TimG

Hey Tino! Welcome! We're delighted you've taken the step to join us rather than just reading the posts. 😄 We hope you'll make lots of contributions. Great to have you with us.

Totally agree with Chris on his point over most users and the 20-30 MP. We’re being sucked into manufacturers’ marketing hype and 35mm film hangover, for the vast majority of us, on using an FF underwater. Big, painful for traveling, expensive and not generally necessary. I really liked my D800 (FF) based system but for traveling an utter pain. Now on a DX-based system (D500), I’ve got smaller, so generally cheaper, lenses and ports, less weight and bulk - and I cannot see a difference in image quality on a 27” screen or in prints as far as A3.

Chris’ makes a point I think important. If you have specific images in mind you need to decide what you need to use to create that. From my experience this works much better than having a setup that can shoot whatever turns up. It’s not only about gear in that case but also mind set. You “see” the u/w world differently if you know a site has creature x or wreck y and that’s what you want to shoot. But that can be difficult when you start out as typically you don’t really know what you want to do and just want to shoot everything you see! it becomes more of a consideration though when you’ve been shooting for a while and the initial excitement of photographing underwater turns into a more reflective phase.

No problems with the questions, Oretsis. That's the whole point of this forum 😆 I'm afraid an explanation of the optics involved is way beyond me. I just know what I use and the effect it will have. If you want to shoot largish critters who won't come close, then the 15-35 is the way to go. But because of the natural turbidity caused by water, getting as close as possible - and reducing the amount of water between the camera and the subject - is key. A fisheye of 15mm will let you do this better than a 15mm rectilinear - as you read from the minimum focussing distances you found. So you get close, but you still have the really wide view. The other point about using an FE is the size of dome you can use. Mine is a mere 100mm - tiny compared to a 230. This allows you to tuck strobes in tight to light a CFWA scene where, often, you are only cms from the subject. You just cannot do that with a 230 dome.

Hey Orestis Good that I'm not teaching you to suck eggs even though you love them! No, sadly the 15mm in the 8-15mm is not the same as the 15mm in the 15-35mm. The 15mm in the 8-15 will be, I imagine (as I said I'm not a Canon guy) a fisheye construction; whereas the 15mm in the 15-35 will be rectilinear - so not the curved effect of the fisheye but based on creating a straight, i.e. not curved, image. I don't know about the minimum focussing distances on those lenses but, generally, a fisheye can focus much close than a rectilinear. Usually for CFWA shots I'd use a fisheye plus a 1.4 teleconvertor (nothing is simple, right?) as this allows you to get VERY close to the subject but still have a wide field of view behind the subject - hence locating the subject against its habitat. If you already have the 230 dome then you are good to go with the 15-35 but will need some form of extension ring between the dome and the housing to provide the space the lens needs. Have a look on the Ikelite website for this. What you suggest as a start point sounds good to me.

Hi Orestis Forgive me if this is, using a British expression, teaching granny to suck eggs, but if you are new to u/w photog maybe the following might help with some context: One of the weird things about u/w photography is that you have to rethink how you view lenses. Wide-angle on a FF sensor can be tricky. Unless you plan to use the slightly more esoteric Nauticam lens additions (a more standard zoom plus one of the WWLs and the like), for wide-angle you tend to use the ultra-wide stuff. So a fisheye is often the norm for u/w. I can well appreciate you're not keen on the fisheye look but underwater you don't really see it as there are few-to-no straight lines to highlight the effect. You just get ultrawide. I'm attaching a couple of shots all of which were shot with a 15mm fisheye so you can see. The diver(s) was/were probably 2m away from me. The other part is that you don't really need the fast lenses either, eg, the f1.8s, f2s, etc. But you do need WIDE! So, in my view, I wouldn't bother to try and house your 24-105mm. 24mm is too narrow underwater and 105 not much use unless genuinely macro. The other "challenge" with wide-angle on a FF sensor is finding a dome that doesn't leave the corners of the image horribly soft. For example a 16-35mm lens on a FF sensor really needs a 230mm dome and, even then, edges can be a bit dodgy. By contrast, a fisheye lens has no problem. Strange world eh?!? I'm not a Canon user so can't comment on the 10-20mm zoom underwater but the range makes very good sense. Others will no doubt chip-in about how it works. Totally agree on the 8mm end of the 8-15mm. That is one specialist view! It's good for the occasional shot but not many. However the 15mm (it's a fisheye) is very good for u/w wide-angle shots. I'm sure others here will weigh in on the standard zoom plus the WWLs . They are a relatively new option and allow the use, as I say, of a more standard zoom lens but adding a chunky, pricey piece of glass in front. They do seem very versatile and would be worth you considering. You might need to do a calculation on the price compared to the classic big domeport route. There is also the issue then of moving heavy, chunky gear if you have to fly to dive. Macro: yep, the 100mm sounds good. I hope this helps!

