All Activity

Very interesting, @Dave_Hicks ! I like the streamlined design. Let us know how it goes.

It's a little video beast. Basically it's the GH7 sensor in a smaller factor. I read the lens has a MFD of only 3cm and it has a mech shutter.. It could be a killer compact camera for uw use. Nauticam announced a housing already.

This is still a draft print, maybe one more iteration before a functional waterproof version. I will plan to dive it this weekend for a test run. The draft print is less dense than the final article so it is positively buoyant. I intend for the pair to be slightly negative, around 20 grams. Versus 250 grams negative for the HF-1 itself.

Good news everybody! The lens has already made it to optical bench hub: https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/US20260029629_Example06P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis Two some very good indicators that suggest it to be a good uw candidate: 1.) Entrance Pupil just moves 4.35 mm during zoom 2.) Just 42mm front glas diameter (will work with many water corrective optics) 3.) Minimum subject distance in Front of the lens = 123,2 mm = 12,32 cm 94° diagonal FOV @ 20mm behind a dome

i'll take it-pm sent

Pics?

I sort of designed a HF-1 form fitting float today that leaves the strobe about 20 grams negative in the water, adding ~230 grams buoyancy. Much less janky than foam blocks.

Great to have you with us. A warm welcome to Waterpixels. Best wishes

The RS13 is well smaller than most macro ports. Even with 230mm dome, using the ball-clamp-ball it would be well above the dome. And could be moved forward also instead of just up. I guess i could just get the WA afterwards for it, if see the need. Japan just has very nice pricing at the moment. Also would be interested how much it actually brings to the table compared to the no lens option.

I was able to get this printed and confirmed that this gear fits perfectly.

i guess you are shooting with a dome? if you are ...very likely you will see part of your dome. i wont need to put a wide angle lens on it... imo...

intresting... item... not in europe... hope to see how much they will be...

Interesting choice of name, which reminds me of the unmentioned Lumix LX10 which I still currently use for video. It's excellent for that (more practical than the LX100 series), within its limitations. This new model seemed to have upped the game, at last: It can shoot 4K video in either DCI or UHD aspect ratios at up to 120p, or 5.6K DCI-shaped video at up to 60p, or 4:3 'open gate' 5.2K footage at up to 60p. The video modes make use of the same multi-aspect approach as stills modes do, so the 5.2K footage is taken from a much taller region of the sensor than the ∼17:9 5.6K video, making it tall enough to extract 2160 x 3840 (vertical 9:16 4K) crops, if you're using it to deliver both horizontal and vertical video from the same capture. On the dust issue: The original LX100 developed something of a reputation for sucking dust into its sensor, in part because pocket cameras tend to be carried and used in wide, varied and challenging conditions. Panasonic said they made efforts to reduce this risk with the Mark II, and we've heard fewer complaints from users of the newer model. No further claims were made about the L10, so it's likely to be worth remembering that it's not fully sealed (it has an extending zoom, after all), but shouldn't be as susceptible as the Mk 1 was.

FOR SALE: Preowned, used Seacam Superdome 9" (~240mm) glass dome port. Overall in pretty good condition. Plastic (removable) shades are plenty scratched, as usual, but obviously they no effect on performance. Majority of the center glass in very good condition. NOTE: There are a few scratches on the dome's outer surface, positioned out to the sides. Detailed info on the scratches: On one side, there's a ding about 2mm, roundish. Red dot on photo gives approx position. Note that this is well out of the center area, off to the periphery. Then on the other side of the dome, pretty much opposite, there are a few scratches. Red circle on the first photo (wide photo showing the entire dome port) show you the general area where they are positioned.. Once again, note that they are far from the center. These are not deep- I don't feel them with my fingernail. These are kind of like "scuff scratches", and definitely not as bad as real scratches or gouges in terms of affecting image quality. (I have been shooting glass domes for 35 years, and I keep shooting domes until they are in far worse condition than this... I'm only selling this now because I sold my Seacam housings a while back and this has been sitting unusued in my closet.) Size-wise, there are a couple scratches about 1 cm length. And then a couple more about 1 inch in length. All kind of in the same general vicinity. I had a hard time photographing them so that they would be visible in these pictures. The 3 close up pictures attempt to show the scratches. It's possible that when shooting into the sun you, sometimes, may see some indication of these in the photo, but not in the main center area of the frame, not over where most/all of your main subject is likely to be, because all of these are far away from the center. When shooting coral reef scenes, wrecks, etc. at depth, or blue water with the sun at your back, or on overcast days etc., I honestly don't think they will be noticeable in any way. When I was shooting Seacam I was still using this dome regularly for all kinds of images, splits and underneath, with a variety of lenses (fisheye, 14mm, 16-35, etc.) and I did not feel the need to replace the glass yet. Asking $575 USD, with payment via Paypal (or cash in person). Price Includes shipping in the contiguous USA. Seacam shooters already know how expensive these are new, well north of $2000 USD. I'm doing my best to offer this at a price that accurately reflects the dome's condition and still represents a good deal for someone out there in need of a big dome who wants to save money. Thank you, Brandon

