Diving with Nikon Z9?

[phxazcraig 123]

I've got a Nauticam housing on order for my Z9.  I'm wondering which AF settings work, and which ones don't, for free-swimming fish.  Do any of the subject detection modes reliably work for fish?  Or is it just stick with 3d-tracking?

[nomadadv 5]

it stick with 3 tracking for macros i would also use single point af i guess it all comes down to what lens you are using and what kind of shot you are going for! I am very interested in the how perfoms the z9 especially for video so please keep posting !

 

[phxazcraig 123]

As it happened I didn't get into video more than superficially.  I had a lot to learn with the Z9 underwater, and on top of new camera I was also trying a new wetsuit and new fins.  (My old fins were from 2006.  Big change.)   Along with some struggles and a lot of poor sunshine, I ended up not starting to learn video before the last 3 days or so.   My comparison is to the D850.  I'm not even a beginner yet with video.

The Z9 allowed me to actually use autofocus during video, so there was a huge advantage.  I can say that functionally that seemed the biggest difference, aside of course from massively better video specs.  I didn't try to do more than 4k 60p.  The white balance issues from the D850 seemed to continue with preset WB failing at about 50 feet with photos.  But I accidentally discovered that you could WB a bit lower in video - not much, but some.   And someone else did a bit of investigation and said that WB between stills and video modes is different.  Video allows hue adjustments, but not stills.   But this was also with firmware 2.1.

For stills, I did a lot of shooting with both 14-30s and 105s.   I ended up doing mostly 3D tracking, with a couple of attempts at subject detection in wide area to see if it would pick up on fish or eels.  (It didn't).  Shots are here: https://www.cjcphoto.net/roatan2022/index.html

I did a write up here of my thoughts right after the diving.

[phxazcraig 123]

I've now added 16 dives in Truk to the Z9's list.   I shot all wide angle with the 14-30, S&S IRC, and 230mm dome port.   Mostly at F8 and ISO 500. I used 3d tracking exclusively, and it was never an issue to get it to work.  It's like the D850, except it doesn't feel like a D850 if that makes sense.  Anyway, AF was quite reliable when I did my job.  A few times it missed focus, and I must have tripped the shutter before AF finished.  Mostly it stayed right where I wanted, even with focus-and-recompose.   There were times when I got close to a large anemone and could drop the ISO to 64 - the results were gorgeous.  Zooming in one one at 100% immediately showed a circle of 6 Pedersen Cleaning Shrimp in the anemone.  The 14-30 at times was beautiful from edge to edge, and at other times seemed smeared in the corners.  I think, at the wider focal lengths, the out-of-focus plane in front (of the focus plane, nearest to camera) seems particularly bad, which means I probably need to change my focus point closer.  It's a better lens if you don't have anything in the first 3 feet of you when focusing on a wall 10 feet away. 

One thing I made much more use of was changing ISO.   Particularly going inside the wrecks I needed to boost ISO (to 1000), and back outside I was blowing highlights at 500.  With the 3.01 firmware I was able to remap the ISO button to Fn4 so it was right under my left thumb.   Made it far easier to change than reaching over the camera with my left to spin a dial while my right was holding the ISO key down at the same time.

In post-processing the images, I'm seeing essentially D850 images.  They are stunning at ISO 64, but it's easy to blow white highlights at ISO 500.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

24 minutes ago, phxazcraig said:

 I think, at the wider focal lengths, the out-of-focus plane in front (of the focus plane, nearest to camera) seems particularly bad, which means I probably need to change my focus point closer.  It's a better lens if you don't have anything in the first 3 feet of you when focusing on a wall 10 feet away. 

 

This is fairly typical for all lenses apart from in macro shooting but potentially more noticeable for UW wide angle shots, it's basically because of the total depth of field you have available 1/3 is in front of the the focus point and 2/3 is behind the focus point, so you need to somewhere on the nearer objects to get them included in the depth of field.  This is also true for wide angle shots on land for example the classic technique of getting in very close to a foreground subject with the scene behind it it - you need to focus somewhere in the foreground to get everything in focus. 

