-
Why don’t someone just make a classic 15 mm fisheye lens for the new mirrorless bodies. Optimally a 15-30 fisheye zoom, but that would be too much asked for. I’ll take a 15 prime thank you.
-
Wish i’d have seen this post before I ordered a new macro port from Nauticam to replace one with blotches on the glass.
-
The letter from the ”secretary of tourism” unfortunately does not suggest any positive actions for uw-photographers or divers. The ATA documents will significantly increase the cost of bringing your personal equipment into Mexico, so I think it will actually create more incentive for ”enterprenaurial” initiatives by individual customs personnel. Completely detached inmo. Personally I’ve had Socorro on my list too, but will boycott and go to Malpelo, Galapagos or Cocos instead in that side of the world.
-
Ridiculous. This Bernardo Cueto Riestra is either too lazy to grasp the issue and why it is unreasonable, or he just don’t care—which is his job as the secretary of tourism. I cancelled a WS in Socorro earlier this year and went to the Maldives instead to shoot sharks.
-
HSS Size/weight Battery type
-
I’ve taken the wwl-c off under water and shot the 24-50 @50, holding the wwl in hand. Not directly optimal but it worked occasionally. It’s more or less neutral uw thanks to a buoyancy collar. Much smaller than a dome. Very easy. Could stuff it in a pocket or, I’d imagine, use some kind of flip. Haven’t seen or heard about anyone doing it. Seem feasible tho. WWL-C covers a lot of WA/CFWA needs. You can lens correct afterwards if you want it straighter. Otoh it’s sharper than a FF WA zoom behind a dome (can’t fix that afterwards). But it’s not a full fisheye. So if you want to be able to do splits or need the full 180 degrees, add a dome or adaptation of your existing S&S dome to your budget to use the 8-15. I belive there actually are adapters made by Nauticam for S&S ports, again—talk to Magnus at exposure underwater. Surprisingly close race on the money, I’d have thought a Nauticam z8-rig would be noticeably more expensive than an isota ditto. Well, well…
-
Sounds to me like you have reached a decision 🙂. I’d suggest picking up the phone and have a chat with Magnus @exposureunderwater in Malmö. He’d be able to give you the lowdown. And I’m pretty sure he recently received a lightly used macro port that could or could not be a part of your z8-package. Lycka till!
-
Can’t help you with any real advice, sorry, but even if the mount is the same you are as Bon Jovi sings, halfway there. Where AI seem to screw it up is the flange distance. Camera bodies sit at different distances to the opening in different UW housings. This is camera model specific. So you need to examine the Isotta z8 housing compared to a Sea&Sea z8 housing and measure the cameras position in each, and then calculate what needs to be added or subtracted in the way of isotta extensions for each specific lens and port. If you’re lucky, someone trustworthy has already done it and you don’t need to make any mistakes. Or you can volunteer as a guinea pig 🙂. YMMV.
-
You need to double and triple check AI. Gets it wrong consistently.
-
The 14-30 is not quite as wide as the 24-50+wwl. It would be equivalent to app. a 11-31. It has a light barrel distortion at 24. You can unscrew the wwl uw and shoot the 24-50 behind the flat port, if you’d find a suitable situation for that. Slightly bent curves @24
-
I’m tagging along here since my diving in the Similans, Ko Bon/Tachai is more than 25 years ago. Need advice on smaller (less than 20 guests) liveaboard that is a decent choice for us photographers. Will be in Thailand in mid January on my way home from Indonesia, so might be able to revisit these sites and shoot some. Any ideas? I guess @bghazzal might have one or two…
-
I too have been intrigued by the MWL but kind of didn’t pursue due to the allegedly poor results unless shooting very stopped down. As @Chris Ross I too couldn’t find a lot of feedback on it. @Dave_Hicks does the Kraken glass give the same FoV (150 degrees IIRC) on the wide end? Am using a WWL now and find myself at either end, never in between, so zooming in between not that useful to me.
-
@Adventurer I'm not familiar with that reputation and I think you might be totally wrong there. According to Nauticam (having consulted Ryan Canon as well as a few others who frequently have used both wwl:s) there are no IQ differences, only different optimization for different focal lengths. So I don't know where you get that from? I've also researched the WACP-C as an option to the wwl:s and consulted Nauticam reps as well as a few "qualified" Nauticam shooters, ready to spend the €€€€, but they all advised any IQ variations would be hard to detect, much like the conclusion Interceptor came to in the pool test you referred to earlier. One big difference is if you're in the surface a lot and will have an issue with the wet "layer" of the optics. There are of course many variables going into what suits "you" and your shooting. YMMV.
-
Can't compare to WACP, but inme (wwl-c with z24-50) the WWL is a little bit more prone to ugly flares when shooting stills towards the sun than my old WA set-up with a dome (Hugyfot). Not a big issue as a tiny tilt will get rid of it. Do not know if this a specific wwl-c issue or z24-50 issue or the combination. I can only conclude that it sometime has occurred (rarely tho).
-
The Inon one is noticeably different in viscosity compared to Sea & Sea, more solid. Similar to Hugyfots. Nauticam (white in tube) seems like it could be the same as S&S (transparent in tube), difference in color which might mean nothing. All these damn tubes and containers. Feels somehow wrong to buy even more grease when I already own a life supply, but it would make things easier for sure.
