
dentrock
MembersContent Type
Profiles
Articles
Events
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by dentrock
-
I don't have a PZ lens now, but when I tried the 10-20 PZ with my new A7CR, the trick was to assign the zoom function to a custom key/dial set (setup menu). Before I bought the A7CR I tried unsuccessfully to check whether the A6700 firmware had this function, as I was considering the A6700. Might be worth further menu diving.
-
Can't you zoom the 10-20 PZ from the camera body? If you can then you can ditch the zoom gear and the cam plus lens fits through the N85 port opening. I know you can't with the A6400 but you can with latest FF bodies, such as A7CR, A7RV etc. It's clunky, but better than having the port shuffle. Also, 180 dome should give better IQ but it's quite bulky. See Nauticam port chart.
-
Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G announced
dentrock replied to Barmaglot's topic in Photography Gear and Technique
Thanks for the test. The bottom RH corner shots seem sharper than the others (3rd and 2nd last pics). Any chance there are some focus issues eg. small target / camera close to target and not square on? -
FS: Nauticam housing for Sony A6400 bundle, A6400 body and various lenses
dentrock replied to dentrock's topic in Classifieds
Sold on Waterpixels. N85-N120 50mm adapter still FS. -
Or you could use it at a fixed focal length i.e. 18mm (=28mm FF equiv) behind most domes dome. It's sharp enough!
-
FS: Nauticam housing for Sony A6400 bundle, A6400 body and various lenses
dentrock replied to dentrock's topic in Classifieds
Heading further down the slippery slope of price reduction! AUD 1200 for the housing bundle inc vac valve (if you don't want the vac valve I'll take a further 200 off). That' under USD 800 !!!! -
I bought (and sold) this lens for UW with my A6400. Yes it has short MFD at 18, but very long MFD at 50. I had hoped to use it with my Nauticam 140 dome, but it wouldn't focus towards the 50 end. A larger dome is needed, say 180, which I didn't have. Plus with the Nauticam system you have to make your own zoom gear to use with an adapter, and once you do that, you have to remove port and lens before you can remove the body from the housing. All in all a pia. OK for land, but nowhere near as good (for land) as the Sony 16-55 G.
-
BackscatterXTerminator
dentrock replied to homodelphinius's topic in Shooting Technique, Workflow and Editing
I'm doing my masking in ACR (actually all my processing now, except BSXT). I don't need to create layers - it's all done for you in ACR. The changes are stored in another sidecar file .acr along with my original Sony .arw and .xmp files. -
BackscatterXTerminator
dentrock replied to homodelphinius's topic in Shooting Technique, Workflow and Editing
I think it might work for you, as it's only a filter plus an action,but why not ask Erin? I get not wanting to download a trial, but if you do that, you can also access Erin's excellent tutorial, which gives far more info than the fairly unhelpful advertorial clip at the beginning of this thread. Incidentally, I see BSXT as the solution to intractable backscatter problems, where you want to rescue a pic, but it's all too hard or impossible to do it manually. For minimal backscatter, either ignore it or remove the few spots manually. FYI Erin says to run BSXT after global processing, but before local processing (which I assume means masking). I just did a test on a pic which I processed globally then did a bunch of brush masks in ACR, before running BSXT as the very last thing, then saving the result as a jpeg copy (and not saving the PSD / TIF). It worked fine. The pic was taken only to check the extent of the area of central sharpness with the SONY 20-70 using the 140 dome. -
BackscatterXTerminator
dentrock replied to homodelphinius's topic in Shooting Technique, Workflow and Editing
I got keen and contacted Ern Quigley, who replied promptly and most helpfully. The short answer is (for my workflow using Mac): 1. Open Sony arw raw file in ACR. 2. Process globally as needed, inc noise reduction. 3. With ACR still open, click "Open" in bottom RH corner. This opens the file in PS. 4. Having installed BSXT as per instructions, run it. 5. Cleanup / adjustment if required. 5. Close file which will prompt a save - as PSD or TIF. These are very large; or 6. Do local adjustments, either in PS or you can go back to ACR from PS (Shift + Option + Command + E, then choose top layer and go to Filter > Camera Raw Filter). 7. You can then export (save) whatever format you want from ACR. 8. When you close the ACR file it will still prompt a save as PSD or TIF. If you don't save, you can always run BSXT again quite quickly if you need to. The Ern Quigley tutorial is excellent and clear. I bought it and it works well. Price? Fine for this sort of benefit. -
BackscatterXTerminator
dentrock replied to homodelphinius's topic in Shooting Technique, Workflow and Editing
I might have missed something (and I did watch the video linked at the start of this thread) but what types of files does it work with? I can't access the Ern Quigley tutorial without buying BXS... With all the recent advances in ACR, I can do all my post, including masking and noise reduction, on raw files in ACR (admittedly with PS running in the background), but I don't need to create PS layers and very rarely actually use PS. So can you use BXS on raw files? If not, then the suggestion to use BXS early in your post processing wouldn't work for me. I would have to use it at the end of my ACR workflow, converting a processed raw from ACR into something to open in PS in order to then use BSX. Would this sequence work OK? -
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM
dentrock replied to JayceeB's topic in Photography Gear and Technique
Find a bricks and mortar camera store and try focusing inside in lowish light. I use AFC with tracking and medium spot. Don't know what Canon has to offer, but a modern lens and body should be fine. Check the lens reviews! With a dome, it's a good focal length for sharks up to about 2m in clear water, or close-ups of larger sharks. If the sharks are blending into the background you may have to focus on an edge before recomposing. -
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM
