Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About horvendile

  • Rank

Additional Info

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3455 profile views
  1. I got a reply from Sea & Sea! It seems the reasoning of ChrisRoss was sound, with two stops gaines by the correction lens and two lost by the smaller dome. They say that, indeed, one can expect similar results as using a 230 mm dome without correction lens. While not unexpected this does make the combination not super interesting to me, in that if I (unless in blue water) will have to crop the corners to get good quality the point of having a large sensor is somewhat lost. Still, I suppose it could make some sense as making a full frame system (provided one already owns one such) more travel friendly. They also said that there are no plans to develop a correction lens for m4/3 solutions. Shame, really.
  2. I guess the mot obvious advantage compared to previous Nikon DSLR cameras would be much better live view autofocus. Which, IMO, should not be disregarded.
  3. Hi again. It's not the cost of the larger dome I have issues with, but rather the size and how inconvenient it would be on travels. I agree, good to hear from someone who has tested a similar solution. Nevertheless I've sent a question about this to Sea & Sea (going through the Swedish reseller). Could be interesting to hear what they say. When/if I get a reply I can update this thread.
  4. That seems a reasonable, er, reasoning. Thanks for the input.
  5. Hi! New question. When looking for other things I noticed over at Sea & Sea that they have some recommendations for Nikon Z + 14-30/4. Of special interest is the combination with internal correction lens and 165 mm dome port. At the bottom here: http://www.seaandsea.jp/products/system_chart/mdx_nikon.html Lately I've been backing off the thought of full frame because of the huge wide-angle ports needed. However, IF - and that's the "if" of this question - I can get reasonable corner performance with this combination the equation changes, especially as I already own a Z6 and might get the 14-30 anyway. So, does anyone here have any experience with this kind of combination, or anything similar? I know that 165 mm dome port would normally not be advisable for rectilinear full frame WA, but maybe in combination with the correction lens it might be decent? That's what's implied by the port chart, which does not list the smaller dome ports when the correction lens isn't used. I could of course try to send an e-mail to Sea & Sea, but I've been told they aren't always keen to reply, so I'll try here first.
  6. This is likely not relevant if you're in a hurry or if you've decided to go with Subal, but I was recently in communication with Nauticam and they indicated that in preliminary testing the Nikon Z50 + kit lens 16-50 has worked very well with the new WWL-C. This surprised me since I wasn't aware of any announcement from Nauticam regarding Z50, but it makes sense that they would make a housing. I was also surprised because I thought the WWL-C was designed for smaller sensors, and indeed I didn't get any word on the zoom-through capability. Still, interesting for some of us. ...or at least for me.
  7. Yeah, I'm shooting with the LX-100 now so for me that's a very relevant reference. Though I have mine in an Ikelite housing so adding the WWL-1 isn't an option. I have considered switching to the LX-100II precisely because it will fit in the same housing. Not a huge improvement but neither would it be a huge cost. If I stumble on a used one at the right price I might do it, as a stopgap if nothing else.
  8. Probably, yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't differences or that they aren't both measurable and noticeable.
  9. Well, On lenses: in my current fantasy I get by on the WWL-1 for wideangle and some macro capability added to that, either using a dedicated macro lens or something like one of the SMC lenses. Therefore I'm not overly concerned about lens range as long as the aforementioned lenses exist and are usable. On choice of sensor: yeah, I've been thinking a lot about m4/3. For shooting with domes I absolutely see the point. That changes however with the WWL-1, which will obviously be of the same size regardless of sensor size. The housing also seems to be pretty similar in size for the mirrorless APS-C options I've been looking at. (Sony may be an alternative with the A6600, depending on how flash is handled.) In fact, there seems to be little to no size advantage going m4/3 compared to APS-C, while the latter will net me a larger sensor. I know some claim the sensor E-M1 Mk II performs as well as larger sensors, but I'm not convinced. Two main reasons: 1. Basically all modern sensors except Canon rely on more or less the same technology, hence has more or less the same efficiency per unit area. There is no reason to believe the E-M1 should be able to ignore the physics of this. 2. I know there are measurements out there showing the E-M1 performing exceedingly well, and while I acknowledge Olympus has probably done a good job, when doing comparisons in the dpreview comparison tool (linked above) it's clear the E-M1 (Mk II) lags behid modern APS-C cameras. NB, I can't afford to buy a system right now anyway, this is pure window shopping. But that's also a hobby I guess.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...