Jump to content

Draq

Member
  • Content Count

    430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Draq last won the day on September 27

Draq had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About Draq

  • Rank
    Manta Ray

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

12084 profile views
  1. I realize the OP has already purchased a lens, so this is late, but I thought I would add a comment. I am happy with the 60mm but recently bought the 85mm macro (which may now be discontinued?). The reason is the substantially greater working distance. Some small creatures get perturbed when a port is really close. The 85 offers substantially greater working distance but should be easier to use than the 105, which I also have but is heavy and can be too much for general use. The 85 works with a 20mm extension on the 60 port, so that port, with appropriate extensions, can handle three macro lenses. Unfortunately, this is theoretical at the moment. I have not gotten to try out the 85 yet because on my last dive trip I had an equipment failure resulting in no strobes...
  2. I am not into Bull Shark dives so I have never dived in Cancun. I would definitely look at taking the ferry over to Cozumel, but also I seem to recall the diving was not too bad down in Puerto Aventuras, South of Cancun. But that was a long time ago. You could also look into doing some Cenote dives on the mainland if you like those or have not tried them. I don't have any specifically photo-oriented dive ops to suggest but for Cozumel you would probably like Jeremy at Living Underwater or Tres Pelicanos. Hope this helps
  3. Ever wonder what your luggage experiences at the airport? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJV-JiTWWXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1fxYWaO_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZqiE3yGlQ&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBWZWyvMng
  4. I know there is a quality improvement with the wet lenses, but I think just focusing on that (sorry for the pun!) misses a lot of the issue. The WACP and WWL allow you to get sharper images, including corners, at larger apertures. That means some combination of lower ISO, faster shutter speed, lower strobe power, easier ambient light shots sometimes, and perhaps less diffraction. At least that is how I look at it. And yes, some of those things also contribute to image quality I suspect only with big enlargements or really critical viewing would one be able to identify a wet lens shot from a wide angle and dome shot if things are set up right and we do a good job on the photo. The wet lenses also allow greater zoom range so if the pelagics don't show up or the viz is bad, you may still be adequately equipped to shoot other subjects that wold not work well with a 12-24, 17-70 or whatever. Thinking only in terms of absolute image quality overlooks other benefits and I don't know about you folks, but for me it has always been true that the raw ability of the camera and lens is rarely the weak link in the image quality, it is almost always my skills that hold me back.
  5. I admire the WACP-1 and am convinced it offers great image quality potential and other and benefits. But I am somewhat put off by the fact that this very expensive lens often works best with out-of-production lenses, or lenses likely to go out of production, such as some of the the Canon EF range, and/or works in only a limited focal length range with current lenses. Good luck finding a clean 28-70 3.5-4.5 D lens for a D850. (The notable exception appears to be Sony with its 28-60). Buyers are far more likely to choose mirrorless cameras going forward, and to purchase lenses that are at least compatible with those new cameras. Not many full frame 28-xx 3.5, or crop format 18-55 3.5 lenses are being made for mirrorless. I feel the WACP it is overly expensive, heavy and large if just using it to convert a fixed 28mm lens into a fixed ultrawide (weitwinkel) semi-rectilinear lens, except perhaps for specific purposes or those being paid to take the photographs. I admit to some temptation to get a WACP and use it with a D500 and the 18-55 lens. Sharper corners at larger apertures allows more flexibility in shutter speed and ISO settings and the large zoom range offers some of that "one lens covering different subjects" kind of benefit. But unlike a dome port that can be used with a variety of lenses across brands, and will likely work with new lenses as they are developed, the WACP seems to be fairly limited and inflexible. Increasingly, lens makers are not making 28-70 type lenses, except for large, fast lenses, opting for wider focal lengths instead. Strangely enough, Nauticam does not even list the WACP-1 as compatible with, nor does it make a zoom ring for, the newer version of the 18-55, that may still be in production and offers improved focus speed. Maybe I am wrong about this? I suppose there is no reason I can't use the D500 and an 18-55 for several years, and it may not really matter what other cameras or lenses it fits?
  6. I believe the U.S. will be open to UK visitors starting in early November.