You don't want to focus on the nearest element as DOF is wasted in open water in front of the that element, but somewhere close to the nearest point.Shooting at f8 of course makes getting this right more critical.

[TimG 62]

Worth a read from DPReview using a Z9 underwater

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9688931673/it-s-a-paradigm-shift-underwater-photographer-nicolas-remy-talks-about-shooting-with-the-nikon-z9

[Interceptor121 843]

On 7/29/2023 at 8:11 PM, TimG said:

Worth a read from DPReview using a Z9 underwater

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9688931673/it-s-a-paradigm-shift-underwater-photographer-nicolas-remy-talks-about-shooting-with-the-nikon-z9

Very different from what I expected. I’ve used a few Nikon DSLRs, and I was expecting the Z9 to be an iterative improvement, but it’s a paradigm shift. Especially the viewfinder. In underwater photography, like all wildlife photography, it can be tricky to get close to your subject. Sometimes you have to squeeze between rocks and fight with currents, and once you’re in position, you have to take a test shot to see if the framing and lighting is right.

With a DSLR, reviewing your photos means taking your eye away from the viewfinder and tilting the camera down, which risks bumping against a rock, kicking up sand, or scaring the subject.

But with the electronic live view, the Z9’s viewfinder is always bright enough to compose a shot, and I can check a test image without having to reposition and look at the back of the camera.

Is a paradigm shift for him a DSLR user but that is actually a feature of any mirrorless camera quite interesting that this is the main advantage for him.

[LarryHallas 45]

On 3/17/2023 at 10:09 PM, phxazcraig said:

I shot all wide angle with the 14-30, S&S IRC, and 230mm dome port.   Mostly at F8 and ISO 500

You are getting A LOT better corners than I am getting with the Z 14-30, S&S IRC and a 230mm dome on a Z6 II, although the corners are still much better with the S&S IRC. I wonder if it's due to the considerably better AF on the Z9? Any of these shot at 14mm? 14mm is where I still get the corner distortion (stretched corners) even with the S&S IRC. I find that zooming in to ~17-18mm the corners are almost perfect and I really don't lose that much FOV. 

Edited July 31 by LarryHallas

[ChrisRoss 150]

2 hours ago, LarryHallas said:

You are getting A LOT better corners than I am getting with the Z 14-30, S&S IRC and a 230mm dome on a Z6 II, although the corners are still much better with the S&S IRC. I wonder if it's due to the considerably better AF on the Z9? Any of these shot at 14mm? 14mm is where I still get the corner distortion (stretched corners) even with the S&S IRC. I find that zooming in to ~17-18mm the corners are almost perfect and I really don't lose that much FOV. 

It can also depend on where you focus.  If you focus on the far point in the frame you are wasting depth of field.  In wide angle 1/3 of DOF is in front of focus point and 2/3 behind.  If you focus on the closest thing in frame you are focused closer and the corners of the the virtual image will be closer to being in focus.    You also have to be aware of having really close items in the corners which can happen when shooting along walls, where part of the wall closest to you can be significantly closer to you than the main subject..

[Interceptor121 843]

9 hours ago, LarryHallas said:

You are getting A LOT better corners than I am getting with the Z 14-30, S&S IRC and a 230mm dome on a Z6 II, although the corners are still much better with the S&S IRC. I wonder if it's due to the considerably better AF on the Z9? Any of these shot at 14mm? 14mm is where I still get the corner distortion (stretched corners) even with the S&S IRC. I find that zooming in to ~17-18mm the corners are almost perfect and I really don't lose that much FOV. 

Stretched corners may depend on the lens correction in post or incorrect positioning of the dome.

I would try to deactivate lens corrections first

[phxazcraig 123]

On 7/31/2023 at 3:04 PM, LarryHallas said:

You are getting A LOT better corners than I am getting with the Z 14-30, S&S IRC and a 230mm dome on a Z6 II, although the corners are still much better with the S&S IRC. I wonder if it's due to the considerably better AF on the Z9? Any of these shot at 14mm? 14mm is where I still get the corner distortion (stretched corners) even with the S&S IRC. I find that zooming in to ~17-18mm the corners are almost perfect and I really don't lose that much FOV. 

