Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Events
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by Architeuthis
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Great information, thanks to you and Backscatter ... 👍 Now we know that Chris's analysis gives valid numbers and also can compare the zones between the RETRA testing (in air at 60 cm distance) and the Backscatter testing (in water at distance of 1m). Here the beam angles of the different zones (for Retra calculated from Pythagoras and angular functions): -
There is, of course, never a total warranty, but unless there are (small) cracks in the dome to see, it is very unlikely that any implosion will happen... Even small cracks may be no problem (but may impair optical performance), but then better ask at the manufacturer. In a Nauticam housing that I bought second hand there were small cracks to see in the rear window (not just scratches). I made a photo and send this to Nauticam, the response was that this is no problem (and it was no problem until now)... Wolfgang
-
Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January
Architeuthis replied to a topic in Photography Gear and Technique
When this photo was really taken at f/13, as Dreifish read out from the EXIF data, I agree with Dreifish that DOF is very shallow compared to other optics, e.g. WACP-C. When the aperture was wide open, this is what one would expect, more or less. But still it depends how close the soft coral was, when very close you get this even at f/13... Maybe you have a photo that is not CFWA, e.g. reefscene, and was taken at wide aperture f/7 and smaller numbers? Would be interesting to see such a photo... Wolfgang -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
This is interesting news...👍 As long as the screenshots are taken from a calibrated monitor (no extra contrast, HDR etc...) the analysis is be valid... -
I had a similar problem with Nauticam housing last year: maybe half a teaspoon of water inside. I noticed it immediately, as it was in a very cold mountain lake and I got condensation on the domeport what made photos impossible... After the dive, I noticed that three screws of an extension were missing (already as it came from the factory). I wrote to several Nauticam dealers, some wrote this was probably the reason, other said it cannot be the reason. Backscatter was so kind to supply me, free of charge, with spare screws... Until today I do not know what the reason was, but after insertion of the missing screws and fixing the entire part with four screws, I never had this problem again... => I posted this in the old forum. Better have a look on the photo in the first post there and check, whether you also miss some screws (just to be on the safe side): https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71358-dimensions-of-screws-for-nauticam-n120-extensions/ Wolfgang
-
Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January
Architeuthis replied to a topic in Photography Gear and Technique
Great, thanks. What were the conditions (aperture, but also other parameters)? => The sharpness of the in focus area does not look very impressive, but this is probably due to the data reduction for putting the photos here. Maybe a 100% would show sharpness better... -
I cannot follow you, Adventurer: when flash duration (linear tubes) is 1ms to 4ms, you need shutter speeds between 1/1000s and 1/250s and have, more or less (decay of intensity is exponential), the entire light emitted in your photo. Only Sony AIII and compacts are able to do substantially faster sync. With few cameras that are able to sync. at 1/400s (e.g. Sony A1, Oly EM1II or OM-1), you already clip some light from a flash that lasts is longer than 2.5 ms... Even with circular flashtubes that have longer lasting pulses, the action can be frozen to the fastest sync. speed the camera is able to do, at the cost of some light loss. I never heard that such light loss plays a role in macro, as full strobe power is practically never used... I would be interested if you can give the special settings under which you observed these movement artifacts (focal length (I guess this was at WA with quite long exposure times?), shutter speed, aperture, was there ambient light in the play? etc...) - this is very surprising to me...