  7. I don't have any galleries or videos of macro from those places. As far as I know, the Cayman islands are still closed to travel. When I think of macro in the Caribbean, I think of nudibranchs, gobies, blennies, frogfish and seahorses when you can find them, shrimp and crabs. They all exist at most destinations. Bonaire and Curacao come to mind because of the ease of shore diving and therefore the ability to spend an hour or more poking around some area, instead of being rushed by a dive guide leading a group. I have never been, but maybe Blue Heron Bridge in Florida coupled with a few days around Key Largo?
  8. Sorry, I have not been to any of those and don't know much about the diving there, except to say that, just based on a memory of discussions and trip research in the past, I think the Bahamas and Barbados are not really considered macro destinations and I never hear anyone talking about Jamaica. In Covid times I guess we sort of go where we can and with a bit of effort, you can find macro stuff anywhere. But I am sure you already know that. I am not sure of the travel situation in the UK or EU right now, but historically, I believe KLM offered direct flights to Curacao and I would think St Maarten, maybe?
  9. I have been traveling to Mexico for years. I actually looked at buying a property there once, many years back. Mostly I try to shrug off the seemingly never-ending corruption and scams, but sometimes I find myself feeling really tired of it and like I just won't go back. Recently I was booking a trip to Mexico and I just couldn't do it and booked a trip elsewhere. It actually felt kind of satisfying to give the finger to Mexico, figuratively speaking. Not saying I won't go back, but there is this bit of irritation every time I start looking at it. I mean, come on, you don't pay duty anywhere in the world on personally owned items you take on a vacation and bring back home with you. What's next? "Duty" on my watch or shoes or cell phone whatever? I actually have Mexico-specific packing practices, and that just feels wrong. Okay, rant over. I feel better now.
  10. I think Roatan has a decent macro reputation, but I would not want to compare it to Asia. Bonaire and Curacao might be reasonable options as well.
  11. Actually, to partially answer my own question, I now recall that I have a lenscoat lens hoodie that fits on the WWL-1, but I am unsure if there is one that would fir the WACP, or if there is anything better out there.
  12. The recent flurry of WWL and WACP discussions has caused me to wonder about something that may be a bit weird to most. The hard caps for those products are great fro traveling and on a boat, but not really convenient to take in the water. I am pretty sure that was never intended. I sometimes find myself getting back on boats in choppy conditions, hanging on a crowded tagline and/or handing up my camera to a rushed and sometimes not very careful boat guy. So I typically take the stretchy neoprene dome cover with me on a dive and put it on before handing camera up. I don't see many people doing that, but it makes me feel better about having less risk of a scratched port. So is anyone aware of something that would fulfill this purpose on a WWL or WACP-1? Not really asking about the WACP-2 because I think that would need a spare tire-sized cover.
  13. I am in the DX format camp. I used micro four thirds for years and then moved to a D500. Due to the larger format, I have more flexibility in cropping, but the big differences for me were dynamic range and the focusing performance of the camera compared to EM1 MkII. Much faster and more accurate focusing, especially in lower light and much better tracking of fast moving creatures. Perhaps with better skills I could overcome this, and I have retained the Olympus gear, but the DX vs M43 size difference is modest and the DX is really just a lot more enjoyable for me. When making the switch from M43, I was thinking of going full frame and almost bought a D850, but was talked out of it by several people, and frankly, as someone who does this as a hobby, and who has to travel to dive, I am glad I went DX. I just cannot deal with the travel implications of a 230mm dome. This (and price) has also kept me from the Nauticam wet lens options. I tried and still have a WWL, but it is heavy and some of the other options dwarf the WWL. For me, APS-C and its amenability to 100mm, 140mm and 170-180mm domes and crop factor boost for macro lenses hits a sweet spot. Also, for wildlife photography, the crop factor gives me a some nice options in hand-holdable / comfortably-carried telephotos and zooms. Unless Nikon and Canon put more effort into DX format mirrorless, I am not sure I will go that route willingly.
  14. I believe the English language does not adhere to verb conjugation rules as closely as some languages and there are so many exceptions to the rules that one cannot just rely on those rules. So we rely on practical knowledge. Or not. If it is dive and dived, why is in not ride and rided instead of rode? If it is eat and ate why is it not sleep and slape? Walk /walked but not run / runed or runned? Anyway, "dove" also rolls off the tongue more fluidly than "dived" does, so it gets used a lot. Generally, I am more interested in hearing about the dive than worrying about the grammar so I don't care much in discussion, and am not distracted by the word, but like to see "dived" in writing..."dove" distracts me when written and I am likely to hear it in my head like "duv" at first...as in the bird.
  15. Well, I guess all I did was save a bit of money, then. Had I understood that better, I might have opted for the pro, but I am sure the prime will be fine.
×
×
  • Create New...