That was the question I was asking myself before my recent trip on the Shearwater. Is the 10.5 only good for CFWA reef scenics and should I use a narrower w/a lens for sharks, turtles, dolphins, etc.
For the first few dives I stuck with the 16mm and although I was getting decent images I wasn't really excited about the results so I asked Jim Abernathy what he thought about using the 10.5. His response was that he would absolutely use it if it was available to him - he's a Canon user. That was good enough for me.
Here are a couple of images taken at the El Dorado site with the 10.5. The images are uncropped. What do you think?
Here's another turtle shot. Same deal - 10.5 - uncropped.
No dolphins. We got skunked on the dolphins due to rough weather
I think it's great Larry. I know a lot of people that shoot the fisheye exclusively.
Some feedback on the shots. I would try to knock down that Fuji green case in the first one using the channel mixer and custom WB.
Very nice!
Cheers
James
Works for me too......I like the last one......that shark must have been right in your face
Karl
I'm confused. I loved my INON WAL with a dome (129 degrees) on my 5050. But I've stayed away from the 10.5 (180 degrees) because I thought 180 degrees would be too wide e.g. too hard to light and too much lit back scatter in the upper corners. But these pictures don't seem to have these problems. In fact they look like 129 degree pictures to me. What am I missing?
What am I missing?
I wouldn't say you're missing anything... but the 10.5 is not a 180 degree lateral coverage lens,it is 180 degrees across the diagonal, lateral coverage is somewhat less.
Larry, thanks for posting those. I'd done a limited amount with the 10.5 (2 dives) and hadn't really gotten a feel for the lens yet. Like you, I'm curious as to how well they perform. I'm sure that last Turtle was very close to you and that of course would be the issue with some critters but I think you filled a pleasing percentage of the frame.
Not to intrude on your thread (too much :roll: ) but since we're talking about this lens specifically, here is another un-cropped shot. The jelly is about 5" across.
Rand
I'm confused. I loved my INON WAL with a dome (129 degrees) on my 5050. But I've stayed away from the 10.5 (180 degrees) because I thought 180 degrees would be too wide e.g. too hard to light and too much lit back scatter in the upper corners. But these pictures don't seem to have these problems. In fact they look like 129 degree pictures to me. What am I missing?
I'd say your missing about 51 degrees. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. But seriously, the 10.5 is not all that difficult to light. I'm not even using wide-angle strobes. I just use a pair of SB-105's. Yes, if you have a very large subject that fills all of the frame then it would be difficult to light the whole thing evenly. But that's not usually the case underwater.
Here's a 16mm shot for comparison.
Peter -
Just buy it...it's fast, hot and cheap! Wait, am I posting on the wrong board again...
M.
Ok, I ordered it. Now I need to order a port to go with it.
I tell people I can afford all this because I don't drink, gamble, or do drugs. But, looking at the bills piling up I'm beginning to think that drinking, gambling, and doing drugs would be a less expensive life style.
I sure hope Medicare covers all this.
Peter -
Look at it this way:
Ikelite FE dome : 150 bucks
Nikon 10.5 DX : 500 bucks
Your Wide Angle Photo
in Scuba Magazine : Priceless
M. )
But I've stayed away from the 10.5 (180 degrees) because I thought 180 degrees would be too wide e.g. too hard to light and too much lit back scatter in the upper corners.
(this is not really a reply to Peter, more a general comment).
I think it is possible to strobe-light the whole frame of the 10.5mm, as long as you are careful. This image is lit with one strobe that has done a pretty reasonable job (I would usually choose two strobes for this sort of shot, but my second strobe a YS120 was having issues on this dive)!
Ideally though, with the 10.5mm you should not try to light the whole image - you only need to try and light the main subject. E.g. Larry's first turtle image - where he only needed to light the turtle and did not need to worry about lighting the top half of the frame.
Alex
Alex,
That is a beautiful photo of the sweepers and diver. I agree with you that it is not frequent to light the entire image, usually a main subject (which is much smaller than the 10.5 angle...hopefully). Question. I am shooting the 12-24, but have heard that there is a lot of barrell distortion with the 10.5. Are these photos corrected with software or are they pretty much as you shot it? If you do tweak the distrotion, what software do you use? I am seriously considering the 10.5 even if my wife got reorganized out of a job. I hid a few bucks and need to spend it.
Thanks for the feedback.
Joe Belanger
Are these photos corrected with software or are they pretty much as you shot it? If you do tweak the distrotion, what software do you use? I am seriously considering the 10.5 even if my wife got reorganized out of a job. I hid a few bucks and need to spend it.
Thanks for the feedback.
Joe Belanger
I can't speak for Alex but I can tell you that there is no FE correction on any of my shots. Except for some exposure correction during the RAW conversion (I intentionally underexpose by about a stop to prevent blowout on the highlights) they are presented as shot.
If you shoot the horizon right through the middle it will be straight. Same goes for a vertical pole - put it right in the middle.
I've been using the 16mm fisheye on a FF camera lately, which would be the same as the 10.5 on a DX cam:
Then again, if you are up in the air and you DON'T put the horizon on the centerline, you can get some neat effects:
