fruehaufsteher2

Those videos make me sad because it's more than 2 months until we can step in the water again... interesting though the discussion about filters.

Cookies gone? What about contacting via mobile?

Nope, here everything fine.

Looking at these pictures I am sure that my FCP had a technical problem. The weight wasn't a big issue for me. Still anything fits in the backpack and the difference between carrying 12 or 13 kg is marginal.

That were my thoughts also. But I tried all zoom settings and all distances. It was more pronounced in wide angles and shorter distances but noticeable at all times.

Of note! It’s not about depth of field, nothing was sharp at no distance. I know sufficient about the plane of focus and depth of field. But if there is no sharp image at any distance or this can only be achieved with a pinhole camera, then I question the concept. But it could be that the wrong port extension was to blame.

I can write briefly about my experience with the FCP, but please note the limitations. I ordered and received the FCP as an early adopter and took it with me to Egypt (Marsa Shagra). Pictures mainly CFWA, camera Sony A7 IV, port extension 30mm (! Nauticam recommends 35mm!). Aperture mostly 6.3 to 8. I was deeply dissatisfied with the image sharpness, even in the centre of the picture the giant triggerfish looked like it had a double contour. In Egypt, I had no idea why my pictures were so blurred. Back home, Alex Mustard mentioned that you really do have to stop down to at least f/13. I only realised the missing 5mm of the port extension much later. So there are several reasons for my dissatisfaction: - User error port extention - User error too open aperture (however, I would then rather blame the concept) - Defective product (it is from the first series). It is not possible to find out what the error really was because the port has disappeared with the thieves. But I wouldn't buy it again (I ordered Retras today instead) You have to zoom in to see what I mean. All pictures are similar with regard to sharpness. Look especially around the mouth. SONY ILCE-7M4 JPEG FE 28-60mm F4-5.6 6 MP·2417 × 2527·2.2 MB ISO 250 43 mm 0 ev ƒ7.1 1/200 Sek.

YES

Thanks Chris, that's exactly what I was trying to say. I've been to Moorea 2 years ago and had the RX100VA with me. Nice quality and minimal drag. But when I see what I can get out of the images from the full-frame camera in post-processing, I'm sad that I didn't have a big camera with me back then. You rarely get really close to the big animals (and you shouldn't), so having the largest possible reserves in RAW is extremely important.

IMHO 121 is disappointed because with his setup and his style of taking pictures he closes the aperture nearly completely and by that loses all the advantages of the big camera. I usually have the aperture on f/7.1 - I am not a landscape photographer. The focused object has to be sharp and the background is slightly blurry. That allows to shoot in available light while freediving or using only a limited amount of flash. This wouldn’t be possible with smaller sensors.

Finally nice to have both of you onboard!

Use the OM10. if going with the whales is similar to French Polynesia, then you will be happy to have all the postprocesss abilities.

Several of the colleagues here have been blamed for being false, lying, doing something that they shouldn't do... as long as this is coming always from the same colleague the best way is to ignore. You have nothing to blame yourself for and nothing to apologise for. The picture exactly reflects your statement and there is really NOTHING in it that could be recognised as a disturbance of nature in any way.

If you, Interceptor, just could reduce using the word „you“ and reduce blaming or insulting others, your posts would be much more helpful and a win for this forum

Lit backscatter will be more prominent seen in your picture than if it is not lit by the strobe. Either use a beamformer or point outwards - at the price that you are lighting up much water and fish that can not be seen in the picture. In some instances it can be useful to open the aperture as far as possible so the backscatter between you and the object is more blurred and less disturbing in the final image.

Mattys Pics are beautiful. https://www.mattysmithphoto.com/custom-dome-ports/ But there's a discrepancy between portability and desired size. 18" are roughly 45cm, not easy to transport. For me that doesn't mean nauticam 8,5" is useless

Regarding Boyancy: Here: https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/4th-generation-retra-flash-series are the values, but I don't know whether w/o batteries. As the volume doesn't change, you moght have to add the weight of the batteries.

Another question: Is it possible to calculate the range of sharpness with aperture closed to f/22, starting at infinity (or what over water the most distance that can be sharp) with the WACP-C …. Ok just got that I can try myself. I‘ll respond to myself later

This would add another 1,8k€ and 1,8kg … is it really that bad? But in fact I see the point.

OK, f/22 - understood. But the pic is fine. It’s only not possible to have everything sharp. But that brings me closer to understand the pure technical explanations of @Interceptor121

Hi Chip, thank you so much for your perfect answer. The acrylic dome seems to be a good option. Calculated roughly that adds up to at least 2,5k... but nevertheless much cheaper than the FCP. 8-15 (used) 600-650 Metabones 300 Dome 800 n100 - N120 675 (!) Focus gear 300 At least I knew why I put the "cheap" into quotes. So first thing will be to see what the WACP-C alone can deliver. Otherwise I now have a plan. What about the boyancy of the acrylic dome? Does it have upward drag?

Owning the WACP-C and happy. At least there is the possibility to do splitshots with the WACP-C but very limited (see below). "Thinking about" (GAS) a not-so-expensive solution to do splits. 230 dome? Acrylic? which lens? I won't use it very often. Currently owning A7IV with Nauticam N100.

AFAIK they are targeting everything that could be in professional use and not an original part of the camera. so it goes for housings, ports, flashes and the tax is 16% of the original price. The look up serial numbers and there’s no way of escaping them. They are looking for all international arrivals. One of the participants of our trip crossed the border via taxi to avoid the risk. For me this is a reason not to return to Mexico even though the landscape is really beautiful!

In both cases that I in person saw the sealing at the back door failed. But I know one case also where the vacuum-valve itself leaked.

Hi Wolfgang, fully agree: may be the expectations were to high - but boat and hotel itself would have already been a real downside even if there were more to see. But I tried to report neutral to give everybody the possibility to decide himself whether or not it is worth the risk or worth the money to try. For the border control there seems to be bad news: Even in Mexico City they are now starting to search for expensive housings, domes and lenses. It seems to get worse, not better. We were lucky: We did all the precautions (not having suitcases that look like divers) but then there‘s always the red button: After asking us whether we had alcohol or cigarettes in our suitcases the border-control-lady told my wife to hit the button. Luckily it went green.