Posts posted by humu9679
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks Bill. In the first series, I think the first photo is with MFO - a little more magnification and sharp. The second series of the sea cucumber has some fall off of sharpness and a bit more magnification. How was the MFO in giving you working distance at the far end? Just over a meter, by spec?
(Side note - all the cameras I've used have had some difficulty locking focus on smooth nubbly pink phyllidias. It's probably me and my eyesight.)
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
On 4/26/2025 at 12:06 AM, dentrock said: Image stabilisation would be handy if you are relying on available light (no strobe).
But if strobes are your primary light source, the short duration of their flash should freeze the subject OK, even if you yourself are wobbling about!
And don't forget, image stabilisation only helps reduce your shakes, not subject movement...
Exactly right.
-
I'm curious about the rate of o-ring failure in housings equipped with vacuums. Certainly it makes good sense. As I think through the process of putting a vacuum into play - the pre-dive checkout - maybe the true value is noting errors during that process which prevents issues during the dive. After the check perhaps the vacuum isn't necessary.
-
11 hours ago, JayceeB said: Perhaps @MatthewSullivan is onto something.
I had an HF-1 flood 2 weeks ago in Anilao. The strobe worked the entire dive and I left the batteries in overnight as I had not taken many shots. I turned the strobe on in the morning with no power. Opened it up and found some salt water and corroded batteries. Rinsed with fresh water, dried, rubbing alcohol, dried. Left it a day to sit. Next day it powered up and continued working for another 10 days, but started to fail after that. It would power up at the surface, but then at depth, it would not power on. I tested again on the surface and it powered on.
FYI: I contacted Backscatter, and they will repair the flooded strobe and replace the battery cap for $235. Strobe is now out for repair.
You made some nice pictures at Anilao. Sad to hear about the strobe.
-
1
-
-
Welcome and Aloha! We have a few folks here who love making 3d odds and ends to make gear work better. Enjoy the site!
-
1
-
-
Could it be that the water drops in the housing and the vacuum sensor are separate problems? If the housing hasn't been serviced in a while, I wonder about the integrity of the small o-rings that keep water from leaking into the housing. I've removed what seems like a lot of sand from some buttons, especially after being rolled in the sand on shore exits.
Also, I may be swimming against the current, but I often dive my Nauticam housings without engaging a vacuum. Worked fine in years past, and I have yet to flood a Nauticam. Some of my plastic housings have bid adios to the great god Neptune, but never a Nauticam.
-
22 hours ago, dentrock said: Sorry to disappoint, but I don't entirely share the positive comments about the MFO-1 - at least when paired with the Sony 90. But I'm a fish nerd and haven't used any water contact optics since I sold my WWL-1 years ago. I prefer macro lenses to close-up dioptres.
I was intrigued by the MFO, because of its extended focus range cf dioptres, and improved IQ across the frame cf using just the flat port. Also someone mentioned taking it to Lembeh (where I hope to visit shortly) and shooting it with their 90 most of the time. Someone else said it was good for lower viz waters...
So I bought one. First test this morning, using: Sony 90, A7RV, Nauticam, AFC, focus tracking, medium spot or expanded spot, subject recognition on and off, 90 AF on Full.
Good points:
It's as sharp as everyone claims... IF you can get the subject in focus!
The area of central focus is increased cf the 90 behind just a flat port. This aligns with my experience shooting 50mm macro lenses behind a dome, which significantly enhances overall IQ, albeit introducing some AF problems.
Bad points:
The rig is incredibly negatively buoyant, so much so that mid water subjects are almost impossible. But I don't use floats or floaty arms, so others who do will rightly say 'well, duh!' but the truth is I've never felt the need for them, until now.
Focus is very slow, slower than any other rig I use, even the much maligned Sony 50 macro. It slows even further as you move in towards 1:1, effectively ruling out small moving subjects. And it still hunts sometimes...
AF failures: AF failed in 28 out of 42 shots, even though I took care to focus on the eyes of mainly stationary fish targets. AF was OK on stationary non-fish subjects such as sea stars, where the potential focus target is larger and flatter.
I later compared the downloaded images with the originals still in the camera in Playback mode, because I have set up Playback to show the green frame that was allegedly the actual position focused on. I found in the fish images the green frame is often NOT on the part of the frame that IS in focus - i.e. the Playback indicator appears to 'lie'.
I don't think this is a camera fault, but instead it reflects that you need to 'wait' after you THINK you have focused on the subject with the 90 / MFO, before you take the picture, to allow the very slow focus process to conclude!
And yes, I have the priority set in AFC / AFS on AF.
Conclusions:
I can (reluctantly) sort the buoyancy issue, but the AF issues are a deal breaker. If I focus on the eye of a fish, I expect it to be razor sharp almost all the time for stationary subjects, and most of the time for moving targets. Nothing less will do.
As a fish nerd, the 20-70 seems a better bet, even with the disadvantage of the bulky 180 dome, which makes shooting small subjects on the bottom more difficult. But it is doable at the 70 end, with MUCH better AF. Also the rig handles sweetly, without buoyancy aids.
The Sony and Zeiss 50 macros are also better performers, although using them with a dome introduces some similar AF issues (but not as bad).
Curious to see if anyone has had similar experiences with their MFO / 90 rig, and what they did to improve things.
The MFO is marketed as improving the AF of the lenses that it's designed for, but I didn't see that - more like the reverse. Perhaps it works better with AFS - but I don't use that mode.
Do you think it would make any difference trying your 90 on a different body? Or trying a different 90? You experience seems so different from what other folks are saying. I'd be happy to take the thing off your hands if you can't get it sorted.
-
10 hours ago, vkalia said: While it is quite small and I casually sling it on one shoulder while checking in (while wincing on the inside), i am trying to find a way to shave a couple of kg off it, along with separating some of the items into 2 bags.
I feel your pain. I suppose the trick is to act nonchalant while your shoulder screams.
-
2
-
-
I would agree with @Oren Noah that checking with your wife's OB should guide your travels. Pregnancy is also a risk for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). If everything checks out as low risk, then much of the advice given above is spot on, especially deep into the 2nd trimester when things should be in cruise control.
-
-
Greetings from Ireland
in Member Introductions
I think Hawaii is underrated. There are a lot of creatures - about 25 percent are endemic. It's nice that you can dive somewhere pretty much every day.