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
This sounds logical. In this context it will be interesting to see the light distribution of the Marelux 3 strobe with three linear flash tubes arranged in triangular shape near the outer rim of the strobe front... -
I believe that short flash duration is, at present, mostly important for owners of compact cameras and of cameras that have global shutter (Sony A9III). The flash sync. speeds of most present system cameras (1/160s to 1/400s) are long enough to utilize (most) of the flash duration. It will become, however, a more and more important feature in the future... I think there is also not a single feature that is most important for a good strobe and the others don't count. Color temperature, even light distribution, recycle time, maximum strobe power, compactness and flash duration are separate features and each of them has to be good to make up a good strobe... Wolfgang
-
Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January
Architeuthis replied to a topic in Photography Gear and Technique
In case it turns out that only f/13 and smaller is suitable for the FCP, the FCP concept is very different from WWL/WACP: The positive characteristic of WWL/WACP is that it allows to make photos at relative wide apertures, when compared to rectilinear lenses (corner sharpness issue): Most use it starting already at f/7, sometimes even wider apertures, when ambient light is limiting. I cannot observe with my WACP-C that sharpness in the center is affected by widening up the aperture (same with rectilinear WA lenses behind dome). Maybe Martin's FCP was defective and/or the wrong extension was responsible. If not, his findings are certainly not a recommendation for FCP. When I remember correctly, Remy Nicools wrote in his review that stopping down to f/13 and more is required to get enough DOF for the entire image. He did not write that FCP has to be stopped down to f/13 and more to provide good center sharpness... Corner sharpness is, of course, a different issue to center sharpness and the depth of field issue (but DOF and corner sharpness are related: the more DOF, the better also the corner sharpness will be). I am not aware of any comparison, how much DOF is available, at comparable AOVs and distances, when rectilinear WA lenses, WWL/WACPs and FCP are compared (with rectilinear WA lenses, DOF increases with the radius of the dome). Is such a comparison available somewhere? Wolfgang -
Yes, 220V (or lower) directly plugged into the charger. The charger has its own line adapter. The weight of the line adapter could be saved when using USB connection and a separate adapter (e.g. notebook charger, but I would go for another powerfull USB adapter as a spare then). Line cord is replaced by USB-C, so not such saving if any (anyhow the cords weigth very little), but USB cord can be used for several applications... => All in all mostly a more symbolic saving of weight (few power adapters and one, maybe two, power strips), but I try to do my best... The accus of our cameras (Sony A7R5 and Oly EM1II) and the accupacks of our focus and night lights (WeeFine) are charged via line voltage as well. I do not see much possibility how to charge them via USB (maybe buy other Focuslights that are powered by AA or Li batteries, but we are not going to invest a lot of money into this little weight savings (teh WeFine lamps are working very well))... Our liveaboards are mostly in Egypt (Egypt and Red Sea are close to Austria). Since years charging in the cabin is forbidden and all liveaboards have special charging areas on the deck. Even on Alex's workshops, when everybody on board is an UW-photographer, the space is enough (but of course, it is crowded)...
-
Convict Blennies doing their job
Architeuthis replied to lutfu's topic in Photo / Video Showcase and Critique
Great video, showing fascinating behaviour...👍 Most convict blennies (Pholidichthys leucotaenia) that find in Google have a different color pattern. Is this a variant? -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Hi Jerry, Fortunately, UW-photography is regarded to be not a science, but an art...🙂 There are, however, physical principles in photography and also in UW-photography, that cannot be neglected. I fear a little, that we are coming to the stage were we are going to count peas, but I just cannot leave your post uncommented: #1.: I fully agree that the Backscatter "study" lacks info about conditions, I have no reason to brighten the Backscatter communications. In addition, also the screenshots from the videos certainly suffered some postprocessing and therefore also will not give 100% accurate results (There are people from Backscatter posting in this flash forum and I wonder why they are so quiet...). Unfortunately we cannot translate the "Retra zones" in "Backscatter zones" directly. I guess, maybe, that every "zone" in the Backscatter images corresponds to 40° AOV. Then "zone 4" may correspond to 160° (and approx. to "Retra Zone" 3), but who knows? You cannot calculate light intensity projected by a light source that is several cm in diameter at a distance of 60 cm from the "distance square law", since this law is derived simply from geometry and only applies to light sources that are represented by a point (!) without dimensions. For an UW flash this means many meters of distance, until the light source can be