With thanks to @Sergio for the idea: If you have discovered a resort you like, a dive centre or a dive guide or critter-spotter you can recommend, post the details on this thread. We will build a list by country of the places/people as a guide. Similarly if you have a bad experience, let us know too and we will draw attention to your post..... We will update as new information is posted. AUSTRALIA CARIBBEAN - Sint Maarten: Ocean Explorers - recommended by @TimG - Turks and Caicos liveaboard: Explorer Ventures "Caribbean Explorer" - recommended by @TimG - Grenada: Aquanauts - recommended by @Stig INDONESIA - Lembeh Straits: NAD Lembeh - recommended by @TimG - Bali: Tulamben - Tauch Terminal - recommended by @TimG - Bali: Tulamben - Matahari resort recommended by @atus MALAYSIA PHILIPPINES - Anilao: Dive Operator: Anilao Photo Academy - recommended (see below) by @Sergio RAJA AMPAT REBREATHER SUPPORT RED SEA Liveaboards: Emperor Divers - recommended by @TimG Red Sea Diving Safari - recommended by @JustinO SABAH SOLO DIVING permitted

Hi Sergio Sounds a good idea. We’ll work something up.

Good to hear, Christophe. I guess just the server catching up……

Hey Chris! Excellent to have you with us. We hope you enjoy Waterpixels. - and that sabbatical!

Hey Christophe Once you have posted your introduction - which you did above - you should be good to post. You need three posts in total to post on the Classifieds but other than that, you should be good to go. If there's problem, just let me know. Cheers!

Hey Chris! Welcome to Waterpixels - great to have you with us. Enjoy the forum!

Hey Orestis If there are areas of your scientific diving which you think might be of interest to Waterpixels members, we'd love to see an article.......

Hi James! Welcome to Waterpixels. The UK continent is growing nicely and it's great to have you with us!

Hey BigJeff! Great to have you with us. I think we have a few Welsh folks on board. Welcome to Waterpixels. We hope you really enjoy the forum.

I just watched the video and had a look at the Backscatter website. Hey, for $49/£42, compared to what you usually pay for any sort of u/w accessory, it's worth a go!

How are you triggering the strobes? If you’re using fibre optics and a third party trigger, is it possible the trigger batteries need changing or charging?

Hi Orestis. Welcome to Waterpixels. Great to have you with us. I’m sure you’ll get lots of help when you’re ready with your questions.

Just re-reading this thread and was struck by Barmaglot's comment on 22 January: I moved back from a full-frame D800 to the D500. In terms of image quality, can you really improve significantly on what the D500 can produce? What realistically does it lack? Yeah, maybe there have been improvements to AF but, really, does it make that much difference? And it terms of size of system, all the various, impressive, studies I have seen people pull together, the relative difference when you add on all the bits, bobs and dooh-dahds is minimal. Yeah, if money is no object and you fancy a new system, go for it! But in terms of the images you will create,, are you really going to do better than you can can with the D500? Like Chip, I love helping people spend their money on this stuff: it's a guilt-free pleasure. But on this occasion.... hmmmm... spend it on a trip to take images. Two or three trips possibly!

Although I haven't tried the muck stick variation, I did try using a tripod to place a snooted strobe off-housing. After several dives and attempts I concluded that having the strobe/snoot mounted on the left-hand of the housing and learning to manipulate just worked better. Phil outlines the issue of getting the stick into the substrate sufficiently deeply. It was a similar but opposite problem with the tripod: finding somewhere it could sit without damaging corals or disappearing into sand - but near enough to the subject. I found it just more trouble than it was worth.

Hi Adam! Welcome to Waterpixels. We hope you really enjoy the forum. Good to have you with us.

Hey Atanas! Great to have you with us. We hope you really like the forum. Welcome!

Super end result! Thanks.

Alex, could you tell me what you used to connect the EMWL to your Subal housing?