Jump to content

TimG

Super Moderators

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United Kingdom
View Profile Find content

Posts posted by TimG

    I've switched over the years between fisheye (Sigma 15mm, Tokina 10-17) and a lens similar to the 17-28 (Nikkor 16-35). I always find I prefer the fisheye. So much easier to house, small dome, smaller for travelling, excellent DOF, easy to focus.

    I find it rare that the fisheye distortion is overwhelming or a problem in the vast majority of UW pics.

    • Like 4

    Hey Christoph

    Given where you are coming from and the equipment you already have, I can totally understand your lens choices. Just a couple of things to bear in mind, Id suggest:

    Unless you are using wet lens attachments, largely driven by Nauticam, the lens choices for u/w tend to be extreme: fisheyes (15mm for FF, 10-15mm with APS-C sensors), extreme wide-angle rectilinear; then macro - typically 105mm with an FF sensor. The reason being that you want to minimise the amount of water between the camera and the subject. This can be trickier with mid-range type zooms.

    Forgive me if I'm reciting something of which you are fully aware, but I thought it worth a mention in terms of longer-term planning of lens choices and equipment.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    1 hour ago, Christian K said:

    Yes. Was looking into getting a second hand D500, since I come from D200 and D300. Already have lenses. But … I am now set on wet optics after some research. So a Nauticam housing. Looked at the little housing for the new DX z50II, but it has no viewfinder which might be a deal breaker for me. So tbh FF in itself not what I was looking for necessarily. But I’m more and more likely going to go that route. Have been looking at size/weight which is a concern and important to me and none of those mirrorless (z6 or 7+nauticam) FF set-ups seem to be bulkier and heavier than what I have been schlepping around for years. Already have strobes, cables … but am stretching my budget … yes.

    Yeah, can understand your thinking for sure - and those wet optics sounds pretty cool and they point to Nauticam.

    If you're likely heading down the Z6/Z7 route, I'd suggest a close look at the Z8. I was diving with a serious u/w photog recently who had switched to one (in a Subal housing but, urgh, with a 230 dome) and he was happy with it. It's the latest technology, as opposed to the Z7II, and has the larger file size than the Z6III (if you're going All In, go All In!). But, yeah, budget stretch.......

    • Like 2

    Hi Kristian

    Chris and Dave make some excellent points. Given the total cost/weight of an FF package with all the bits and pieces, the additional cost and weight difference between the Z6III and a Z8 becomes negligible. Both packages are big beasts.

    Chris makes the point about what you plan to do with the images. I agree with him whole-heartedly that FF is not necessary underwater unless you are planning to produce very big prints or serious high-end commercial sales. I had a Nikon FF system (D800), really got fed up travelling with huge amounts of bulky gear (and the complaints from my partner whose baggage allowances was also being swallowed up) and switched back to APS-C and the D500.

    That was 8 years ago and I'm still using and loving it. There is no way that the old technology is limiting me. I sell loads of images - as Chris writes - as JPEGs. It is much easier for travelling although there is still significant bulk. I don't regret the system downgrade (?) for an instant. And I admit to being a lover of the latest shiny toys. (I've got a Z9 and Z6III for topside)

    I do think though that there is one important point the guys havn't mentioned and that is "desire"! Beware of Buyer's Regret. I'd suggest the last thing you want is to spend, say, $12k and after 6 months start to regret that you didn't spend $15k and get the system you really hankered for. Been there, done that. If cost is not the deciding factor, think about what would really give you the most pleasure to own and use. If its an FF system with all the bells and whistles and you understand the downsides, then why not......

    Good luck with the choice. Not easy for sure.

    • Like 2

    33 minutes ago, Susa said:

    yes i did a reset, several times and I tried a lot of changes of the settings. Unfortunately I did not have a second A7r5 to compare. Now I gave the camera back to the dealer. I'm thinking to buy the A1 ii, because all of my surrounding staff is Sony. But also thinking about Canon. Therefore my original question. My biggest interest is macro/supermacro.

    Annoying. Makes sense of course to stick with Sony if you have a lot of their gear. I know nothing about Canon setups. For Nikon users the Z8 seems to be the new black.

    Hi jjmochi

    I’m a long, long term LR user and could offer a couple of thoughts:

    As Chris suggests, I do wonder if Adobe just reckon data storage is cheap - just get more. That said, Apple data storage ain’t cheap. (I can hear @makar0n chuckling). So when I switched from a Mac with 3TB to a new machine, I didn’t want to pay the huge increase in bigger SSD costs.

    I now run the LR prog on my MacStudio but all the image files (approx 56,000 pretty much all RAW files plus TIFFs and Panos totalling about 1.8TB) are on an external 4TB SSD. I’ve experimented with the program on and off the Studio but found this current combination works best. The only issue I find is that if you do a full search of the images, it can take a little time till all the actual images are visible as you scroll through the search results.

    I only keep 3-4 iterations of the LR backup - which is held on a different external drive. These go back maybe 3 months which, to me, is plenty.

    However large your collection, I’d suggest keeping everything in just one catalog unless you can make a very clear divide between very different elements of work. But even then, I’d hesitate. Being able to search the catalog globally seems to me one of the great features of LR.

    As Chris comments, tracking down exactly what data is where can be a little tricky with LR. But I’ve found using the combination above has kept me out of despair.

    • Haha 1

    That's helpful, Susanne.

    I'm a very keen macro shooter. For me DX/APS-C format has worked best and I switched back from FF to APS-C from a Nikon D800 to D500. Better depth of field for macro and, importantly I found, much easier to house wide-angle and get away from huge domes with the travel issues involved. But I don't shoot video. For shooting stills, I'm not convinced by the need for FF underwater - although I use FF all the time topside.

    The guys make good points about HOW you intend to use the images. I sell a lot but print very little. It'd be good if you are clear on that. Of course video doesn't involve much printing!

    One point I would make, I found a 45-degree finder indispensable for macro. It allows you to get lower, on the bottom if necessary, but still be able to see the viewfinder clearly. Definitely worthwhile.

    And then if you are serious about macro, get a snoot and strobes that work well with a snoot, ie the focussing light is in the middle of the strobe with a circular flash tube. I use the Retra Pro Max and Retra LSD and have found this a terrific macro combination. It's my macro workhorse. Retra also has macro reducing rings which I find really useful. Here are a couple of examples:

    TG52404.jpg

    TG57929.jpg

    TG58468.jpg

    • Like 3

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.

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.