regarded as such (=a single point) and this law delivers solid results. Therefore better do it the empirical way and make controlled test photos and measure the light distribution... #2.: It is not enough for an exact study to use a light meter and give a reference to the manufacturer. One also needs to know how to use it and how to make the measurements: In the normalized graph, that was kindly provided by Chris (where all flashes start at (estimated) 72 a.u. at the center), -1 f-stop corresponds to a value of "36", -2 f-stops to "18" (only HF-1 w/o diffuser goes below 20 at "zone 4" in Chris's graph). -7 f-stops would correspond to a value of "0.6" in Chris's graph - this would be practically black. According to the "Retra graph" (posted by Dreifish at the beginning of this tread), the light falloff, already in "zone 1" is between -3 f-stops and -4 f-stops (that would correspond to "9" and "4.5" in Chris's graph) - such strobes would be pretty unusable... #3.: It is not that "...testing in air might not be ideal...", it is just not possible to test UW-flashes in air and draw solid conclusions for UW work. Not only the beam angle will be different in water, also the light scattering will be completely different, as it is almost absent in air, but substantially in the water. As a proof of my statement, please have a look at the light distribution of YS-D2 and Z330 "test images" (both without diffusers; the last two images at the bottom left) from the Retra "study" I post here (again) the link: https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/flashgun-light-comparison (I hope this allows me to paste the graph into my post, if not, please delete the graph, but leave the link) => I am using both YS-D2 and Z330 for years (also without diffusers), but never have I been able to get such a weird light distribution pattern. This must have been produced by the lack of water in the Retra "study". I see no point in analysing intensities in such patterns (even when the measurements are done correctly, but the resulting f-stop numbers seem to be completely wrong)... Respectfully, Wolfgang -
Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port shipping Mid January
Architeuthis replied to a topic in Photography Gear and Technique
Quite some time passed since the FCP-1 became available. I am sure that several here have acquired one. There should be numerous people now that have long-term experience... I am curious and would be grateful to hear from FCP-1 users: How does the FCP-1 perform in general? Is FCP-1 a complete substitute for WWL/WACPs, just with more range at the fisheye end, or do you still use your WWL/WACP, depending on circumstances? Wolfgang -
Thank you all for the interesting contributions...👍 I am currently using a "DlyFull A4" that is very similar to the Nitcore Ci4, but it is powered by regular line voltage. I am considering now acquiring the Nitcore, powered just by USB-C, no extra adapter, in order to save weight for travel... Could I use the charger of my Notebook, that I have with me anyhow, to power the Nitcore charger? It is for Macbook Pro M1, has USB-C out with 96 W. Already now I often exchange the USB-C to MagSafe cable with a regular USB-C cable and use the adapter to charge other items, e.g. powerbank (145 W/25 Ah), handy etc. ... What specs. should a line to USB-C adapter have to power the Nitcore sufficiently and in addition also other items (from Notebook to handy), when acquiring an additional power adapter? Wolfgang
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Hi Dreifish, Maybe you could adjust the exposure to a level so that the brightness in the center of the strobe beam is the same. I think then (and when the distance to the object was the same), one could judge easier whether there is a difference in light distribution and/or beam angle... Wolfgang -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Yes, unfortunately the Backscatter graphs that I have posted show results from previous generation flashes... Important is, however, that the light falloff from center to border is in the range of -1.5 f-stops to -0.5 f-stops, depending on zone, flash and diffuser. This is much closer to the measurements that Chris made with your screenshorts, assuming he used a linear y-axis (?). So maybe Chris's measurements are not so far away from reality (but maybe not, because of the postprocessing problem, we need unprocessed test images)... => In any case, I find the graph from the "Retra-Study" weird (and as I wrote already, also the test photos look weird)- the light fall off in Zone 3 is -6 to -7 f-stops compared to the center (!!). Did they put a snoot on the flashes for testing... ? (seriously: this shows that one cannot test light distribution of UW strobes in air) -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Thank you Chris, interesting! Is it this with or without diffusers (which diffuser if any)? Could you please also make a graph with HF-1 (with and w/o diffusers)? In case you normalize the brightness of each individual strobe/diffuser combination to the value at "0" (x-axis), the center, The even/uneven light distribution would be even better visible for everybody. Intensity comparison could be made separately from the even/uneven brightness distributions, just by comparing the absolute values in the center, e.g. bar diagrams... => I do not want to be the party-crasher, I