If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On 10/09/2018 22:31, Savageduck wrote:
[] How wide do you want to go? In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D In my MFT bag I have a 9-18 mm zoom, and 9 mm fisheye, so that's 18 mm in 35 mm terms. Total weight of these two lenses is 310 g, 10.9 oz. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 10:10:20 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different things. You had better believe ... Oh, please: the improvements have been incremental, as the base technology hasn't changed: it is still "mirrorless". If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago. That's a good 'Motherhood' statement for technology in general, but it actually depends on what's important to your photographic needs. For example, the ancient MILC I'd bought still outperforms your shiny new camera on certain metrics ... and do note that these were the factors which our purchase decision was based on. Case in point, on shutter speed: how much faster than 2 μs is your camera? No, that's not a typo: I did say "μs" to indicate microseconds (10E-6), and 2 μs is 1/500,000sec. Now I am curious, what was this pioneering MILC with astonishing shutter speed (that most photographers would probably never use). Indeed you're correct that 'most photographers' would never use, but that doesn't invalidate my points. The camera was a Vision Research Phantom 5 camera. The v5 series first shipped in 2001; we bought ours in 2002. It cost $100K, but it gave us what we needed, which was a fast shutter at 10,000 fps (full frame; partial frames higher - up to 100Kfps). [...] Yes, the display lag time of the EVF hardware is a factor in the overall temporal chain - - but it isn't the _only_ factor. The only thing that this 5ms "spec" is actually telling you is that once the EVF finally gets a frame to be displayed, it takes that hardware an additional 50ms to make it appear on its screen. --------------------------- ^^^^ typo; should be "5ms". ...and that matters not one bit when it comes to actually using whichever camera the photographer, including yours truly, is using since I don't usually carry a full test bench with me on any shoot. Incorrect: the degree to which it is important depends on the photographer's application. I suspect that it doesn't matter that much to you when it comes to your photography. Depends on if I'm out having fun, or working in a lab. Even so, I'm concerned about what I've been learning on VR immersion on bioeffect interactions. It may not be significant in a land based setting with short eye time in an EVF, but it may be so for UW settings such as while immersed in a macro video for a couple of minutes...getting vertigo while underwater can be a tad unhealthy. That doesn't tell you how much time went by from the time that the photons hit the CCD/CMOS receptor to be collected. From an engineering standpoint, the receptor is a time-sampled period used to integrate the signal (thereby forming a discrete 'image'), which then gets bussed to the CPU for processing - - and resampling to the smaller EVF - - before it gets sent to the EVF for display. ...and I have yet to have that "time-sampled period" be critical in any digital camera I have used. Which is specific to you & your application(s); YMMV applies on both. The KISS net result of all of this is that the data in the EVF is always several data frames old .. and the key technical data performance question is *HOW* many frames old is it? Again, what does the OEM's technical data sheet say? Again I do not have that data sheet. Yet you've not been shy in claiming that it can't be an issue /S [...] My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. How wide do you want to go? See above: "My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V..." In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1..4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D Appropriate focal length lenses is only the first step of at least three. You also need: 2. the UW camera housing for the body. If it isn't sold, you're stuck. Yup. 3. the UW lens port/dome for that body+lens combination. If this isn't sold, then you have to pick another lens. Yup For example, the UW housing manufacturer with the broadest product line is Ikelite. So feel free to show us where they sell a body for your MILC model. Then, go he https://www.ikelite.com/pages/lens-port-charts ...and identify just what lenses are supported. For my particular camera Ikelite does not build a housing. However, Aquatech, Nauticam, Subal, and Meikon do. Perhaps not Ikelite, but capable. Well first off, meikon is immediately off my list because I can see from its URL that its max depth rating is inadequate (only 130fsw). And some circumspection is required when it comes to individual brands .. a good rule of thumb is to not buy anything that the more reputable suppliers (such as