Jump to content

Draq

Member
  • Content Count

    375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Draq last won the day on April 2

Draq had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About Draq

  • Rank
    Eagle Ray

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

11726 profile views
  1. I am a bit confused. I read elsewhere that the difference in length was something on the order of 1mm, and that they should work with the same zoom gears and extensions. Also, you say above the 10-17 "quality is miserable" but I have always heard that although not up to 8-15 standards, most consider it quite good. Perhaps you were talking about land use? I generally don't pay much attention to how a lens does on land when i want it solely for dive use. It seems there is little connection between the two. I was also under the impression that the recent full frame sensors actually revealed lens imperfections much more so than smaller sensors, not the other way around. Not arguing the point...just asking since I have heard it both ways. If the older version of the TC works better with the 8-15 and/or the 10-17 I will get one before they are gone from the stores. I have used micro 4/3 for several years and the Nikon stuff is new to me, so I have some learning to do :-)
  2. In a recent thread referencing the Nikon 8-15, Walt Sterans mentioned that the Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX gave better results than the newer TELEPLUS HD pro with that lens. I was unaware of this and would be interested in hearing more tests or experiences or other info about which TC works better with which lenses, if anyone can enlighten me. Does the above comment hold true with the Tokina 10-17 as well? I am specifically interested in DX (D500) as opposed to full frame.
  3. I will add that the clear cap of the Inon makes it easy to check and see that the large yellow o ring is properly positioned after installation and Inon suggests screwing the cap on slowly to avoid pinching or twisting the O ring. Both my son and I have used inon strobes for about 10 years or so and neither of us has had a problem. I do replace the O rings from time to time and carry spares, but frankly, cannot recall having one appear to wear out or shred or disfigure. I am not sure, but they may last forever. When I have replaced them I have actually used the old ones for various purposes, including as a makeshift octo holder.
  4. Thanks for the information. When I get the Z-330 strobes eventually I plan on leaving the diffuser on.
  5. I am not sure what you are saying, but my curiosity was whether the shape or pattern of the light output would change underwater. It is really an academic question, I suppose. I am not sure it could realistically be tested. I was not really talking about the power of the flash.
  6. I was referring to the image from retra. That is the only one of these that really addressed the shape of the light output.
  7. With regard to the image above showing the dispersion pattern, I am wondering if the pattern in air is similar to what one would get under water? In particular should one expect a non-diffused Z330 to have such a pronounced cross shape in actual use? I find myself wondering if the strobe manufactures should not offer some sort of clear diffuser that would not reduce output so much. Maybe a clear diffuser with a fresnel or pebbled texture? On the other hand, you guys seem much more knowledgeable about this than I am and that may be a silly thought. Also a bit confused about the image of the retra. I thought the "pro" was substantially more powerful than the "prime" but the image shown suggests they are the same since it is listed a pro/prime. I suppose no one has used these yet so it is somewhat theoretical at this point.
  8. Hmmm. I am not sure I can see may way to packing thousands of dollars of gear in a soft-sided case knowing the extent to which checked bags are dropped, thrown, stacked and crushed. I would think a polycarbonate suitcase would be the way to go.
  9. I gather you guys are talking about packing the gear in a case like shown in the attached, is that right (and inside some sort of protection within the shown cases)? Keep in mind, my tentative conclusion is that I am going to check housing, ports and bits and pieces and not even attempt to carry them on the plane, although I will continue to carry camera lenses, dive computer, perhaps the 45 degree viewfinder, etc. The idea would be that cases such as in the photos would be less likely to attract thieves.
  10. That all makes sense. This was in shallow water and an unplanned shot. There some decent surge and I shot fast, hence the poor choice of shutter speed and perhaps some motion on my part due to the surge. It was one of those "Oh look, a krait" kind of things and I grabbed a few shots as it headed off out of reach.
  11. oneyellowtang: OK, well that is discomforting. To all, if you were going to put padded nauticam or Cinebags or otherwise pack housings and ports, etc in luggage to check, what would you use? I am concerend about theft, but rough handling of bags is an everyday occurrence. I have seen bags fall offf of the conveyor belts and the little luggage trams that are driven around the tarmac, and can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes. The attached illustrate my concerns.
