Jump to content

horvendile

Member
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About horvendile

  • Rank
    Lionfish

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Sweden
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Panasonic LX-100
  • Camera Housing
    Ikelite
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Ikelite DS-51 x 2

Recent Profile Visitors

3441 profile views
  1. Oh, I missed that. Thanks a lot. Then there's the Zeiss 50 mm macro which is 1:1, but I suppose 50 mm may be considered short.
  2. Hi! For those who may remember earlier threads: yeah, this is me once again discovering a potential uw system candidate, yet I never seem to buy anything. Balking in front of the expense, size and weight of a full frame system, an m4/3 system seems a reasonable compromise. But what about the APS-C alternatives? I think the Fuji X-H1 looks very attractive. I know there is no native fisheye, so if that's important to you Fuji is out. But hear me out on the rest: * Camera and housing (Nauticam) noticeably cheaper than X-T3. Remember, this is a compromise. * I get IBIS and don't lose that much to the X-T3. The housing is actually significantly lighter. * Paired with the 15-45 lens (cheap, light, quite good) I can use the WWL-1, which does pretty much the same job as the WACP-1 but at a fraction of the cost and weight. * There is native macro. (It would be cool to be able to use a CMC lens on the 15-45 but I don't know if that's possible.) * 1/250 s flash sync (looking at you, Sony APS-C) So yeah, I lose one stop compared to a full frame system and there's no native fisheye. Size, weight, price much lower, even if stuff like strobes will still cost the same. Is there a serious gotcha I missed?
  3. Yeah I shouldn't have mentioned the Sea & Sea in this thread really, apparently I just couldn't stop myself when it popped into my head. The corrector has very little to do with the WACP-2. The relevance it does have is that it's another way, on compatible lenses, to get sharp corners without massive down-stopping.
  4. So ok tongue-in-the-cheek subject title. You have probably seen this already, after all it's in the DEMA article on the front page, but since I don't see any thread about it: the WACP-2. https://www.nauticam.com/collections/water-contact-optics-for-nav/products/wide-angle-conversion-port-2-wacp-2-140-deg-fov-with-compatible-14mm-lenses-incl-float-collar Nauticam calls it a 0.8x converter, giving 140 degrees FOV with a 14 mm lens. They explicitly mention the Nikon Z 14-30/4 lens, and since I've been curious about the Z system for diving this especially caught my attention. Well, one definite advantage with the WACP-2 is that it makes the original WACP look light and affordable. It weighs 7 kg in air and is estimated to have "an estimated MSRP of $5-7,000 USD". On the other hand, dreaming is fun. Tangentially, really another subject, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has tried the 14-30/4 lens with the Sea & Sea 82 mm correction lens.
  5. I did express myself a bit muddily. I was thinking: The WACP and, IIRC, the WWL-1 are 0.36x converters working from 28 mm equivalent*, giving a 28-70 mm lens (equiv) a field of view corresponding to 10-25 mm. I haven't done the calculation right now (still early...) but I think 10 mm equiv is 130 degrees. If this one gives 130 degrees at 24 mm equivalent, that should correspond to a 10/24 = 0.42x converter. With the amount of workable zoom-through depending on specific camera/port. Is that wrong? *with "28 mm equivalent" I mean a focal length giving, on the camera in question, a field of view equivalent to 28 mm focal length on a full frame camera.
  6. So, a 0.42x converter? Instead of 0.36x so far? It's not quite rational, but I'm kind of getting the hots for a Sony RX100V with this. (Not rational because I have a Panasonic LX100 now.)
  7. Late reply, but thanks for the review! Interesting for me - I dive with an LX100 in an Ikelite housing. Seeing as the LX100II would fit in the same housing upgrading has been quite tempting. The improvement would not be big but the cost would be negligible compared to upgrading to a full frame system.
  8. Hi! Sorry for the late reply. Vacation happened and I lost touch with the forum. In fact, nothing happened, except med noticing that right now I can't responsibly afford either setup. Also, going full frame may not be the right decision for me; it may be that an m4/3 system is better suited for my diving. But it quickly gets very complicated. So, right now I'm continuing with my current rig, trying to evaluate more closely which path to eventually take.
  9. That second shot. The one with the batfish(?) from below. Wow.
  10. I’ll try to not make it into a novel. I now shoot with an LX100 in an Ikelite housing, with a detachable dome-like wetlens (restoring topside FOV and improving corners) and some kind of diopter for macro. Can swap underwater, sometimes do. Also two DS-51 strobes. All in all I think it’s a decent setup considering its relatively low cost, and it’s also fairly transportable. The things I would most like to improve include * Pixel count. I’m often pixel limited, especially when I have to crop, which is often. (That may be a liveware problem, but it’s still a problem I have.) * Sensor performance. I frequently find both base ISO dynamic range and higher ISO noise limiting factors. * The ability to go wider than 24 mm (equiv), and I would also like better macro. (“Better” macro isn’t necessarily more magnification; it could also be the ability to focus on longer distances than super close with the diopter lens. And frankly, the image quality with the diopter is not good.) I’ve been spoiled with the possibility to be able to select type of photography during the dive. That’s why I keep looking for setups that allow me to do that. I’m still beginner enough that I can’t point to a specific kind of shooting I want to optimize a new rig for. I still want to be able to do most things, even if I accept that I have to choose what I want to do before entering the water. If I had to choose between wide-angle or macro to begin with, I’d go with wide angle. But I would also want to add macro later. Nowadays all my photography is done in tropical waters but hopefully that will change, and diving in dark, murky Swedish waters complicates things. I’m primarily a stills shooter. I may take the odd video clip but that’s just a bonus. I post process everything in Lightroom. I don’t know, was than an answer or was it just rambling?
  11. I just found the neighbor thread on dome choices for the 8-18. Will read it before posting more questions which may have been answered there.
  12. I found the thread now. Thanks for the tip. If - I write if - I find that the WWL-1 is more trouble than it's worth, there's always e.g. the 8-18 and a regular dome port. (Yes, I'm now departing the WWL-1 track for a bit.) But then I will have edge quality problems, right? Except at very small apertures. On Nikon FX and a 16-35 lens I could add the Sea & Sea correction lens, but I haven't seen anything like that for m4/3. Damn this is complicated. Makes my topside camera gear optimization seem really simple.
  13. I'll slide in here. I'm not sure I quite understood - or rather, I'm sure I didn't quite understand. Is it correct that the WWL-1, with its float collar, works well on the MWL-1 flip adapter? "Works well" meaning that when flipped away it doesn't impede handling too much. Whatever "too much" means. In other words, that on an Olympus E-M1 MkII Nauticam rig with a 14-42 lens, you could realistically use the MWL-1 flip adapter with both the WWL-1 and a macro wetlens (such as SMC-1)?
  14. I dropped the ball re this thread - sorry. So, if I understand ChrissRoss correctly, you can mount the WWL-1 on a strobe arm. And with the float collar, that shouldn't become too unbalanced? I hope. Would this be a solution to be recommended? I don't think I'm in a hurry, but I have a trip in November and I don't totally rule out upgrading before that. It would be fun, for sure. And thanks Xberges for chipping in. Yeah, I agree that m4/3 probably makes more sense than the A6400, despite the latter's larger sensor and AF. Definitely not your problem, but I also have to fit all this with possibly starting to migrate from Nikon F to Nikon Z for topside shooting. But I just won SEK 30 (about $3) on the lottery, so I should be fine.
×
×
  • Create New...