dentrock replied to JayceeB's topic in Photography Gear and Technique
That's a lens I'd love to have for my Sony as a general / all purpose lens. Normal focal length macros work fine behind the 140 dome (eg Sony 50 and Zeiss 50). Have also used Nikkor 60 in the distant past with a small dome. Assuming you are talking Nauticam, the optical centre is about 6-7mm behind the 140 dome port face. You can estimate the EP for the lens (distance from lens mount flange to apparent location of diaphragm when viewed from the front), and having measured the distance from the lens flange to the housing port flange you can see what if any extension you will need. I don't know the Canon details, and I don't know if you need to use an adapter with your dome. With Sony FF, a 25mm adapter and no other extension works well, given a lens flange to port flange distance of 26-27mm. EPs for the above lenses are approx 43 and 48mm respectively. Misalignment with this combo is -3 (too long) for the Sony and +2 (not long enough) for the Zeiss. But bear in mind EPs can move as you focus close. Yours will be shorter I think. Macros / normal FOV lenses are pretty forgiving of inexact alignment. You can also use a 35 with a flat port, but the central area of sharpness will be disappointingly small. -
I have the lens and I received the zoom gear for the 24-50 today. Item 37178. It fits the 16-25 nicely, subject to the usual Nauticam gear fitting issue of shuffling the little bits of rubber until you get a firm grip on the lens without trashing it. Incidentally I checked the Marelux port chart for 5" Sony and neither the Sony 16-25 nor the Laowa 10 are listed. That leaves only Ikelite and Aquatica supporting the Laowa 10, and possibly only Ikelite (which has, or used to have the most flexible lens gear system), potentially supporting the Sony 16-25. Others using other systems can advise if they like. I will dive test the 16-25 when weather permits, trying it first with the 140 (for travel), then the 180 domes. I estimated the EP for the 16-25 at 80mm from the lens mounting flange (at 16); 3mm longer than the 20-70 at 20. I will therefore start with extensions working for the 20-70, noting that the minimum focus distance is shorter for the 16-25.
-
Phil, have you tried the 16-25 in the 140 dome? Thoughts? Always interested in the most travel-friendly options. I'm finding the Laowa 10 very ordinary in the corners with the 140 (but good with the 8.5"). By the time you crop out the crappy bits in a 10/140 image, even at f16, you are back to 16mm equiv FOV or so.
-
I have been told that Nauticam has no plans to support either of these lenses, although they did suggest some port options for the Sony 16-25 including the 180 dome with 60mm extension. But we need a zoom gear for the Sony 16-25. It looks like the Nauticam zoom gear for the Sony 24-50 f2.8 G lens should fit, as these two lenses have very similar configuration and dimensions and apparently were developed as a complementary pair. Is anyone out there using the 16-25 with a Nauticam housing, and if so, what are you using as a zoom gear?
-
FS: Nauticam housing for Sony A6400 bundle, A6400 body and various lenses
dentrock replied to dentrock's topic in Classifieds
Hmmm... further price drop! Housing bundle exc battery packs but WITH vac valve etc now AUD $1599 (that's about USD 1100) Also N85 to N120 50mm adapter only AUD $299 (= USD 200) -
nauticam N85 Opening Diameter
dentrock replied to boduoguo's topic in Photography Gear and Technique
Agree. Buy a used Zeiss 50 Touit. Ensure the firmware is V. 2 (has to be done by Zeiss - FOC). Better lens than Sony 50 macro in every way - except it doesn't do FF! -
nauticam N85 Opening Diameter
dentrock replied to boduoguo's topic in Photography Gear and Technique
The N85 ID varies. The smallest I found was the 36125 dome, which was 69.5mm. I bored it out by 0.5 to accept the Samyang 12mm. Other bits are up to 73mm and perhaps even a little more. It's try it and see, or ask someone who has what you are curious about to measure for you. -
A few 'drawing board' tests with the 140 N dome, which only required a dive tub of water... 1. Reduce total extension by 20mm (to 55mm comprising 25 adap + 30 ext). This aligns the EP within a few mm of the dome's optical centre, which should clean up the corners... Result: cannot zoom out the last 10mm or so! (Total zoom extension is about 40mm). Not surprising with a port with only 70mm radius, cf the 180 dome which apparently is 110mm radius. So no good. 2. Tried a total extension of 65mm (half way between Phil's 75mm and the above). In this case, misalignment of EP and optical centre is about 10mm. Result: was able to zoom out (just). But minimum focus distances (from the dome) have increased over what I got with 75mm extension, to about 120mm W and 150mm T. More to the point, I made up a 24x36mm focus target and the best I could get at 70mm was 1:4 magnification (cf lens' native mag of 1:2.6). I didn't bother to check the corners at 20mm, although they should be improved over what I got with 75mm extension. If 1:4 is enough for you, this may be a good option. So the range of useable extensions for the 20-70 lens and the N 140 dome seems to be between 65 and 75mm. Regardless, the Nauticam chart recommendation with 180 dome gives much better performance. Sadly, I have read that the widest lens you can use with the 180 is 14mm.
-
Auto review images A7rV
dentrock replied to TylerH25's topic in Shooting Technique, Workflow and Editing
Check that "Setting effect" is OFF (Shooting>Shooting display>Live view display setting) -
Thanks Phil. Yes, well aware you are using Marelux. I also (desparately) wanted to travel with only one dome... mostly because I will also be using the Laowa 10. I don't have your Marelux 140 dome specs, but otherwise the same ext you used (i.e. 75mm total) for Nauticam 140 seems about right in terms of trade-off between corners and MFD. Shorter ext will give better corners but longer tele end MFD and less magnification. I need good photos of gobies down to about 30-40mm length. I agree your pipe fish and shrimp pics look good. As I already mentioned, larger subjects like those (say 60mm and over) are great for the 140 / 20-70 combo, at the tele end. But I wouldn't recommend the 140 / 20-70 combo for other than occasional WA.