  12. This is an uncropped image. ISO 200 Focal length 15mm (plus1.4 Kenko for a total 21mm) 1/60 f11 Any input on fringing issue welcome
  13. Thanks for the input, so far. I do not have the settings, etc., available to me now, I will update later. The krait was in the center of the image and the head and first several inches were in better focus. I think I have a bit of motion blur on the body. I took three shots and the fringing appears on each one. The camera was a D500 and I was using a nauticam 140 dome with a 40mm nauticam extension. The kenko was a teleplus HD pro 1.4 DGX. I had no other apparent issues with less contrasty subjects, but perhaps I will go back and look at some of those again. I am not sure I can upload the original image in RAW due to size but will take a look. I will get actual settings later but most likely was shooting between F9 and F13 and either 1/60 or 1/25 with Z240 strobes in TTL mode. ISO probably 100.
  14. I have heard the suggestion about using a suitcase or concealing the pelican in another bag and I would like to hear more thoughts on that. The problem I see with the old suitcase idea are these: 1. Good ones are not inexpensive and are themselves high-dollar items that are likely prone to being broken into. I would be reluctant to buy and rely on a used (pre-beaten-up) case. 2. Not-so-good cases are cheaply made. I have seen many broken ones come out of those luggage chutes and riding around on the carousel. The idea of it breaking open and ports and housing and so on falling out is discomforting. 3. By the time I wrap each item in clothing or place it in an individual padded bag, how much space do I really get unless I go to some really mammoth case? The problems I see with the concealing rolling bag with a Pelican inside are these: 1. Most rolling bags are going to add 7-9 pounds to an already heavy pelican case and gear. I just weighed a Pelican inside a rolling bag and it was over 30 lbs, empty. 2. I doubt the rolling bags are made to hold a hard case with 30-40 lbs in it. I would think handle and wheel and zipper breakage will occur early. 3. The maximum luggage size for most airlines is 62 inches. They tend to be long but somewhat narrow. The few I have seen cost around $300 and really aren't sized to fit a Pelican case well and the end result would be a huge and very heavy bag. I suspect that in addition to putting a Pelican case in the bag, I would need to stuff soft things in to keep the pelican from sliding all around and breaking the bag. I doubt that would be within the 50 lb max.. 4. A $200 pelican inside a $300 rolling bag gets to be pretty expensive luggage. Do you lock the bag and the pelican or just one. i would think if a thief saw a pelican concealed in another bag, that would virtually shout out that expensive stuff was inside. Would it be better to have a scuffed-up pelican with sea & sea and save the whales stickers on it? How about putting a tank inspection sticker on it? Finally, although I have heard of the danger of using a Pelican because it is obviously full of expensive gear, I have not heard that many stories of stolen pelican cases and no more than other gear bags. Similarly, I used to avoid gear bags that suggested dive gear but then someone pointed out that compared to other items, dive gear is not really a hot commodity for stolen merchandise, at least not fins, wetsuits and BCDs. Regulators might be a different story. I have bags with BARE and Stahlsac brands on them that seem to fit gear better than non-dive gear bags. I am not sure housings and ports would be viewed as prime theft items and I also think that with all the security protocols now in place the theft of luggage itself (as opposed to valuable items ifrom the luggage) is less than it used to be. I don't know any of the above to be true or false. just thoughts as I transition from carrying everything on board with me to dealing with larger stuff.
  15. I recall seeing something from nauticam that said the buttons on the housing do not have "stops" on the buttons that would prevetn them from damaging the buttons on the housing if subjected to an impact on the button, and a camera could be damaged as a result. I have no knowledge that would support or refute that, just repeating somehting I read. On the packing front, I am about 90% of the way to just buying a large Pelican case (probably a 1610) and using that to check for housing, ports, etc., and pay the extra bag fee, then carrying camera and lenses on board in a shoulder bag. Increasingly, I am not confident that I won't be forced to check a rolling bag of any size, especially with international airlines and international airports. I have had a couple close calls and was recently forced to check and approved-size carry on because it weighed over 7Kg. it contained things I did not want to check, but no photo gear. It had been permitted in the cabin of the same plane on the way out of the U.S., but not on the way back. Plus, I just can't pack what I need in a carry-on bag anymore, unless I start leaving stuff out that I would rather have available to me. It that unpredictability that really frustrates me. If the checked photo stuff gets misrouted, stolen or lost, then I will be very sad, but I just don't seem to have much choice, unless I hire a person to go with me for the sole purpose of hauling extra camera gear as his carry-on stuff. Don't think that is a workable plan.
×
×
  • Create New...