Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pooley

Tiger beach and Guadalupe

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi, 

Covid permitting I'll be taking the above trips in 2022. Plan A is a 6 night Liveaboard with Jim Abernethy late March for great hammerheads and  tigers, then going to Guadalupe on Nautilus Belle Amie in September. 

I've dived with Jim before off Palm Beach and was happy with the services, and this is a solo trip a week before  the  rest of the family fly over for a holiday from England so my only  consideration in the diving, not any creature  comforts. 

Guadalupe will be done with my wife as our joint 50th birthday trip so I need something a little plusher. She is certified but doesn't dive any more but she really likes the idea of the surface cages. On a side note, she did ask me 'can I go for a swim there...?' She's been suitably advised!

Anyway, I'm after any suggestions / tips (both photography  and travel) / viable alternative suggestions before I book, probably sometime this week. 

Gear wise I have a Nikon D500, and was expecting to use my 8-15 mm a lot (I also have the kenko 1.4x), but  looking at various shots with exif it seems a lot of people use longer focal lengths. I was planning on adding a 10-24mm - does this seem like a worthwhile investment?

All advice welcomed

thanks in advance

Mike

Edited by pooley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pooley said:

Hi, 

Covid permitting I'll be taking the above trips in 2022. Plan A is a 6 night Liveaboard with Jim Abernethy late March for great hammerheads and  tigers, then going to Guadalupe on Nautilus Belle Amie in September. 

I've dived with Jim before off Palm Beach and was happy with the services, and this is a solo trip a week before  the  rest of the family fly over for a holiday from England so my only  consideration in the diving, not any creature  comforts. 

Guadalupe will be done with my wife as our joint 50th birthday trip so I need something a little plusher. She is certified but doesn't dive any more but she really likes the idea of the surface cages. On a side note, she did ask me 'can I go for a swim there...?' She's been suitably advised!

Anyway, I'm after any suggestions / tips (both photography  and travel) / viable alternative suggestions before I book, probably sometime this week. 

Gear wise I have a Nikon D500, and was expecting to use my 8-15 mm a lot (I also have the kenko 1.4x), but  looking at various shots with exif it seems a lot of people use longer focal lengths. I was planning on adding a 10-24mm - does this seem like a worthwhile investment?

All advice welcomed

thanks in advance

Mike

Hey Mike

Worth just searching for Adam Hanlon's review of rectilinear lenses he did a couple of years ago.

If I recall correctly, the general view has been that the 10-24 DX works well underwater - I'm just not sure on the port size. Probably 8" but maybe the 100/4" would work.

Sounds a wicked trip! Fingers crossed

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 10:00 PM, TimG said:

Hey Mike

Worth just searching for Adam Hanlon's review of rectilinear lenses he did a couple of years ago.

If I recall correctly, the general view has been that the 10-24 DX works well underwater - I'm just not sure on the port size. Probably 8" but maybe the 100/4" would work.

Sounds a wicked trip! Fingers crossed

 

 

Nauticam list the 8.5"acrylic dome I would think a 15mm equivalent focal length lens would be wanting a big port. Though for travel to a blue water destination maybe something a little smaller would work.  I would think a 100mm dome would be too small.

Comparing fisheye and rectilinear fields of view is not straight forward I find the best way is to look at the horizontal field of view , fisheyes stretch much more in the corners.  This approximates how big an animal will fill the frame.  The 8-15 zooms in from a 144° to 92° horizontal field.  With a 1.4x it covers 117° to 65° (roughly a 7.5 - 18.5mm in rectilinear terms).  The 10-24 covers 99 to 52° so quite a lot of overlap to the 8-15 with 1.4x.  Others can cover how the image quality compares.  Sharks will tend to look a little fatter in centre of field with the fisheye due to the barrel distortion.

Believe you have an 8"dome and on APS-C that might be acceptable for the 10-24mm  you could always get a S&S correction lens to improve the corners further or allow you to shoot a bit wider aperture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger Beach is still on my 'bucket list', but I've made several trips to Guadalupe. During my first trip (2016), I used a Nikon D7200 and a Nikkor 10-24mm to capture  images. While I got some great images during that first trip, I found myself wishing for a lens with more reach. Sometimes, the sharks came in close, but often, they didn't. Even when the sharks came in close, I found myself shooting at the longer end of my focal length range.

During most of my cage time, I climbed outside the viewing window and hung outside the cage to get closer to the sharks. I kept one leg wrapped around the inside of the cage so I could move back into the cage if necessary. 

I did have to make a hasty retreat back into the cage to avoid a large (16') male that must have thought I looked like a sea lion snack. The shark's run on me happened really quickly (like seconds) and I didn't even have time to adjust to a wider focal length as I slipped back inside the cage and he broke off to avoid hitting the cage. The following series of images were captured with my 10-24mm at 22mm and these versions have not been cropped.

