Jump to content

horvendile

Member
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by horvendile

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Thanks! I've received the lens and confirmed that it's functional, but testing underwater may not be until November.
  4. 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.
  5. Sea & Sea have done the same, ie made the housing so that with FTZ adapter the lens starts at the same position as in the F-mount housings, meaning the same port chart applies for F-mount lenses. Which leads me to... this being the relevant measure. Not the lenses compared to each other, but the total length including FTZ where applicable. And then the length difference is small. Well, as ChrisRoss already wrote.
  6. Update: I've been plowing uw photo info about the 8-15. Yes, more and more it sounds like a sensible idea to spend money on that rather than the Z 105 macro at this point, despite my weird grievances about lack of technical elegance (which have nothing to do with image quality or function).
  7. Chances are you can use it with the same port as for the F-mount 105 mm. I haven't had the opportunity to try, but the Z 105 is almost precisely as long as FTZ + F 105. IIRC it's ever so slightly thicker, but only a mm or so. There is probably room in the old lens port for that - I say, without knowing the specifics about the Nauticam port. I have good hopes for the Sea&Sea port I have.
  8. Well, it's still kind of difficult to say, given my limited experience, how little I've used the setup, and that I haven't taken many shots that offer a good opportunity to assess the corners fairly. Hope to have more data this November! However, if I am to say anything, I'm happy. Most of my photos have been taken at 14 mm which I gather is really pushing it for rectilinear. Also I'm at f/8, a luxury not expected without the S&S correction lens. Sure there is some smearing in the corners, but I thought it would be worse at those settings. I'd still, preliminarily, call it very usable at 14 mm f/8. Not perfect but very usable.
  9. One more, which I forgot in the first batch. Not chosen for its beauty but because it's shot of a flatter surface than the other pictures. Still not exactly a brick wall test though. 15.5 mm f/8 ISO 1600
  10. Came here for the fisheye talk, came away with an order for the book. I've learnt a lot on this forum but the book isn't even expensive.
  11. Oh I expect no optical or AF problems at all, I'm generally impressed by how well the FTZ works; in fact, for the photography I usually do focusing with F-mount optics (topside) is often better on my Z cameras with FTZ than on my previous F cameras. Yes, if traveling with fisheye as only wide-angle and also owning smaller domes. For me right now, everything except macro goes into the 230 mm dome. I'm not really disputing here that the 8-15 would do a good job. I just have to think some. Some mental gear clutching may also be in order since I've been firmly on track for the new macro so far.
  12. Maybe. It's still a lot of money for an inelegant* solution and I haven't done enough uw photo to have a well-founded sense for what fisheye gives me over the 14-30. *"inelegant" doesn't necessarily mean "giving inferior pictures"; it's more a case of technical elegance in an engineering sort of way.
  13. Realistically, maybe not. I suspect the water column will remove much of the advantage. Though I'm not sure, some examples I've seen are really remarkably better with the new lens - topside. Sadly not. I did use it at f/11 but focusing was always needed, I didn't find any usable fix-focus distance. In the near future, very unlikely. It's not on any roadmap and while there may be surprises I doubt a fisheye will be high priority. At any rate it won't be here before late October when I go on my trip. A Z-mount fisheye in a future is certain, I'd say. But it may take a couple of years. Thanks for the reply!
  14. Ok it'll have to be one picture per post. I have selected five of them. All are uncropped and, well, the point is to see technical image quality. Which may be a bit difficult because of murky waters and I haven't taken the pictures with that in mind. All are taken with a Nikon Z7 and all are at f/8. This one is at 14 mm. And ISO 3200.
  15. Ok, then I'll try to produce some uncropped and possibly largely un-edited images. I've used it behind a Zen 230 mm glass port. I think constantly at f/8 which may sound optimistic, especially as I was often at 14-15 mm, but remember that this is with the Sea & Sea 82 mm correction lens. I'm new to uw photo with ILC, so I don't have much to compare with. Pictures coming soon.
  16. I took some pictures with the 14-30 on the Swedish west coast last week. Not many and nothing spectacular but if it's of interest I could upload a few samples. Anything specific you're looking for?
  17. What kind of questions is that? - I hear you asking yourselves. Well, here's the thing. Earlier this year I, longing for tropical travel, started a thread about what lenses to bring for my Z7/Z6 on a trip to Brothers/Daedalus/Elphinstone in the Red Sea. Here it is, for reference: Now I've done some diving on the Swedish west coast, trying some things out. Among other things I have tried using the Sigma 15 mm fisheye which is MF only on Nikon Z. On the plus side, fisheye was kind of fun. On the minus side, MF means that I have close to zero chance of capturing anything moving quickly. Also, I have ordered the new Nikon 105 mm macro for Z-mount. For about the same money I could get my hands on a Nikon 8-15 mm fisheye which will work fine on my Z7 on FTZ adapter. I can afford one of them, but not both. Z macro, pluses: I'll probably get it in the end anyway. It's better than the F-mount version. Also lighter and with better weight distribution. Z macro, minuses: The F-mount macro I already own isn't bad. The Z version doesn't give me any fundamentally new capability. Nikon 8-15, pluses: Will give me good fisheye with AF, which is a new capability. Nikon 8-15, minuses: That's a lot of money for a lens to be used on FTZ adapter. The Z mount is good for wide angle lenses. Sooner or later there will be a native fisheye making the 8-15 unnecessarily cumbersome. Also, I have the 14-30 with Sea&Sea correction lens, so I'm not lacking wide-angle AF while waiting for a native Z AF fisheye. Of course it's my decision in the end, I'll have to figure out what's most important to me. Still though - what takes on this do you have?
  18. I uh... might have placed a pre-order on the 105 mm. I think it should fit in my DX Macro Port 50 II on DX Macro port base (Sea&Sea). It would be nice if Sea&Sea would confirm, but I think they're usually quite slow so they probably won't. Also, the F-mount 105 mm will have to be sold at a decent price. Well, I have some time to think.
  19. Interesting, thanks! I wasn't expecting big image quality improvements, especially not at f/8 and macro distances (which I assume the F-mount version would be optimized for). I'm not sure I'm ready to buy the new one solely on the basis of that one example, but I'm much more tempted than before seeing it. But now I'll have to ask - EMWL? Edit: I googled and read up a bit on EMWL. Not a realistic option for me in the near future anyway. I use a Sea&Sea housing with corresponding port. I should assemble it with the F-mount version and see how much space there is.
  20. The 105 mm appears to be longer than the F-mount version, but of course doesn't need the FTZ adapted. It would be neat if I could use the same port.
  21. Thanks, excellent reply! I've been looking for it within Europe, seeing as I live in Sweden and buying from outside EU will incur VAT and probably other nasty tariffs. But if the price difference is big enough it might be worth it.
×
×
  • Create New...