Backscatter) doesn't carry in their product lines. That knocks out aquatech...and also Fujifilm, interestingly enough. https://aquatech.net/collections/fujifilm/products/atb-xt2-camera-water-housing-kit https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-il-camera-housings/products/na-xt2-housing-for-fujifilm-x-t2-camera http://subal.com https://meikon.com.hk/collections/underwater-waterproof-camera-housing-case-for-fujifilm/products/fujifilm-x-t2-40m-130ft-underwater-camera-housing-kit-with-seafrogs-dry-dome-port-v-1 FYI, if you come up empty (no suitable product exists), then welcome to my world ... feel free to provide alternate solution recommendations. Alternatives provided above. There's a chance with the Nautica (can't get Subal to load right now); they offer support for only three lenses: a 50mm, a 60mm macro, and the "FUJINON XF10-24mmF4 R OIS", but since the XT-2 body is an APS-C sensor, these are "good enough" in that they sufficiently match my current setup from a focal length standpoint ... but that means (a) no room for capability growth, and (b) the same question on the fundamental optical quality and distortion on the WA lens+dome port. Given that their dome is 180mm (~7", which is smaller than my current 8" dome), that's a risk of repeating the same problem I have now. Plus there's also some work to check on how they do their strobe communication ports, as it might not be compatible with my current UW strobes, and having to also replace a pair of UW strobes adds another ~$2K to costs. But at least its a start that there's now at least an option (vs none) and its hopefully smaller than current .. I'd have to check the dimensions and weight to see if its significant or not. -hh |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
David Taylor wrote:
On 10/09/2018 22:31, Savageduck wrote: [] How wide do you want to go? In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D In my MFT bag I have a 9-18 mm zoom, and 9 mm fisheye, so that's 18 mm in 35 mm terms. Total weight of these two lenses is 310 g, 10.9 oz. I had thought of a fisheye, but it would only be a novelty lens for me. Fuji has just released an 8-16mm f/2.8 which is huge, and about $2000. There are still a few lenses I would like to have available, so I have a wish list. Needless to say I do not carry all my stuff on shoots. I tailor my load to my needs for that day. My Fujinon lens selection from wide to long is currently: XF14mm f/2.8 XF16mm f/1.4 (my current favorite) XF23mm f/2.0 XF35mm f/1.4 XF18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 XF55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 XF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 -- Regards, Savageduck |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
-hh wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 10:10:20 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different things. You had better believe ... Oh, please: the improvements have been incremental, as the base technology hasn't changed: it is still "mirrorless". If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago. That's a good 'Motherhood' statement for technology in general, but it actually depends on what's important to your photographic needs. For example, the ancient MILC I'd bought still outperforms your shiny new camera on certain metrics ... and do note that these were the factors which our purchase decision was based on. Case in point, on shutter speed: how much faster than 2 μs is your camera? No, that's not a typo: I did say "μs" to indicate microseconds (10E-6), and 2 μs is 1/500,000sec. Now I am curious, what was this pioneering MILC with astonishing shutter speed (that most photographers would probably never use). Indeed you're correct that 'most photographers' would never use, but that doesn't invalidate my points. Who are we kidding? This is not generally thought of as a consumer camera. The camera was a Vision Research Phantom 5 camera. The v5 series first shipped in 2001; we bought ours in 2002. It cost $100K, but it gave us what we needed, which was a fast shutter at 10,000 fps (full frame; partial frames higher - up to 100Kfps). So not exactly a consumer, or pro-photographer (depending on the type of pro) camera. There are not too many wedding photogs carrying one of those in their kit. https://www.phantomhighspeed.com [...] Yes, the display lag time of the EVF hardware is a factor in the overall temporal chain - - but it isn't the _only_ factor. The only thing that this 5ms "spec" is actually telling you is that once the EVF finally gets a frame to be displayed, it takes that hardware an additional 50ms to make it appear on its screen. --------------------------- ^^^^ typo; should be "5ms". ...and that matters not one bit when it comes to actually using whichever camera the photographer, including yours truly, is using since I don't usually carry a full test bench with me on any