Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'a6400'.
Found 2 results
I have a full wide-angle setup minus lights that I'd like to see if anyone is interested in. I am fortunate enough to have just gotten a Sony a1 and placed an order for a new housing. No issues with this gear at all. I don't have an exact count, but this kit has less than 100 dives on it. It has never been flooded. There are some minor surface blemishes on the housing but nothing structural. The housing has never been flooded and the vacuum pump and indicator can be seen in the images. I'd prefer to sell it all as a set but am willing to discuss breaking it up. The items included are below. Camera - Sony a6400 Lens - Sony 16mm f/2.8 (SEL16f28) Lens Adapter - Sony 10mm Fisheye Converter Lens Adapter - Sony ultra-wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) Converter for 16mm Pancake Lens Camera Accessories - 2 Sony a6400 Batteries Housing - Nauticam NA-6400 Housing - Nauticam M14 Vacuum Valve II Port - Nauticam N85 Sony E-Mount 4.33 Fisheye Dome Port Images of the kit can be seen here: https://imgur.com/a/9YnW2SI (I made the images too large for the forum to post them in here) Images taken with this kit can be seen on my site here: https://www.jonathangardnerstudios.com/portfolio/underwater Originally paid $4,040 USD for the kit. Looking for $3000, a 25% discount. OBO
Hi all! I was quite active as a beginner here a few months ago, asking lots and lots of questions mostly about Nikon FX and the Nauticam WACP. I reached the conclusion that the D850 I already own with a WACP should be my best bet for optimum quality, but held off purchasing simply because of cost. Since then I’ve been thinking, and I’m now investigating other alternatives. Reasons for doing so include * size and weight (topside) of WACP solution, especially when travelling. * yes, cost. * not being sure I’ll be happy with having 25 mm (70 mm x 0.36) as my longest focal length. The alternatives I’m now looking at all include the WWL-1, which I gather is in many respects the equivalent of the WACP (albeit a removable wetlens) for smaller sensors. My plan with this post is to ask you whether I seem to have understood things correctly. I’ve been looking at two camera and three lenses. The Sony A6400 with 16-50, and the Olympus E-M1 MkII with either 14-42 or 12-50. Camera-wise the A6400 would give me about an extra stop of sensor performance. In fact, make that two stops at base ISO since A6400 goes to ISO 100, E-M1 to 200. (DxOMark and photonstophotos don’t quite agree though, I don’t quite know what to make of that.) I should also get a significantly better AF with A6400. The E-M1 on the other hand would give me IBIS and 2/3 stops better flash sync (1/250 s I believe, 1/160 s on the Sony). In fact, the Sony would lock me at 1/160 s or slower even if I turned off my strobes, since that’s what it does when the popup flash is raised. (The slow sync speed of the Sony should, in scenarios with sunlit backgrounds, be offset by the sensor’s theoretically better dynamic range at base ISO, but being locked at 1/160 s is still a bummer.) As for lenses, the 14-42 allows full zoom-through, giving full-frame equivalent of 10-30 mm with the WWL-1. This is better than the WACP. Using the 12-50 it vignettes until at 16 mm, giving maybe 12-36 mm equiv with WWL-1 assuming full zoom-through, which is still highly respectable by my standards. On the Sony side the 16-50 vignettes until 20 mm, giving 11-27 mm equiv. HOWEVER, if I use the bayonet mount the WWL-1 is easily removed, quickly opening up mid-range focal lengths should I need them. This is not possible with the WACP. Being behind a flat port I guess I need to go to maybe 40 mm (equiv) or so before getting rid of the most horrible corner issues, so there will be a gap in usable FOV:s but I think that will be ok. Also, I’m not sure but I think I should be able to use e.g. the SMC-1 with all of these lenses. I’m not sure how that would compare to a dedicated macro lens, but it should give me wide-angle, mid-range and macro on the same dive, which again would not be possible with the WACP. Of course I would be sacrificing resolution and dynamic range if I’m not using my D850. I have a couple of follow-up questions. But as a start – does this sound about accurate?