Jump to content
Dive Shows in Europe: Boot and Duikvaker ×

JayceeB

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Industry

  • Industry Affiliation:
    NONE

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

JayceeB's Achievements

Barracuda

Barracuda (7/15)

  • One Year In
  • Collaborator
  • One Month Later
  • Dedicated
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

46

Reputation

  1. I was able to test out the 60mm extension on the 140mm fisheye dome. The sun shade appears at top and bottom slightly at 14mm. At 16mm+, the shade does not show in shots. 14mm 17mm
  2. Awesome information! That makes sense now. My camera is already packed for today with the 30mm extension, but I will try the 60mm tomorrow. If the 60mm causes slight vignetting at 14mm, no problem zooming in a bit. The bulk of my shooting will be at the 35mm end anyways with this setup.
  3. I see what you're saying with the Canon 8-15mm. Both the 140mm and 230mm domes require a 30mm extension. Perhaps a bit different with the 14-35mm? The 180mm dome requires a 50mm extension, but the 230mm dome requires a 60mm extension. The test shots I have been making were using the 140mm + 30mm extension exactly as setup for the 8-15mm. I wonder if it would be worthwhile testing the 14-35 + 140mm + 60mm extension, which I have for my 14-35mm + 230mm dome. I don't have a 50mm extension.
  4. Based on that test I'd say you have your solution and it doesn't involve buying anything new. Corners look fine at 35mm, any unsharpness could just be depth of field. Thanks for the feedback, Chris. Yes, I think this will work just fine for my needs, where travel weight is a big stress factor. Also, I don't remember the last time a solution presented itself with zero cost 🙂
  5. So I compared the EF 8-15mm fisheye to the RF 14-35mm, and they’re nearly the same length, so I thought I would try out the 14-35mm with the 140mm fisheye dome port. I set my expectations extremely low, and was hoping it would give acceptable results at the 35mm end. I tested it out on two dives today, and took mainly 35mm shots, but also tried some 14mm shots as well. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how well it performed, at least to my eyes, but I’m not very picky on edge sharpness. I’ve uploaded a few shots to show 35mm and 14mm in case anyone is interested. 35mm first set.
  6. So true. I almost always shoot sharks at 35mm, and usually wished I had more zoom.
  7. I'm running Marelux. Their port chart says to use the 140mm dome with no extension.
  8. Thank you, Chris. I'll think more on the 1.4x. I'm less concerned with the macro working distance than the performance on sharks in low ambient light. I wonder if the 35mm focus hunts in those conditions. I also had a thought that maybe I could run my 14-35 in the 140mm dome, but fix it at 35mm. I'll have to compare the 2 lens dimensions. Anyone tried this in real life?
  9. Hello Waterpixel Community, I have a Spring trip planned to Anilao and Malapascua. I shoot a Canon R5, and will take my RF100 for macro at Anilao, but Malapascua is a little more difficult to plan for given travel weight restrictions. I have an 8-15mm fisheye, but think this might not have enough reach for the sharks, and I also don't want 50 divers in every frame 🙂. My 14-35mm with 230mm dome is just too big and heavy. I was looking at lens options and see that Canon makes an RF 35mm macro that will fit in my 140mm fisheye dome port. Have any of you had experience with this lens underwater? I was thinking it would work well for sharks, but also be nice for clownfish and some larger macro critters. Any feedback on this lens, or other recommendations would be much appreciated. Thank you.
  10. Looking for a Nauticam LCD Magnifier for my RX100 IV Nauticam housing from a US based seller. Thank you.
  11. So the primary purpose is to eliminate or reduce hunting, and likely negate the need to use the limiting switch. Secondary purpose is to improve image quality.
  12. Thank you, Isaac. I look forward to seeing some samples with and without the MFO-1.
  13. I'm not sure I quite understand the advantage of using this lens on an RF100mm yet. Mininum working distance from the port glass of the lens alone is ~80mm for 1.4X magnification. With the MFO-1, minimum working distance can be reduced to 20mm, but you only get an additional .2X magnification = 1.6X. To me, I'd rather have an 80mm working distance to light the subject and miss out on the .2X extra magnification. I think I may be missing something elementary here.
  14. I have been shooting an R5 in a Marelux housing since May 2022. I owned 3 Nauticam housings before that (RX100 IV, Olympus OM-D EM1 II, Sony A7C) The strobe trigger works well. I ran with that trigger for nearly 2 years, then switched to UW Technics for HSS.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.