Jump to content

horvendile

Member
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by horvendile

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I guess I will know soon, but did you try the 14-30 with the Sea&Sea correction lens? That's my plan.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.)
  14. Back to the arms: I already have two 7" arms I could use. I will get two 16" arms with the housing. My plan is to get two 11" arms. That way I can use 16+11 or 11+7 depending on mood and type of photography. Sounds cool?
  15. Taking a look through that thread the V5 looks nice, yes. Choice in the end may depend on price. And I think I would go for the external version, not being sure I can find a good way to fit the internal version in the housing. This should of course get clearer when I get the housing. I sent them an e-mail yesterday, now waiting for reply.
  16. Well the Leak Sentinel questions seems unanimously resolved. I'll send an e-mail. I'll think a bit about the arms. But right now, go to bed. Thanks all.
  17. Hi all! Things didn't turn out as I thought - here I spent a year on-and-off investigating what gear to aim for, and in the end I jumped on a local ad not containing what I thought I wanted to get. (Though good price and trusted seller.) So, shortly I will be the proud owner of the following, all used. Sea&Sea housing for Nikon Z6/Z7 Sea&Sea TTL trigger 40 mm extension Zen 230 mm glass dome, sans shade 2 x YS-D1 strobes with fibre cables 2 x 16"(!) arms I'm certain I will have many questions, but right now there are two of them. There is currently no vacuum system installed. The seller doesn't think they're necessary. Well, I may not be as courageous as he is. The Sea&Sea vacuum system is somewhay pricey though. A diving friend of mine recommends the Vivid housings Leak Sentinel: https://www.vividhousings.com/leak-sentinel.php He does so from own experience, which is valuable. Still: does the forum have an informed view on that product? Arms. I didn't even know there are 16" arms. That's long. What would you use for general purpose? I assume I will want two arms for each strobe, so I will have to buy some arms anyway. I was guessing maybe 2 x 9" on each side would be reasonable, but I don't have the experience to be certain. If possible I would like to use the same arm setup for wide-angle as for macro (when I get macro gear).
  18. I agree the 230 mm dome is hardly optimal for the 24-70. Indeed, Sea&Sea recommend a smaller one. But in this specific case the dome is what it is and the 24-70 is only a stopgap until I get the 14-30. Well maybe not only a stopgap. I suspect 24-70 might be a good choice for skittish sharks, e.g. if I ever dive for Thresher sharks at Malapascua again. You may very well be right about 14 mm being too wide, but... I'll just have to stay slightly longer then.
  19. Semi-quick reply: I just tested close focus. Indeed, it does focus closer at 24 mm than at 70 mm, measured from the sensor plane. I already forgot the exact number, but about 30 cm @ 70 mm, 25 cm @ 24 mm. Measured from the front lens it's almost no difference, about 14-15 cm at both ends. The dome used will probably be the Zen 230 mm dome https://www.zenunderwater.com/collections/optical-glass-ports/products/dp-230?variant=858624027 Yes I know it's big... It has a radius of curvature of 120 mm. I can probably figure out some approximation of what this means for the 24-70 in terms of focus, but not right now. It's not super important that the 24-70 works with full zoom-through but it would sure be nice. Sea&Sea has recommendations for both the 24-70 and the 14-30. As for extensions they are the same, 40 mm for the 240 mm Sea&Sea port. I'm guessing this recommendations will work for the Zen dome too, but I should check on the radius of curvature for the Sea&Sea port. The guy I'm buying from (well, maybe buying, haven't taken a decision yet) has used the 14-30 with the housing and he's happy with it. However, it's possible he used the Sea&Sea port.
  20. Hi! Basic dome question, hence beginner forum. I'm contemplating buying a used Sea&Sea housing for the Nikon Z cameras. It would come with a large dome. I may need to start out with the Z 24-70/4 S until I can afford the 14-30/4. I'm curious whether I'll be able to use the whole zoom range. I suppose that this comes down to the close-focus performance of the lens; if it's able to focus on the virtual image at the long end. But if (and this is and if) the minimum focus distance is the same through the whole zoom range, that shouldn't be a problem, right? Meaning that while of course it wouldn't be extremely wide, I could probably get some decent fish portraits, possibly good for sharks. The long end could, at a magnification of 1:3.33, give me some pseudo macro. If I can get close enough with that large dome. Is that correctly understood? I'm not saying this would be a perfect underwater lens, but I'm hoping it could work decently until I can afford more.
  21. Yeah, I see the YS-D1 as temporary solutions to get me started, provided I get them for a reasonable price. I understand they can die on me at any time, being used extensively. Thing is, I probably can't afford buying new ones right now, hence the interest for something to hold me over.
  22. Hi! I've stumbled upon an ad with some used gear of interest to me - a Sea & Sea setup for Nikon Z. Not exactly what I had in mind but it just might be worth it to improvise in this case. Part of the gear for sale is a pair of Sea & Sea YS-D1. I'm not very familiar with the strobe models, but it seems to be the predecessor to the YS-D2 (to noone's surprise, given the names). As such I suppose there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using YS-D1 for a wide-angle setup. But are there any gotchas with the YS-D1 I should be aware of?
  23. Mike - I took a look at your homepage. Great pictures! And I mean that. I also - and now, this post turns off topic, sorry about that - saw the movie with the Great White happening to enter a cage. Yowza! Thing is, I recently read an article about shark safaris at Guadalope and that seemed awesome, but in two days I have now seen two different videos with Great Whites at Guadalope ending up inside a cage with the divers. Er... how common is that? I have no special shark phobia, but I do have some respect for large wild predators, and sharing a cage with a very stressed out specimen is... not my dream vacation.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...