SFEgr

There seem to be a lot of comments, claims and criticisms regarding various strobe/snoot assemblies which are all good fun but don't always tally with my observations. I am wondering if there are any testing standards or best practices for reviewing these packages - that ideally one might be able to replicate to confirm some level of accuracy. I think I am reasonably aware of the myriad of variables that come up but it would help me understand the real 'illumination based' / lighting through-put advantages of one system compared to another - in actual numbers - leaving ergonomics and cost benefits to the talking heads. Has this been done or listed somewhere?, as I have looked about and have not found anything. This sort of data would be very persuasive (for me at least) to meaningfully consider my possible snoot futures. Simon

Hi there, my name is Simon, I was introduced to this site from WetPixel (polyroly) and signed up as I always like new viewpoints. I am from the snowy north but only (so far) dive in the sunny south - so no dry suit experience yet. We have just over 300 dives, recreational depth and mostly land based but also on a couple of liveaboards. I try to keep my kit small due to travel baggage limits and I am always trying to make my kit smaller - it gets bigger. I am using a Sony a6400 and a SaltedLine housing mostly using the 90 Macro, with a single Z330 and a self designed and printed Snoot that incorporates both Optical and Fiber interfaces. DIY is a sickness. Underwater, I love finding small worlds and so I love Macro - also why I love photographing mushrooms and lichens on our forest walks. I am drawn to the inconspicuous subjects. Microscopic dioramas cause me to smile.