managed to get that down another 100 € (really 1000 SEK). Pulled the still substantial trigger. On a side note, that's a lot of money - about 1500 € new - for a lens which is kind of worthless for, well, about everyone but divers and snowboarders. But I guess that if Nikon has to regain the R&D from a few divers and snowboarders those will have to fork out.
  5. Sea & Sea have done the same, ie made the housing so that with FTZ adapter the lens starts at the same position as in the F-mount housings, meaning the same port chart applies for F-mount lenses. Which leads me to... this being the relevant measure. Not the lenses compared to each other, but the total length including FTZ where applicable. And then the length difference is small. Well, as ChrisRoss already wrote.
  6. Update: I've been plowing uw photo info about the 8-15. Yes, more and more it sounds like a sensible idea to spend money on that rather than the Z 105 macro at this point, despite my weird grievances about lack of technical elegance (which have nothing to do with image quality or function).
  7. Chances are you can use it with the same port as for the F-mount 105 mm. I haven't had the opportunity to try, but the Z 105 is almost precisely as long as FTZ + F 105. IIRC it's ever so slightly thicker, but only a mm or so. There is probably room in the old lens port for that - I say, without knowing the specifics about the Nauticam port. I have good hopes for the Sea&Sea port I have.
  8. Well, it's still kind of difficult to say, given my limited experience, how little I've used the setup, and that I haven't taken many shots that offer a good opportunity to assess the corners fairly. Hope to have more data this November! However, if I am to say anything, I'm happy. Most of my photos have been taken at 14 mm which I gather is really pushing it for rectilinear. Also I'm at f/8, a luxury not expected without the S&S correction lens. Sure there is some smearing in the corners, but I thought it would be worse at those settings. I'd still, preliminarily, call it very usable at 14 mm f/8. Not perfect but very usable.
  9. One more, which I forgot in the first batch. Not chosen for its beauty but because it's shot of a flatter surface than the other pictures. Still not exactly a brick wall test though. 15.5 mm f/8 ISO 1600
  10. Came here for the fisheye talk, came away with an order for the book. I've learnt a lot on this forum but the book isn't even expensive.
  11. Oh I expect no optical or AF problems at all, I'm generally impressed by how well the FTZ works; in fact, for the photography I usually do focusing with F-mount optics (topside) is often better on my Z cameras with FTZ than on my previous F cameras. Yes, if traveling with fisheye as only wide-angle and also owning smaller domes. For me right now, everything except macro goes into the 230 mm dome. I'm not really disputing here that the 8-15 would do a good job. I just have to think some. Some mental gear clutching may also be in order since I've been firmly on track for the new macro so far.
  12. Maybe. It's still a lot of money for an inelegant* solution and I haven't done enough uw photo to have a well-founded sense for what fisheye gives me over the 14-30. *"inelegant" doesn't necessarily mean "giving inferior pictures"; it's more a case of technical elegance in an engineering sort of way.
  13. Realistically, maybe not. I suspect the water column will remove much of the advantage. Though I'm not sure, some examples I've seen are really remarkably better with the new lens - topside. Sadly not. I did use it at f/11 but focusing was always needed, I didn't find any usable fix-focus distance. In the near future, very unlikely. It's not on any roadmap and while there may be surprises I doubt a fisheye will be high priority. At any rate it won't be here before late October when I go on my trip. A Z-mount fisheye in a future is certain, I'd say. But it may take a couple of years. Thanks for the reply!
×
×
  • Create New...