AAC_9364.jpg.70819fbb93bbff31fb0a61d25b52d5fb.jpg

AAC_9365.jpg.f59722753d63dabd1cc16d50ceb81195.jpg

AAC_9366.JPG.ba018b98327d31f964c6f1fbc866d2d7.JPG

Yes, if I could have had time to zoom back to around 16mm to capture the third image in the series, I probably would've had the shark's eye and nose in the frame. I was too busy moving out of his way to even think about adjusting my focal length.

When I made subsequent trips to Guadalupe, I used a Nikkor 16-85mm and it worked well. One of the irritating things about using surface cages is the mackerel that take up residence under and around the boat. Those damn fish always seem to be in the right place to screw up a shot.

The Nikkor 10-24mm is a great lens. Most of the underwater images in my sea lion book were captured with a 10-24mm. If I were making a trip to Tiger Beach or another trip to Guadalupe, my 10-24mm would be in my equipment bag; I'd also be packing my 16-85mm.

For what it's worth, I use an 8" dome with my Nikkor 10-24mm and Nikkor 16-85mm. The 16-85mm does require a close-up filter to focus on the dome.

-Tinman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tinman said:

Tiger Beach is still on my 'bucket list', but I've made several trips to Guadalupe. During my first trip (2016), I used a Nikon D7200 and a Nikkor 10-24mm to capture  images. While I got some great images during that first trip, I found myself wishing for a lens with more reach. Sometimes, the sharks came in close, but often, they didn't. Even when the sharks came in close, I found myself shooting at the longer end of my focal length range.

During most of my cage time, I climbed outside the viewing window and hung outside the cage to get closer to the sharks. I kept one leg wrapped around the inside of the cage so I could move back into the cage if necessary. 

I did have to make a hasty retreat back into the cage to avoid a large (16') male that must have thought I looked like a sea lion snack. The shark's run on me happened really quickly (like seconds) and I didn't even have time to adjust to a wider focal length as I slipped back inside the cage and he broke off to avoid hitting the cage. The following series of images were captured with my 10-24mm at 22mm and these versions have not been cropped.

AAC_9364.jpg.70819fbb93bbff31fb0a61d25b52d5fb.jpg

AAC_9365.jpg.f59722753d63dabd1cc16d50ceb81195.jpg

AAC_9366.JPG.ba018b98327d31f964c6f1fbc866d2d7.JPG

Yes, if I could have had time to zoom back to around 16mm to capture the third image in the series, I probably would've had the shark's eye and nose in the frame. I was too busy moving out of his way to even think about adjusting my focal length.

When I made subsequent trips to Guadalupe, I used a Nikkor 16-85mm and it worked well. One of the irritating things about using surface cages is the mackerel that take up residence under and around the boat. Those damn fish always seem to be in the right place to screw up a shot.

The Nikkor 10-24mm is a great lens. Most of the underwater images in my sea lion book were captured with a 10-24mm. If I were making a trip to Tiger Beach or another trip to Guadalupe, my 10-24mm would be in my equipment bag; I'd also be packing my 16-85mm.

For what it's worth, I use an 8" dome with my Nikkor 10-24mm and Nikkor 16-85mm. The 16-85mm does require a close-up filter to focus on the dome.

-Tinman

Cheers pal, that's really useful advice, especially with the uncropped shots

thanks for taking the time to post them

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 11:00 AM, TimG said:

Hey Mike

Worth just searching for Adam Hanlon's review of rectilinear lenses he did a couple of years ago.

If I recall correctly, the general view has been that the 10-24 DX works well underwater - I'm just not sure on the port size. Probably 8" but maybe the 100/4" would work.

Sounds a wicked trip! Fingers crossed

 

 

 

10 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Nauticam list the 8.5"acrylic dome I would think a 15mm equivalent focal length lens would be wanting a big port. Though for travel to a blue water destination maybe something a little smaller would work.  I would think a 100mm dome would be too small.

Comparing fisheye and rectilinear fields of view is not straight forward I find the best way is to look at the horizontal field of view , fisheyes stretch much more in the corners.  This approximates how big an animal will fill the frame.  The 8-15 zooms in from a 144° to 92° horizontal field.  With a 1.4x it covers 117° to 65° (roughly a 7.5 - 18.5mm in rectilinear terms).  The 10-24 covers 99 to 52° so quite a lot of overlap to the 8-15 with 1.4x.  Others can cover how the image quality compares.  Sharks will tend to look a little fatter in centre of field with the fisheye due to the barrel distortion.