hav a little bad feeling when I write this, BUT there is still a massive problem in all this comparison: Both when viewing the images and also when making quantitative measurements from them (the measurements provide, no doubt, comparable numbers. These numbers are, however, just the result of the intensity values on the processed image; we need, however, the unprocessed images in order to be able to compare.. => A meaningful comparison and analysis of the test images is only possible, when the totally unprocessed RAW files are compared, no processing at all. (in addition, the photos have to be taken at strictly standardized conditions. e.g. distance, clarity of water, camera settings (ISO, shutter, aperture) - hopefully Backscatter is doing so...). It would be great if Backscatter would make the original raw files available... Wolfgang -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Here I have found some graphs from Backscatter, unfortunately mostly not the recent strobe generation (brightness vs. angle): https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Retra-Flash-Underwater-Strobe-Test-and-Review I guess this is from the test shots (or similar shots) that Backscatter shows in the videos (and Dreifish uses for his comparison)... I hope it does not violate copyright, as I cite the source above (if yes, please delete): Here the graph w/o diffusers (brightness is given in f-stops, so f/22 is a the reference and f/16 means -1/f-stop and f/11 means -2/f-stops (?); beam angle is given in degree (°), I guess degree from center (or is it entire angle of view (?)): When compared to other pro-level strobes the Retra performed quite well in terms of brightness and consistency. And here the measurements from the test photos made with diffusers: Even with diffusers, the Retra still rises to the top of the test results. => The measured intensity falloff (in e.g. % from value in the center) is pretty similar for all the strobes tested without diffusers, in the range of approx. -1.5 f-stops from center to 90° (the Retra model tested has the steepest falloff). => When warm and white diffusers are used, the Retra model has still approx. -1.5 f-stop falloff (from center to 90°). All other strobes (and Retra with shark diffusers) improve to the range of approx. -0.5 f-stops to -1 f-stops falloff... -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
I fully agree that there should be some measurements, e.g. histograms (e.g. distance from center vs. intensity). Screenshots from videos are not suitable, the measured values depend a lot on postprocessing and how the video is viewed. It should be done from original, standardized, test shots in water and at distances that are realistic... Dreifish does a great job, I enjoy to see this comparison, but the comparison would be much more meaningful, when would be able to use the original testshots (in case they were done by Backscatter under standardized conditions)... I think the graph shown comes from the "Retra study": https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/flashgun-light-comparison Retra say that the strobes were positioned 60cm away from a screen in air ((!); even the beam angle will differ in water compared to air. Not to speak about even or uneven distribution of intensity)). Please have a look at the intensity distribution in the figure with the original test photos, especially YS-D2 and Z330 without diffusers: => I have both YS-D2 and Z330 strobes, but I never have observed such a weird intensity distribution UW. It must be an artifact, produced by using the strobes in air. => To me the entire "study" is nonsense. Maybe one can use the original table for comparison, were parameters supplied by the manufacturers are listed. The measurements are not worth anything (sorry to say, but this is the case)... Wolfgang P.S.: I do not doubt that the Retras are excellent strobes. I think that Retra does not have it necessary to publish such "studies" to promote their strobes... -
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Architeuthis replied to DreiFish's topic in Lights, Strobes, and Lighting Technique
Thanks, very interesting comparison... 👍 Is it known to what angles (° field of view) the four different circles in the test image correspond? Also, what is the distance between flash and test image (the more distance the more even the light distribution will be; YS-D3 without diffuser looks like a catastrophy, I would say completely unusable (maybe the distance is much too short and does not reflect real life conditions?)? I find the results sobering. Only DS230 seem to deliver reasonable light distribution, the other flashes seem to deliver a hot spot in the middle, even with dome diffusers...😐 Were these images taken from the Backscatter videos? Do we know whether they do harsh postprocessing to make the entire videos looking nice in the Internet - many postprocessing manipulations will change the test images and make them unusable: e.g. the more the contrast slider is activated, the greater the difference in brightness between center and border will become. These manipulations may well be very different from video to video, depending on the person and the mood of the person who is doing it... (I hope the flashes perform better in real life and try to find arguments, still waiting for my pre-odered HF-1s...😊) Wolfgang -
