All Activity

I'm very much hoping to do a set for a set, but perhaps you'd sell?

Looks like your current gear isn't holding you back!

Still figuring out lengths and how I want to connect to the DSLR style connectors. Planning on working through that this afternoon.

Sigh. $400. Any lower than this, and I'll just donate it to the local aquarium.

Thanks Tom, that's probably the most comprehensive and easy to follow structure i've seen.. I had been dreading trying to retrospectively organise mine - was very time consuming to start with. I'm now re-energised - a job for a rainy day.... with a quiet beer, of course!

Yeah, I’m not sure the WACP route will yield any gains that are really worth it for me compared to the WWL. Maybe if I start shooting at home in the Baltic Sea regularly… that does not involve flights.

@Jens H what browser/machine combo were you looking at the site on?

Very good points, Chris. Put differently, it is a bit like working with an upscaled image that is almost APS-C in size. Because you are using only the center of the optical system, the “corners” improve — although they are not really true corners anymore — much as they would if the photographer had simply cropped from the center of the image. So if one wanted to frame it positively, the credit for the improved corners and the straighter rendering arguably goes more to the air lens and its lens corrections than to the water-contact correction optic. 😉 The obvious downside, of course, is this: why take an expensive and bulky full-frame system underwater if you could achieve similar image quality with a more affordable and compact APS-C setup? Interesting - where did you find that? I’d really like to dig into those calculations.

Yes, it's unclear exactly what sets this and it varies between the WWL and WACP models as to which lenses they work with. I would guess that port charts for these optics are fairly complete and to get a better optic use the chart to help, but probably involves going to a WACP. I would think that the main limitation with some of these bigger lenses is the flat port size (port ID or the m67 port diameter causing vignetting), or some of the small primes a short enough port to properly accommodate them.

I looked into using the z24/1.8 with the wwl-c a while ago and this was the issue. Front element cause vignetting.

welcome aboard, some nice shots there, we can certainly help with GAS!

I only recently got into u/w photography after dabbling in above water wildlife photos as a hobby for a few years. I was fortunate enough to spend the second half of last year traveling around the Pacific and doing a ton of diving and photographing! I'm now fully hooked and working on upgrading my set up (that gear acquisition syndrome hits hard). A few of my favorites from my travels.

Most of the footage was shot near Mount Conero, therefore central Adriatic, in what they call "the Italian Lembeh". The water is on average very cold. It is a shallow sea with strong temperature fluctuations that partly protect it from these tropical species. But for example near Venice there has been an invasion of blue crabs for years now which have destroyed all the clam farms. The blue crab has no temperature issues. For example the fireworm has unfortunately become quite common in the Gulf of Naples and specimens have also been sighted in Tuscany where I usually dive. For a project on alien species I tried to find them with no luck. Ciao

That's a great project and I would love to beta-test it. Tagging species is very tedious - I do have a few folders where I did that to the best of my abilities (and that best is not going to be anywhere near as thorough as Tom!).

The link works, but I'm unable to click to join the beta.