shoot. Incorrect: the degree to which it is important depends on the photographer's application. OK! I'll buy that. I suspect that it doesn't matter that much to you when it comes to your photography. Depends on if I'm out having fun, or working in a lab. Even so, I'm concerned about what I've been learning on VR immersion on bioeffect interactions. It may not be significant in a land based setting with short eye time in an EVF, but it may be so for UW settings such as while immersed in a macro video for a couple of minutes...getting vertigo while underwater can be a tad unhealthy. The problem is, you are mixing general photography, pro & hobbyist with lab work. Most folks in this room are shooting street, landscapes, portraiture, various sports, and events. That doesn't tell you how much time went by from the time that the photons hit the CCD/CMOS receptor to be collected. From an engineering standpoint, the receptor is a time-sampled period used to integrate the signal (thereby forming a discrete 'image'), which then gets bussed to the CPU for processing - - and resampling to the smaller EVF - - before it gets sent to the EVF for display. ...and I have yet to have that "time-sampled period" be critical in any digital camera I have used. Which is specific to you & your application(s); YMMV applies on both. That is the World I live in. The KISS net result of all of this is that the data in the EVF is always several data frames old .. and the key technical data performance question is *HOW* many frames old is it? Again, what does the OEM's technical data sheet say? Again I do not have that data sheet. Yet you've not been shy in claiming that it can't be an issue /S It hasn't been for me, and most of the photographers using MILCs. [...] My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. How wide do you want to go? See above: "My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V..." In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D Appropriate focal length lenses is only the first step of at least three. You also need: 2. the UW camera housing for the body. If it isn't sold, you're stuck. Yup. 3. the UW lens port/dome for that body+lens combination. If this isn't sold, then you have to pick another lens. Yup For example, the UW housing manufacturer with the broadest product line is Ikelite. So feel free to show us where they sell a body for your MILC model. Then, go he https://www.ikelite.com/pages/lens-port-charts ...and identify just what lenses are supported. For my particular camera Ikelite does not build a housing. However, Aquatech, Nauticam, Subal, and Meikon do. Perhaps not Ikelite, but capable. Well first off, meikon is immediately off my list because I can see from its URL that its max depth rating is inadequate (only 130fsw). OK! However, I suspect that the Meikon would be OK for photographers shooting sports such as surfing where max depth is not too critical. And some circumspection is required when it comes to individual brands .. a good rule of thumb is to not buy anything that the more reputable suppliers (such as Backscatter) doesn't carry in their product lines. That knocks out aquatech...and also Fujifilm, interestingly enough. Well not all vendors can be all things to all consumers. Regardless of whether,or not Backscatter, carries Aquatech, or carries a housing for Fujifilm cameras, there are undeniably users of Fujifilm cameras, and some of them would engage in UW photography. https://aquatech.net/collections/fujifilm/products/atb-xt2-camera-water-housing-kit https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-il-camera-housings/products/na-xt2-housing-for-fujifilm-x-t2-camera http://subal.com https://meikon.com.hk/collections/underwater-waterproof-camera-housing-case-for-fujifilm/products/fujifilm-x-t2-40m-130ft-underwater-camera-housing-kit-with-seafrogs-dry-dome-port-v-1 FYI, if you come up empty (no suitable product exists), then welcome to my world ... feel free to provide alternate solution recommendations. Alternatives provided above. There's a chance with the Nautica (can't get Subal to load right now); they offer support for only three lenses: a 50mm, a 60mm macro, and the "FUJINON XF10-24mmF4 R OIS", but since the XT-2 body is an APS-C sensor, these are "good enough" in that they sufficiently match my current setup from a focal length standpoint ... but that means (a) no room for capability growth, and (b) the same question on the fundamental optical quality and distortion on the WA lens+dome port. Given that their dome is 180mm (~7", which is smaller than my current 8" dome), that's a risk of repeating the same problem I have now. Plus there's also some work to check on how they do their strobe communication ports, as it might not be compatible with my current UW strobes, and having to also replace a pair of UW strobes adds another ~$2K to costs. But at least its a start that there's now at least an option (vs none) and its hopefully smaller than current .. I'd have to check the dimensions and weight to see if its significant or not. Yup! It is a start, not that I am going to be engaging in UW photography any time soon. