Jump to content

horvendile

Member
  • Content Count

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 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

3801 profile views
  1. Thanks both of you. Yeah, I guess I will have to choose between good edges (€300) and CFWA (€1000). Right now it will probably be the former, if not else for economic reasons.
  2. I'll borrow this thread for a while. I use Nikon Z6/7 in a Sea & Sea housing. I also have the Nikon 8-15 fisheye, used on FTZ adapter of course. Furthermore I have the Zen 230 mm dome and a 40 mm extension. In a thread here last autumn we reached the conclusion that I should probably use a 20 mm extension with the fisheye and the 230 mm dome (so that's not the question here). Before hitting the purchase button I thought I'd see if there are other alternatives that may be better. Specifically, Sea & Sea makes the Optical Dome Port ll 100 L (link) which is "Designed exclusively for (...) Nikon AF-S Fisheye Nikkor 8-15mm F3.5-4.5 E ED". While more expensive than buying just an extension ring this would be a more nimble solution in close quarters. But... is there any reason to believe that this is optically anything special, or is the "designed exclusively" limited to extension length?
  3. You're right of course, I totally mixed things up in my head when writing that post. Funny thing is I started writing it in the correct way, then changed it to the mess it became. So, with NO extension I got close the the glass and that looked wrong. Then I added 40 mm of extension (the only one available to me) and then the front lens was almost flush with the lens opening of the dome. This resulted in the shade being visible in the corners. Thanks for pointing it out. Using 20 mm extension still seems reasonable though. Note that this is for the 8-15 fisheye, not the 14-30.
  4. On another note, to my surprise I used the Nikon 8-15 fisheye very little on the trip. But my limited findings on using it with Sea&Sea housing are: [NOTE: I got things backwards in my head when writing about extensions in the following paragraph. ChrisRoss points it out further down in the thread and I stand corrected.] The lens chart recommends using no extension at all with the S&S 230 mm dome port. I tried this for the Zen 230 mm dome port; this configuration worked fine with the Sigma 15 mm fisheye. However, at 15 mm the Nikon shows the dome shade in the extreme corners. While the shade can be removed I don't want to do that, I just know I'll scrape the glass on some rocks. The only extension I had was 40 mm and using that the front of the lens ends up quite close to the glass in the dome port. I didn't like the look of that but never actually tried it in the water. My idea is to get a 20 mm extension ring. Should be ok. Of course, cropping the images slightly is a cheaper option. With the Z7 I have a lot of pixels but yes I will lose field of view if I crop. Edit: adding non-cropped image.
  5. Next up is this picture at 16 mm and f/11, a more common setting. This crop shows the entire short side and upper corners of the sensor in portrait orientation. Focus is - I would assume - on the diver at the bottom of the crop. If you think it's too hard to see I can do some more crops of this picture.
  6. Longer pause here than I expected, but here goes. First, a zoomed crop of the first image. From a pretty central region out to corner. You can match it with the original image above. My take: yes there is noticeable degradation, but still not bad. I mean, consider full frame, focal length and aperture.
  7. I know, I tried to upload larger images but ran into size limitations. Of course I could upload crops of the corners, but not right now. At these apertures - no, the corners are not sharp. There is visible smearing. But, IMHO, not that bad smearing and it stops a quire small way into the image. A crop corresponding to, say, 16 mm shouldn't show much smearing even at these apertures. I can see, also later, if I can find some pictures taken at slightly longer focal length.
  8. Hi! I recall some of you being interested in images taken with the Nikon Z 14-30/4 used with the Sea & Sea 82 mm correction lens. I just came back from a trip to the Red Sea where I just this combination behind a 230 mm Zen dome. At least to start with, here are two images. Both are uncropped at 14 mm, ie as wide as it goes. The first one is at f/8: And the second at f/5.6: I'm aware these are very wide apertures but OTOH that makes it more interesting. Given the apertures and the short focal length - notably wider than the common 16 mm - I'm happy with the results.
  9. Addendum - contents of the bag: Sea & Sea housing for Nikon Z6/Z7 230 mm Zen dome port 40 mm extension ring Macro port Nikon Z6 Nikon Z7 Nikon 8-15 mm fisheye Nikon Z 14-30/4 Nikon Z 24-70/4 Nikon 105 mm macro (F-mount) Nikon Z 40/2 FTZ adapter Lots and lots of batteries, for strobes, camera and focus light Vacuum pump and some other small stuff Uh... the taxfree candy I couldn't fit in my shoulder bag The total weight of 15 kg or slightly more isn't terribly much to lift in itself but the design of the bag made it feel very heavy to carry when wandering the airports.
  10. Just a random anecdote: Very recently I made a trip to Egypt (Hurghada) from Sweden. We flew Pegasus, which IIRC is Turkish' budget/charter brand. Change of planes in Istanbul. For carry-on luggage I had a Cinebag CB70 Square Grouper, such as this one: https://fotografit.eu/products/284-cinebags/2340-cb70-square-grouper/ It was stuffed to the brim with camera equipment, weighing in total about 15 kg. I also had a small shoulder bag with laptop, e-book reader, travel documents and such. Before the trip I was nervous. Flying Pegasus was a last minute change and I feared the charter companies' stinginess with carry-on luggage. However, all went well. I never tried to hide the bag at check-in or the gate. It was chosen for special inspection at every single security checkpoint the entire trip, but only once was the weight remarked upon. ("It's very heavy" said the security person lifting it to the examination desk. "Yes!" I replied happily, beaming my best smile.) And it being chosen for inspection only stands to reason; must be impossible to see anything on x-ray with the bag packed as it was. I may have had good luck. But the bag isn't very big. Certainly looks smaller than many cabin bags. Had it been put on the scales at check-in by paragraph happy staff I would have been in trouble for sure, but this time it didn't happen.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Thanks! I've received the lens and confirmed that it's functional, but testing underwater may not be until November.
  14. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...