I became aware of Providencia island as a diving destination, when I asked in Scubaboard for a Caribbean diving destination that still offers intact reefs and sealife and is not overrun by tourism (my Caribbean diving experience was, so far, limited to a stay in the early 90ies at Grand Cayman and two stays on the Florida Key Islands around 2000). Instigated by a very positive recommendation, Lisi, me and two friends (Franz and Gerdi) headed towards Providencia Island in March 2024... The tiny island belongs politically to Columbia, but is located in the western Caribbean approx. 150 km off the coast, at the geographical height of Nicaragua. It is located close to another, bigger, island, San Andres and belongs to the San Andres archipelago. Before I start to report about this remarkable diving and UW-photography journey, it is important to state that this is certainly NOT a diving destination for everybody. Do not attempt to undertake this trip, unless you are prepared to deal with the toils listed below, otherwise the trip may become a nightmare: (i) Arrival and departure to and from Providencia is very tedious: For us Austrians this means a flight from Vienna to Paris, followed by a long flight from Paris to Bogota, the capital of Columbia. After arriving at Bogota in the late evening and spending the night in a hotel near the airport, we took a flight from Bogota to San Andres. After spending another night in San Andres, we headed finally to our destination, Providencia. Satena, a small domestic airline, operates the route from San Andres to Providencia with small turboprop aircrafts that remind me at daring bumblebees (especially landing and taking off on the small landing strip on Providencia is an adventure for itself). The check-in luggage is restricted to 15 kg (), but more luggage is allowed upon extra payment, so no problem. The problem was that three suitcases got lost, already on the flight from Paris to Bogota and these delayed suitcases are not automatically transported to the final destination. It took us three days, a lot of efforts and nerves, numerous phonecalls and the dedicated help of Nelson, an employee of a concurrent domestic airline at San Andres, until we had our complete photographic equipment on site (we were three UW-photographers). Departure from Providencia was the same, but in reverse order, but this time there were no problems with luggage. Just count with three days for each direction... (ii) Tourism on Providencia island is simple. There has been once a small, single hotel with enclosed PADI diving base on the island, called "Sirius". The complex had been completely destroyed by Hurrican Iota in 2020. Since then, only very simple accomodation is available in private "Posadas" on bed and breakfast basis. There is no "cold" or "hot" water, it comes just at the temperature as it is available at the container on top of the building. Some apartments have a gas stove for preparing food. In SW-Bay (the biggest beach in Providencia) there was a a single and small restaurant ("Divino Nino") that offered delicious food for little money. For the spoiled ones amongst us, the choice between fish, shrimps or lobster may be a little bit repetitive, howsoever... I can say that the inhabitants of Providencia are very relaxed and exceptionally friendly to foreigners. Spanish is the official language, but they speak Creole amongst them and many know English. Few tourists from Colombia come to spend simple, nature bound, holidays. In addition to the general tourists, there are few divers, mostly from Colombia, but also others from all over the world (Providencia is not a complete insider tip any more). In the two weeks we stayed at Providencia, we met divers from Colombia, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany and USA. Daniel, the busy and helpful owner of "Sirius Diving" has established a new replacement diving base, located close to the original, but destroyed, one (there are plans to reestablish hotel and original diving base, but the opening day is uncertain...). The small island is located in Caribbean high seas and is surrounded by a massive reef. The diving spots, both on the outside as well as inside the reef, are reached by small boats. Visibility in "Carribbean blue" waters is good, I estimate 20m to 25m. The reefs are typical for the Carribean, with few stone corals, but plenty of horn and fan corals and impressive sponges. They looked completely intact to me, I could not see signs of bleaching or pollution (some hard corals were broken, presumably from the hurricane). Here a facette of the typical reefscape at the outer reef. While I was trying to adjust flashes and camera to make a photo of the reefscape and the three langusts, a juvenile reef shark swam into the frame and destroyed my composition . Sony A7R5, Canon 8-15mm @15mm, 140mm domeport, 1/160s, f/9, ISO 250, 2*Z330. The highlight for UW-photographers on Providencia island is certainly the Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezi). They live (still) in high numbers around the island. This species appears to be the Caribbean counterpart of the grey reefshark, that lives in the Indopacific (Carcharinhus amblyrynchus). They are "just" reefsharks, but some specimen can grow to quite formidable size (I estimate the individuals that we encountered to measure between 1 m and 2.5 m). The photo shows Gerdi taking a photo of a Carribbean