There are a number of constraints when using lenses behind water contact optics, there is an entrance pupil constraint and there are also issues with zoom lenses that change length as they zoom and the lens hits the back of the optic (or the flat port for wet lenses) as it zooms in and they need to be close to the optics rear element to avoid vignetting. The 24-105 STM extends a lot as it zooms. Nikon users it appears may be be in a better position to try out a more advanced lens as the Nikon 24-70 is internal zooming while the Canon Equivalent extends as it zooms. If you look at the port charts the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is listed for Nauticam WACP, but nothing like that listed for Canon probably because all of their zooms in this range extend as they zoom. I know you don't like the fact that the corners on the kit zooms are black in the raw file. All this means is that the image is up-scaled (exactly as you upscale (resize) an image in photoshop) after they have been corrected for the barrel distortion. The corners aren't created the recorded image is expanded in size to "fill" the sensor. It appears the lens is actually wider than stated to allow for this and to capture of the full distorted image. This operation is competing against the loss of resolution in the corners of a rectilinear lens behind a dome and it seems that the wet lens combination wins on some occasions. The other advantage of the wet optics is that shooting at f5.6-8 is possible where the corners would be pretty mushy on a rectilinear behind a dome. I'm quite sure this could be improved with a better base lens, but for many these kit zooms are good compromise, being significantly smaller, lighter, cheaper and the optical quality is good enough. Another consideration is that an 8-15 is much closer to being a 4.0x zoom as the barrel distortion magnifies the the centre of frame. So if you place a 2.0x behind an 8-15 and you look at the horizontal field width it zooms from 145° to 67° which is equivalent to a 6.5mm to 27mm rectilinear lens approximately. Using the horizontal field gives a better idea of what size object you can fit within the field. Looking at the WACP - calculations show that this is closest to a stereographic projection fisheye, using the formula for that projection provides the best match to the stated diagonal fields at the extremes of the zoom range. This matches well with the statement that the WWL-c/24-50 has straighter lines than the Tokina 10-17 zoomed to the same extent.

After making the above post I saw that there was a big error in my hiearchy which I have just fixed. Fishes was in the wrong place. It was an easy fix.

A hierarchy is useful for doing the whole taxonomic nine yards. Here is an example from my LR catalog. I only have to type in pi, the first two letters in pink, and LR often gives me pink salmon as the first choice. Select that and all the higher bits are automatically added on LR export such as when generating jpegs. Note that I have over 91K pix of just that species but the number above is smaller. It is possible to equalize the numbers but it is time consuming so I have not done it for a while. As well you will note the mixture of English and scientific names. This is so the English names for higher taxonomic groups also get included in the key-wording. The includes some rather obvious words like vertebrate. I have been using LR since version 1.0 so this is a fairly developed KW list. It is VERY easy to modify. Just drag the keyword around in the list. Put it under the KW you want in the hierarchy. I have done a LOT of modification over the years. This includes having to deal with taxonomic revision such as for the mantas a few years ago. Often have to fix spelling errors! Need to do some clean up as well - the fish prey KW needs to be moved or deleted. I use the # symbol as well as all caps to designate a division in the KW list just to keep them more organized. It can selected (via a dialog box) so that this not exported hence it is a non-keyword.

Looks like a potentially useful tool. Looks like I will not be able to use it as I have Intel macs (tower and laptop) and will NOT be updating my pro model anytime soon (very last Intel model). At any rate it looks like you have loaded up on beta testers. I think the way to do the test is to make a "daughter" catalog for one area. I have done this for Hawaii and loaded it onto my laptop for a trip to HI. I was thus able to use existing keywords as well as see what I already have in the way of pix for a given spp etc. as I imported new images. New pix were in a new folder in this catalog. On return home I made a daughter catalog (selecting the new folder) on my laptop which was then imported onto my mothership (tower computer).

Ultralight has also recently released one https://ulcs.com/product/ultralight-ctk-dwtk-camera-dome-weight-trim-kit-for-underwater-camera-housings/ Not sure if it would be bad or not to have it in transport and not be able to set it down on the base. It is nice that it can move around based on which dome and extension is being used.

I am a Biologist and willing to test. However, as others already stated, I am worried about my catalogue. Does the plugin automatically write the data or just after approving a suggestion from the app? I would strongly prefer a standalone app which I can use for my developed files only. They are easy to restore. Just in case… The text on your website which is located on the right hand side of the page (black background) is unreadable (cut on the right side). Regards, Jens

Super. Lets see a photo of your rig with the shiny new fiber!

I have one triple clamp i have not used in a decade. I would be happy to trade it for a long clamp.

I have two Nauticam long clamps looking to trade for two Nauticam triple clamps. I have either regular or the MP version and could trade either.

I've received my Dave's cables kit, awesome amount of accessories included. Looking forward to setting it up.