Jump to content

horvendile

Member
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About horvendile

  • Rank
    Moray Eel

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

3562 profile views
  1. Thanks. It may also be the rear curtain sync which is the problem. I checked the reference manual and it mentions that rear curtain sync will not work with studio strobes. I'm guessing my underwater strobes may be considered studio strobes for this purpose. So next time I'll start with changing that setting and see if it helps. If it does that will be fine. In the underwater shooting I'm doing I don't really see the need for rear curtain sync anyway.
  2. Hi! Long time no see and so forth. I've been doing my first dives with my new rig. Relevant for my question: Nikon Z6, Sea&Sea housing, S&S TTL trigger, 2 x YS-D1 strobes. Mostly it went fine but I do have an intermittent problem, showcased by the two attached images. A shadow region in the bottom of the image with strobes firing. What it is not: It is not occlusion of the strobes by the rig. It is not, as I first thought, too strong focusing light partly occluded by rig. It happens with more than one lens. It is not completely black, rather very underexposed compared to the rest of the image. It does vary with shutter speed. The broad band occurs at 1/200 s shutter speed, which happens to be the max sync of the camera. The thinner band occurs at 1/160 s. This is not 100 % consistent, I have one 1/200 s picture with a thinner band. But when the dark bands occur they are always at the bottom of the image and almost always with these sizes for the respective shutter speeds. My hypothesis is that somewhere in the strobe firing chain (camera - TTL trigger - strobes) something misses the timing, so the the physical shutter is blocking part of the image when the strobes are fired. Since both strobes appear to be affected and I've never seen this on land I'm tempted to blame the TTL trigger. I have the camera set to rear curtain sync. It seems the strobes fire a bit early. Note: the problem is intermittent. Have you encountered this before? Do you think my hypothesis is likely?
  3. Under perfect conditions I think I could prefocus correctly as long as I'm not doing cfwa. After all, calculating approximate distance to the virtual image of infinity isn't that difficult. BUT... I decided it wasn't worth trying to save the $170. The focus gear is in the mail now.
  4. Um... could you rephrase that? I didn't catch your meaning. The Sigma fisheye does have distance markings yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have focus shift upon stopping down. If that's what you mean with the second sentence.
  5. Hmm, it does seem increasingly optimistic to manage without focusing. After posting the above I was thinking that it could be enough to cover the virtual image for infinity distance with my depth of field. Or, explained in greater detail: * Locate where the virtual image of inifinity will be. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's a focus distance of 40 cm. (I can find more exact numbers but as of writing this I haven't figured out if this is measured from the dome glass, from entrance pupil or from sensor plane.) * Head to the trusty old dofmaster calculator: https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html * Find that according to the definitions of that site, at 15 mm f/8 focused at 30 cm your depth of field just about covers 40 cm distance. * Near limit in this case is 23 cm. * A near limit of 23 cm for the virtual image is likely too far for what is desirable, if I want to take a picture of something at short distance. I would feel pretty stupid sitting on the bottom during a Maldives night dive with mantas swimming at 30 cm distance to have set the focusing distance too far away and not be able to correct it for the whole dive.
  6. Do you mean it will change because of focus shift or changing depth of field? Either way being stuck at one aperture doesn't seem so bad. Figuring out where the important part of the virtual image will be may be trickier if it is to be done before the dive, but I think I saw a calculator for that somewhere. I'll let Google be my friend. Edit: google isn't as friendly as I hoped. I found a calculator, but not really what I was looking for.
  7. Hi! I'm busy kitting my new (used) Sea&Sea Z6 rig. I have a Zen 230 mm glass dome port which I will primarily use for the Nikon 14-30/4 with Sea&Sea correction lens. However, I also happen to own the Sigma 15/.8 EX fisheye which I understand is generally appreciated for underwater use. Could be fun to use that one also. Problem: on the FTZ adapter I won't get autofocus with the fisheye. I can buy a focus gear for something like $170 (in SEK) to do manual focusing. Question is, do I need it? I'm thinking that if I'm at f/8 or so, with a fisheye focused at maybe 0.3 m pretty much everything will be in focus. But I'm not sure how this will play out underwater behind a dome port. I'm also thinking that you guys probably have something experienced to say about this. Would my $170 be better spent on ice cream?
  8. Just having acquired a 230 mm Zen dome I've begun thinking about this too. The guy I bought it from said he usually takes the whole assembled housing, with dome, over his shoulder and claims it's his personal (photography) item. He's reasoning that airlines are inclined not to interfere with that since it's obvious that it's expensive and fragile equipment. What do you think of that strategy? Anyone's who's tried it? I know this person travels a lot, apparently doing underwater photography professionally. But of course, maybe he's travelling business class and they're more lenient there than in economy.
  9. Not really - I've already decided to use it with the Zen 230 mm port, so it's not really to help me decide, I'm just curious about what someone much more experienced would say. Now off to... nope, the new issue isn't up yet. No problem, I'm not in a hurry.
  10. I guess I will know soon, but did you try the 14-30 with the Sea&Sea correction lens? That's my plan.
  11. Oh! That's interesting. Though only theoretically for me, since I don't have a Nauticam housing. I very recently bought a used Sea&Sea housing. I had planned for Nauticam - actually maybe not even for the Z6 - but this sort of turned up, I trusted the seller and the price was very good. So I changed plans. Though I have yet to test it, because I don't dare until I have a vacuum system installed and I have some trouble with that. With the risk of going off topic, if I were to buy new gear, for me combining a Nikon Z50 + 16-50 in a Nautical housing with the new WWL-C would look very attractive.
  12. Other than that (above), I plan to use a Z6 on a trip to the Maldives in about three months. I'm glad for the now easier way to engage subject tracking. Also, I like the idea that when prices have come down I can get a used Z7 and put it in the same housing, should I feel the need for higher resolution.
  13. Problem with that: to the best of my knowledge there are no suitable zoom lenses for use with Z and WACP. The old 28-70 used on the F-mount cameras has screw drive autofocus, meaning that there's no AF on the FTZ. And the Z 24-70/4 doesn't work well.
  14. I got similar feedback from my arm dealer. He suggests 9+7 instead. Sounds better, or not much difference? I suppose 16+9 would still be a possibility for the occasions when I know I'll want to have large separation between strobes and housing.
  15. A bit late to the party here, but I'd like to chip in as well. I've been using LR since 2011 and I'm on the subscription since fairly soon after it started. I, too, have my qualms about the subscription model. The software itself however has, IMO, improved immensely since version 6. This I hold to be true both for useful features and speed optimizations. Even were version 6 compatible with all new cameras I wouldn't want to go back to that. For me the improvements are worth the subscription fee. This is of course a case of YMMV. If I used LR twice a year I would already have switched to some other software. As a regular user I have chosen to grudgingly accept the subscription model. (What I oppose in the subscription model is not the cost, which is roughly equal to keep upgrading the program before it became a subscription. It's the loss of functionality if I stop paying.)
×
×
  • Create New...