FOR SALE: Inon Z330 strobe. Preowned, well used. Not the prettiest specimen cosmetically, but still does its job. I just shot it in April in BC. NOTE: Focus light does not work, and hasn’t for a couple years. But being weak and off-center, it was never that useful to begin with, to be honest. So I didn’t miss it. Main flash tube is still excellent. Battery compartment clean. Never flooded. Electrical sync cable bulkhead clean. Never flooded. Front dome element excellent, as it almost always had a diffuser covering it. Note, 2 diffusers are included. And Nauticam angle ball mount also included, as well as spare new o-rings. I will also throw in a set of 4 Eneloop Pro batteries if you want. Well-used batteries, but would be a handy backup set to newer ones. Asking $250 for everything shown here, payment via Paypal, shipping included in the contiguous USA. Thank you, Brandon

Hi. I was a long-time member on Wetpixels. So I finally migrated to here. I've been shooting underwater photos and video since the early 2000s. Amazed at all of the tech change. I love snorkeling and diving in streams and rivers. My favorite targets are salmon, trout, insects, and other critters that live in the flowing beauty of water.

It is very similar to the LX100/LX100II. I had 10 yrs ago the LX100 and it was a very good compact camera for underwater use especially for video. I just hope the LX10 does not have the LX100 plague i.e. a non dustproof lens barrel as it was an expensive repair to have the sensor cleaned.

Yes, please ask... I think there are several interested...

I, personally, am not a compact camera UW photographer... This camera looks to be an alternative to the common Sony and Canon compact cameras used UW? https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9011490317/panasonic-l10-2026-tour-controls-changes DivePhotoGuideNauticam Announces Housing for the Panasonic Lumix L10

He closed his shop several years ago, but since I know him very well personally, I can still get materials from him. I can ask if he might also sell to third parties.

Can you please give details about the manufacturer and how to order the floats?

Which dome are you using with the 24-105? Is the IQ overall better than EF 8-15/4 (center and edges)? I could not detect any difference in autofocus behavior between the Canon EF/RF adapter and the Commlite. Did you also test a 1.4 extender? So far, I've only been able to compare the extenders over water: In the center of the image, there's virtually no difference in image quality between the Canon RF 1.4 and 2.0 (zoomed to 200%), but at the edges, the 2.0 is noticeably worse. And my old Kenko 1,4 Teleplus Pro 300 DGX performed significantly worse than my Canon RF extenders in all situations, especially visible at the edges. What I noticed: with the combination of Commlite + Canon RF Ext., you should switch off the IBIS in the camera, otherwise there are strange, disturbing shake corrections in the viewfinder.

Here is how I would rank it, IQ sharpness wise: 1.) RF 24-105 STM (the sharpest!) 2.) Canon EF 8-15mm with original EF-RF Adapter 3.) Canon EF 8-15mm with comlite EF-RF Adapter (I have not shot this combination, as the comlite seems to exhibit some dismal AF performance compared to the Camon EF-RF adapter already on land) - so this is a „I suppose“ line 4.) Canon Fisheye 8-15 with original Canon RF-EF adapter and Kenko 2.0x TC 5.) Canon Fisheye 8-15 with modified Comlite RF-EF adapter and Canon RF 2.0x TC

I think the answer is with a 1.4/2x you are always further away than you would be with a bare lens and with a wet lens. With a 2x you can match nearly a 100mm macro with an SMC-3 (2x vs about 2.2-2.3x depending on which macro lens). Basically more water between you and your subject which will degrade the image. If you back off to get 1:1 with a 100mm_macro/2.0x you have the reach of a 200mm macro, so if you had a 100mm lens with 300mm focus distance and 150mm working distance at 1:1 you would double that distance with a 200mm focal length lens depending on how much the lens reduces in focal length to achieve 1:1 with and IF design. It gets worse as you progressively shoot larger subjects. A 1.4x might be a good compromise to give a bit more working distance compared to the bare lens and wet lens at a given magnification.. Also bear in mind that the longer focal length of the lens + TC combo will give you significantly more magnification than the bare lens with the same wet lens. For example the m43 Pany 45mm lens gets 1.6x with CMC-1 while the 60mm macro gets 2.0x (both 1:1 lenses) and 60mm is near 1.4x 45mm. so the new Sony macro might go from 2.4x with SMC-3 to 3.3x with a 1.4x and 4.8x when used with a 2x. So a 1.4x/2.0x locks you into smaller subjects than a bare lens/wet lens combo does and the impact would be noticeable I think in the 0.5x -1:1 range and lower magnifications unless the water was crystal clear. It may work well for skittish mobile subjects like small fish if this was the sole subject of your dive. You might also degrade AF performance with the 2x at max magnification again depending on lens/body combination

Interesting! How am I supposed to understand this sentence? Does the fisheye lens without any extender (adapted to the camera only with the Commlite) have less IQ than the fisheye lens with the Kenko 2.0x PRO TC? But you also have to adapt that one to a Canon DSLM with some adapter...