Believe you have an 8"dome and on APS-C that might be acceptable for the 10-24mm  you could always get a S&S correction lens to improve the corners further or allow you to shoot a bit wider aperture.

Tim / Chris

thanks for taking the time to reply. Its not so much the FoV details, more so do the sharks come close enough, especially at Guadalupe, for those lenses. I'll take both 4" and 8" domes if I get the 10-24. 

Anyway, plan A has failed at the first attempt - Shearwater is fully booked on my preferred dates. They have offered me other ones I can't do, there is still a possibility I could go on a trip at the other end of the holiday, otherwise Tiger Beach might br remaining on the bucket list for a little longer sadly. I'll see if any of the Bahamas trips can offer me anything but the price may mount up  if I'm not careful. 

Back to emailing the providers....

cheers

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pooley said:

 

Tim / Chris

thanks for taking the time to reply. Its not so much the FoV details, more so do the sharks come close enough, especially at Guadalupe, for those lenses. I'll take both 4" and 8" domes if I get the 10-24.

No worries Mike, the FOV numbers were just to allow you to compare the fisheye to the the rectilinear better.  Sounds like 24mm may not be quite enough at least at Guadalupe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after some well publicized cage incursions in the 2016 season, Nautilus closed up the cages considerably, and in 2017 there were a lot of admonishments to keep even hands inside.   Though I think you can manage with a 9" dome,  I went with a 6.   It can be a bit crowded with 3 in the dive cages and iirc, 4 in the surface ones.    You normally have a decently unobstructed path to the sector in front of you, but it can be a bit more difficult if you're trying to go more than 45 degrees off.   

For my time, the close approaches were rarer, and came fast.   The fisheye got no use, I stayed on the 7-14 the entire time.   My wife's compact (G7X) had a more useful range, I thought.  

Tiger Beach is much easier in these regards.   

Guadalupe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth...

I had an opportunity to do some diving with a Guadalupe operator a few weeks ago during a trip in the Gulf of California. The operator was in the area while having some work done on boats at one of the area's ports.

The Mexican government is requiring that Guadalupe operators make new cage modifications for the 2021 season. Cages must be closed-up considerably over what has been the past requirement. I didn't inquire about the new spacing requirements of the cage bars.  I guess there was a breach incident (probably 2019) that resulted in a shark dying.

In addition to my 8" dome, I have a 5" dome specifically designed and tuned for use with the Nikkor 10-24mm. Underwater Camera Stuff markets this dome. It's a good product.

-Tinman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2021 at 6:20 AM, calbeardiver said:

after some well publicized cage incursions in the 2016 season, Nautilus closed up the cages considerably, and in 2017 there were a lot of admonishments to keep even hands inside.   Though I think you can manage with a 9" dome,  I went with a 6.   It can be a bit crowded with 3 in the dive cages and iirc, 4 in the surface ones.    You normally have a decently unobstructed path to the sector in front of you, but it can be a bit more difficult if you're trying to go more than 45 degrees off.   

For my time, the close approaches were rarer, and came fast.   The fisheye got no use, I stayed on the 7-14 the entire time.   My wife's compact (G7X) had a more useful range, I thought.  

Tiger Beach is much easier in these regards.   

Guadalupe.jpg

Apologies  pal, I missed  your post. Thanks  for your advice, seems to fit in with what others are saying  much appreciated

4 hours ago, Tinman said:

For what it's worth...

I had an opportunity to do some diving with a Guadalupe operator a few weeks ago during a trip in the Gulf of California. The operator was in the area while having some work done on boats at one of the area's ports.

The Mexican government is requiring that Guadalupe operators make new cage modifications for the 2021 season. Cages must be closed-up considerably over what has been the past requirement. I didn't inquire about the new spacing requirements of the cage bars.  I guess there was a breach incident (probably 2019) that resulted in a shark dying.

In addition to my 8" dome, I have a 5" dome specifically designed and tuned for use with the Nikkor 10-24mm. Underwater Camera Stuff markets this dome. It's a good product.

-Tinman 

Cheers tinman, a bit worrying that they're  closing the bars up  from our  perspective . I'll make sure  I ask Nautilus what's  going  on with the cages and take a smaller  dome with me

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tinman said:

The Mexican government is requiring that Guadalupe operators make new cage modifications for the 2021 season. Cages must be closed-up considerably over what has been the past requirement. I didn't inquire about the new spacing requirements of the cage bars.  I guess there was a breach incident (probably 2019) that resulted in a shark dying.

-Tinman 

I wonder if that's more closed up than what Nautilus had already done, or other operators.    The entry to their's was pretty restrictive even 4 years go and the side gaps seems sufficient.   It would be bad, photographically, to lose much more.   As it stands, the bait fish make a real challenge at times.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...