I don't do much special here.  More like 'F8 and be there'.   Lots of my shots were at 14mm, but I'm not quite sure which shots you are looking at. 

I routinely tell Lightroom to correct for lens distortions.  I check that box and leave things at the defaults.

If you are also shooting the 14-30 through a 230mm dome, what extension length are you using?  I've got 50mm for the Z9/14-30, 90mm for the D850/16-35.

In any case you could go to my personal web site at www.cjcphoto.net and look at both the Roatan 2022 and Truk 2023 albums.  They were both shot with the 14-30, and the EXIF data is there to see the parameters.   I have one shot taken at F14 that shows perhaps how good this lens can be, but I normally don't shoot that stopped down with wide angle.

I did a series of test shots at different apertures you can look at here: https://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/14-30/

Again, it is very important to have the point of focus in the correct distance.  If the focus point is a bit too far away, the foreground will be out of focus at least somewhat, and this seems to be the ugliest type of out-of-focus area.   Out of focus areas behind the focus point not only seem more natural, the quality of the blur is more pleasing as well.  The 14-30 can have bad looking corners too if you put out-of-focus elements there.  Try to simply avoid things too close that are not the immediate subject.

As noted before, I used to shoot the 16-35 for a long time on a D810, then a D850.  All of my shots were disappointing to me, and virtually all were cropped to eliminate the worst of the blurring.  Once I added the S&S lens/filter, I was much much happier.   I'm assuming the 14-30 has inherent advantages just because of the bigger lens mount, but I added the S&S to be sure.

I've just come back from a 10-day trip to Alaska where I used the 14-30 for flightsees.  Even through the plastic windows of the small planes, I got amazingly-sharp results.

Edited August 3 by phxazcraig

[LarryHallas 45]

5 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

it is very important to have the point of focus in the correct distance.  If the focus point is a bit too far away, the foreground will be out of focus at least somewhat, and this seems to be the ugliest type of out-of-focus area.   Out of focus areas behind the focus point not only seem more natural, the quality of the blur is more pleasing as well.  The 14-30 can have bad looking corners too if you put out-of-focus elements there.  Try to simply avoid things too close that are not the immediate subject.

I believe you and Chris are correct. My center of focus is always in the middle of the frame which may be further back than the closer reef at the lower part of the frame (and corners). I am going out next week for a wide angle shoot and will position my focus area on the closest part of the frame and let you know the results. 

With exception of the Z camera body, our wide angle configuration is identical. Nikon Z 14-30mm with S&S IRC, 230mm dome port with 50mm port extension. 

Thanks for the tips! 

[TimG 62]

6 hours ago, LarryHallas said:

I believe you and Chris are correct. My center of focus is always in the middle of the frame which may be further back than the closer reef at the lower part of the frame (and corners).

This is a really good point and something, embarrassingly, I've never really thought about. I'm off on a  trip shortly which is almost all wide-angle too so will use it.

Thanks, Chris and Craig!

[Interceptor121 843]

This is a really good point and something, embarrassingly, I've never really thought about. I'm off on a  trip shortly which is almost all wide-angle too so will use it.
Thanks, Chris and Craig!

I ran many tests to make this point
You need to focus nearer and the dome takes care of the rest however this only works when you don’t have a clear subject and you have time to compose the shot
I shoot lots of f8 and f11 on full frame and the corner issues are minimal unless you have some piece of coral really near out of focus range


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TimG 62]

26 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I ran many tests to make this point
You need to focus nearer and the dome takes care of the rest however this only works when you don’t have a clear subject and you have time to compose the shot
I shoot lots of f8 and f11 on full frame and the corner issues are minimal unless you have some piece of coral really near out of focus range


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ido 18]

Hi, Can anyone please explain what is: S&S lens/filter ?

I use Nikon Z7 2 with 14-30 or 8-15 lenses.

 

Thank you

[TimG 62]

ido, are you thinking of the correction-type lens that folks have been using with the Nikkor 16-35 F-mount and the 14-30 Z-mount?

If so, this is to help with better corners when used with, usually, a 230 domeport. They have been hard to find of late and have increased in price significantly to $600+. @phxazcraig was/is using one and several others.

No use with the Nikkor 8-15mm.

[Interceptor121 843]

31 minutes ago, ido said:

Hi, Can anyone please explain what is: S&S lens/filter ?

I use Nikon Z7 2 with 14-30 or 8-15 lenses.

 

Thank you

The sea and sea filter is a flat field corrector. This is somethig used in telescopes to correct coma at the edges which has a similar effect to corner pulling with certain combinations of lenses and domes

Based on my experience once you have the appropriate combination of lens and dome this effect disappears 

Sea and Sea designed this with specific lenses and domes in mind (see their page) but some users have tried the lens with other combinations

For what concerns the Nikon 14-30 is a lens that does not focus particularly close therefore requiring dome very large dome radius

The 230 dome has a radius of 12 cm so whatever you do this will not be ideal despite of any corrector lens you may choose

Ideally find a lenses that focuses close and potentially narrower as the issue is excarbated by the field of view

[ido 18]

Thank you Tim and interceptor121. Yes - I meant a correction-type lens for my 14-30.

I use my 14-30 with 6.5 (glass) and 8 inch (acrylic) domes (with 40mm extended + zoom ring) 

Thank you. 

2 pics for reference:  

The fish (second pic)  are at 30 mm. The coral is 15mm

both 6.3 f.

 

Edited August 12 by ido

[TimG 62]

Worth talking to @phxazcraig about his experiences with it on the 14-30. 

[Interceptor121 843]

34 minutes ago, ido said:

Thank you Tim and interceptor121. Yes - I meant a correction-type lens for my 14-30.

I use my 14-30 with 6.5 (glass) and 8 inch (acrylic) domes (with 40mm extended + zoom ring) 

Thank you. 

2 pics for reference:  

The fish (second pic)  are at 30 mm. The coral is 15mm

both 6.3 f.

 

The first image has the pulling effect. The camera focuses on the anemone however the bottom corners are closer to the lens so end up a bit garbled.

In the second photo the effect is less pronounced as the distance difference is less but this does not actually suffer from the pulling effect because it is focussed further away

Generally rectilinear lenses when shot at very close range look funny not just underwater try a picture top side that looks like your anemone and see how it looks

[ido 18]

Thanks

[phxazcraig 123]

On 8/12/2023 at 6:44 AM, ido said:

Thank you Tim and interceptor121. Yes - I meant a correction-type lens for my 14-30.

I use my 14-30 with 6.5 (glass) and 8 inch (acrylic) domes (with 40mm extended + zoom ring) 

Thank you. 

2 pics for reference:  

The fish (second pic)  are at 30 mm. The coral is 15mm

both 6.3 f.

 

OK, I see what you are thinking about here.  I'd say this looks similar to, but not as bad as, my  old 16-35 without the IRC.   So it looks like the 14-30 starts out being a better lens, which doesn't surprise me considering the z-mount advantages.  It's a little hard to tell for sure, because the focus point is important.   Too much distance between the focus point and the nearest objects results in a smeary, ugly, unnatural out-of-focus area.  But I do think you can get better results with the lens, in general.  I'm shooting mine through a 230mm glass dome with a 50mm extension.   If you aren't shooting the same, it's hard for me to draw conclusions, especially since I've never shot my 14-30 underwater without an IRC mounted.   I can say that I'm generally happy with the results I'm getting now, while I was generally unhappy with the 16-35 performance before the IRC.

As for availability, it's hard to find in stock these days in stores, but some can order direct from S&S to get you one.  Price last summer was about $750.   It was specifically designed for only a couple of lenses to be used in a 230mm or 240mm dome, so ended up being pretty specific to the 16-35.  It may be that the 14-30 doesn't really need it, if you are using a 230/240mm dome with it.

[ido 18]

Thank you