All Activity

As per the title, I'm interested in a discussion about the options for rectilinear WA on the Nikon mirrorless platform. I'm moving from Nikon D850 where I had been shooting 16-35/4 Nikon with the S&S correction filter behind a 230mm Zen glass dome. I have been a bit dissatisfied with the 16-35/4 optics - yes I've gotten my shots, but they feel "lacking". I already own the 230mm Zen dome and am willing to haul it on trips. I'm covered when it comes to FE = RS13 conversion headed for re-conversion to Sony E with a metadapt E to Z. It appears that there are several options for Nikon mirrorless when it comes to rectilinear... - Keep F lens situation as is - BUT, optics have always been a bit "soft" - even in the middle of the image - 24-50 Z lens and WWL-C - BUT, there are image "compromises" when trying to manipulate physics - 16-30 Z lens and Zen 230mm Dome - BUT, not clear what extension is needed = I've found answers stating: 40,45,50,and 55mm extensions!!! - 24-70 Z lens and WACP - BUT, anyone want to fund me for the cost of the WACP2???!!! AND, while it seems that 230mm possible, the 180mm is "preferred" (per asterisk on the N120 Z Nauticam port chart) - and extension situation also potentially "different" than port chart as Zen dome vs Nauticam... I'd love to hear some REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE comparing these options: "I get great pics with the WWL-C" isn't the same as "I've shot both and I like X over Y for these reasons"...

Emirates has consistently weighed my carry-on plus personal bag and enforced the weight limit of 7kg total for both. I had to move stuff to my large check bag, put items in my jacket pockets or check my carry-on roller and just carry on my personal bag. My personal bag is a ThinkTank Airport essentials backpack. It is sized to fit under the seat. Many of the small planes used for remote locations cannot fit roller bags or larger bags in the overhead compartments. You will be forced to check the bag at check-in counter or the gate. I put camera, lenses, laptop and anything delicate in the personal sized backpack. I do like bags designed for camera protection. In the past I have use protective wraps in regular luggage only to find my gear unwrapped and an inspection note in my bag. I did have light reflectors bent out of their round shape as a result.

Did he say he used an action cam to record the test ? Does an action cam auto adjust exposure to make the overall scene look the way it wants ? I don't doubt the Keldan had the most even and powerful output, but if the camera used to record the test is auto adjusting, the real differences btw the lights will be hard to see.

Aloha and welcome @JMC22

“Eric Cheng, who ran Wetpixel through its glory years, recently downloaded the entire site and being a software whizz, set about creating an extensive Wetpixel Wiki to chart the history of Wetpixel and the first 20 years of digital underwater photography.” The History of UW Photography

The weight is the limit. 7 or 8 kgs is now the norm on almost all economy flights. They might not check it at check-in, but quite often, they will. It doesn’t matter if you look ”suspicious” or not. So my advice for anyone traveling with UW camera gear a few times a year: develop a different strategy that does not depend on luck and instead involve checking most things and only carry on essentials to at least be able to shoot something in a lost case scenario.

Divevolk SL50 (5000 Lumen) Divevolk SL120 (12000 Lumen) KELDAN 8XR Ambient (18000 Lumen) Sea Frogs SF100 (10000 Lumen) The Lumen number tells you how much lighting power a specific underwater video light can output at its maximum power level. This is oftentimes considered by divers to be one of the most important figures when deciding for an underwater video light. This video show you what the actual difference in maximum output power looks like between a 5000 Lumen, a 10000 Lumen, a 12000 Lumen and a 18000 Lumen underwater video light. The test was conducted in a controlled environment (indoor pool) with constant ambient lighting. This is not a scientific test, by any means, but a demonstration of how much of a difference is present between those currently quite popular maximum output levels (=Lumen).

I've tried Firefox too - same result! I just tried what you suggested with the page zoom level - still no joy! If someone could please use the Snipping Tool or something similar and send them to me I would be grateful, the graphs that I am missing are - - Guide Numbers - Weights - Power Levels - Flash Duration Edit - I have now been able to get the full screen version of the Guide Numbers to display by reducing Page Zoom to 80%, but the others won't display even with Page Zoom set to 50%... The others all appear as expected with Page Zoom at 100%

To my mind this would be ideal for Giant Pacific Octopus, letting me get a wide perspective inside the den while also being a decent FL for filming if I happen on one out for a stroll. I'd prefer to have it on a flip holder. If it folded over the port I could see 3D printing some sort of cradle to support it when folded and possible add flotation. I'm not a huge fan of the stix since they lose flotation past 30m but I rarely do macro that deep anyway.

Down for me, too. I hope someone has saved the site data or that it has been properly archived somehow.

Nice. Looks like you had better viz than I did.

I didn't have any issue with any of my Windows systems. Edge and Brave (both Chromium based) However, I had an idea I think I figured it out. If I monkey around with the >Page Zoom< level I was able to get the graph to vanish. Then I had to restore to 100% and refresh or close/open the page before the graph would render correctly again. Play around with your Page Zoom settings and see if you can't get it to work. It is also possible a non-Chromium browser like FireFox might work differently and give a different result, but I didn't try that.

Aloha and welcome @kenjiang

So probably not just a Windows problem then. I'm going to email Backscatter and see if they can send me a pdf - if so I will send a copy to you.

Just tried an Incognito browser tab - same problem unfortunately Just tried the same combination - still no joy! I might contact Backscatter.

Estimated U/W weight is 160g or under 6oz so 40g or 1.41oz heaver than the in water weight for Nauticam MFO-3/3II. I suspect a beer cozy would more than offset the buoyancy. On another issue I understand the excitement of wanting a very close focusing 24mm but I am just as excited to use it as a portrait lens for larger subject like the two attached photos both taken at 24mm.

Site is down for me, also checked downforeveryone and it reports it down.

working for me currently - using Windows/Firefox

StiX already has an adjustable float collar for macro ports $65 USD

I was thinking the same, but given the weight of the MV24, I think they are recommending putting it on the rig after getting into the water - which might even be a better idea if combining with a MV60 on a triple flip - One lens you forgot in your list is the MFO-1 I would think a double flip with a MFO-1 & either a SMC-3/MFO-3 depending on the site & then put the MV24 & other in a pocket