reef shark at the outer reef: Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C, 1/200s, f/9, ISO 250, 2*Z330. These sharks are anything but shy and approach the divers as soon as the divers come close to the drop off at the outer reef (they are not fed or baited by the diving base). From few up to a dozen of these animals would encircle the divers during the entire dive and make outstanding motifs for UW photographers. Reef shark against the reef : Sony A7R5, Sony 20-70mm @20mm, 170mm domeport, 1/160s, f/9, ISO 400, 2*Z330. The Carribbean reefsharks at Providencia island are curious and investigative. Seldom but sometimes, they would come extremely close, almost touching the domeport, in order to check you out. At a few cm distance they would haul off and continue to encircle the divers at greater distance. Only once during the entire period of two weeks, a shark was exerting threatening behaviour against me, i.e. lowering his head and starting jittering with his pectoral fins just in front of me at arms length (I believe that this shark was feeling restricted, as I was positioning myself directly in his swimming direction to get a frontal photo, and Lisi, who was beside me, also taking photos, and the close coral wall dropoff - all contributed to the restriction). After Lisi and me swiftly retracted (better listen, when such an animals wants to tell you something ), the shark continued to swim speedily back and forth along the reef edge, repeatedly and fast opening and closing its mouth. At this point I should say that Carcharhinus perezi is considered harmless to humans, but attacks on humans after neglecting such threatening behaviour have been reported. Reef shark checking me out and hauling off afterwards: Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C, 1/160s, f/9, ISO 400, 2*Z330. A wreck, "El Planchon", is located at the bottom of the coral reefs surrounding Providencia island. Our guide, Carol, told us, that it had been a Colombian ship supporting German submarines with replenishment of all kind during WWII. When the end of the war was close, captain and crew decided that it is time to go home and sunk the ship upon translating their thoughts into action (happy people!). Today the wreck is home to triggerfish, groupers and impressive reefsharks as guardians. Grouper at "El Planchon": Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C, 1/200s, f/11, ISO 200, 2*Z330. The diving at Sirius diving base is typically done with the first dive in the morning at the outer reef and, after sufficient surface interval, the second dive in shallow and sheltered areas within the reef. These areas provide shelter for impressive schools of snappers, grunts and sweetlips, juvenile fish of all kind, puffer fish, nurse sharks and other kind of marine life (we even ecountered a group of friendly purpoises, but they were too far away to take reasonable photos in good quality). Mixed school of bluestriped grunts (Hemulon scirius) and French grunts (Hemulon flavilineatum ) at Tete's place: Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C, 1/160s, f/11, ISO 160, 2*Z330. Mixed swarm of French grunts (Hemulon flavilineatum) and squirrelfish (Holocentrus atcensionis). A school of other fish passes by in the background. Sony A7R5, Canon 8-15mm @15mm, 140mm domeport, 1/160s, f/16, ISO 320, 2*Z330. Closeup of a shool of grey grunts (Haemulon album): Sony A7R5, Sony 20-70mm @70mm, 170mm domeport, 1/200s, f/10, ISO 100, 2*Z330. West Atlantic trumpetfish (Aulostomus maculatus), well camouflaged in a gorgonian octocoral: Sony A7R5, Sony 20-70mm @70mm, 170mm domeport, 1/160s, f/11, ISO 100, 2*Z330. I must admit that I was so impressed by the variety of WA (and fishportrait) motifs (first of all the charismatic Charcharhinus perezi, that were an abundant motif at Providencia and whom I, personally, met the first time in my life), that I did not use my macro setup for even a single dive. Instead I was using WACP-C/Sony 28-60m, Canon 8-15mm and Sony 20-70mm for all dives (in this order). The period of two week diving was too short and it would have been better to stay for another, additional, week to exploit the beautiful macro motifs, including snails and shrimps, that we encountered... As a proof here a Flamingo tongue snail (Cyphoma gibbosus), feeding on gorgonia, taken with the fisheye lens: Sony A7R5, Canon 8-15mm @15mm, 140mm domeport, 1/160s, f/16, ISO 100, 2*Z330. The scubadiving holidays at Providencia island were an exceptional experience for all four of us, with font memories that will endure...
-
Mid-range macro recs for Sony FFs?
Architeuthis replied to StephanieW's topic in Photography Gear and Technique
Thank you Phil, for this valuable summary of experience...👍 I have a question on Tamron 17-28 vs. Sony 16-25 (I currently own the Tamron and use it on A7R5): Did I read it correctly that IQ of the Sony is better compared to the Sony? Or do you recommend it, because it offers 16mm at the wide end, compared to 17mm (Tamron)? What about the 16-35mm GM (I+II) lenses? Do they perform equally well or are they just too expensive? Thanks, Wolfgang -
I believe that the "depth of field" argument applies mostly to macro images. When the ambient light is dim, the performace in the very edges is not really important. In addition, there are the WWL/WACP lenses that make FF photography at wider apertures very well possible... Wolfgang