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote: On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 10:10:20 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different things. You had better believe ... Oh, please: the improvements have been incremental, as the base technology hasn't changed: it is still "mirrorless". If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago. That's a good 'Motherhood' statement for technology in general, but it actually depends on what's important to your photographic needs. For example, the ancient MILC I'd bought still outperforms your shiny new camera on certain metrics ... and do note that these were the factors which our purchase decision was based on. Case in point, on shutter speed: how much faster than 2 μs is your camera? No, that's not a typo: I did say "μs" to indicate microseconds (10E-6), and 2 μs is 1/500,000sec. Now I am curious, what was this pioneering MILC with astonishing shutter speed (that most photographers would probably never use). Indeed you're correct that 'most photographers' would never use, but that doesn't invalidate my points. Who are we kidding? This is not generally thought of as a consumer camera.. It is still a MILC. The camera was a Vision Research Phantom 5 camera. The v5 series first shipped in 2001; we bought ours in 2002. It cost $100K, but it gave us what we needed, which was a fast shutter at 10,000 fps (full frame; partial frames higher - up to 100Kfps). So not exactly a consumer, or pro-photographer (depending on the type of pro) camera. There are not too many wedding photogs carrying one of those in their kit. https://www.phantomhighspeed.com And I got paid...so how's it not a "Pro" system? [...] Yes, the display lag time of the EVF hardware is a factor in the overall temporal chain - - but it isn't the _only_ factor. The only thing that this 5ms "spec" is actually telling you is that once the EVF finally gets a frame to be displayed, it takes that hardware an additional 50ms to make it appear on its screen. --------------------------- ^^^^ typo; should be "5ms". ...and that matters not one bit when it comes to actually using whichever camera the photographer, including yours truly, is using since I don't usually carry a full test bench with me on any shoot. Incorrect: the degree to which it is important depends on the photographer's application. OK! I'll buy that. I'll have to go back to count just how many times I said that before it finally sunk in /S I suspect that it doesn't matter that much to you when it comes to your photography. Depends on if I'm out having fun, or working in a lab. Even so, I'm concerned about what I've been learning on VR immersion on bioeffect interactions. It may not be significant in a land based setting with short eye time in an EVF, but it may be so for UW settings such as while immersed in a macro video for a couple of minutes...getting vertigo while underwater can be a tad unhealthy. The problem is, you are mixing general photography, pro & hobbyist with lab work. Most folks in this room are shooting street, landscapes, portraiture, various sports, and events. No, the problem is that I joined in to discuss technical elements of MILC vs conventional and a "Consumer Grade" fanboy tried to tell me that I was - excuse my French - {bleeping} clueless. That doesn't tell you how much time went by from the time that the photons hit the CCD/CMOS receptor to be collected. From an engineering standpoint, the receptor is a time-sampled period used to integrate the signal (thereby forming a discrete 'image'), which then gets bussed to the CPU for processing - - and resampling to the smaller EVF - - before it gets sent to the EVF for display. ...and I have yet to have that "time-sampled period" be critical in any digital camera I have used. Which is specific to you & your application(s); YMMV applies on both. That is the World I live in. And it ain't the only one. The KISS net result of all of this is that the data in the EVF is always several data frames old .. and the key technical data performance question is *HOW* many frames old is it? Again, what does the OEM's technical data sheet say? Again I do not have that data sheet. Yet you've not been shy in claiming that it can't be an issue /S It hasn't been for me, ... Bully for you, even though its merely YA personal anecdote... ... and most of the photographers using MILCs. ....as well as lacking substantiation. [...] My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. How wide do you want to go? See above: "My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V..." In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D Appropriate focal length lenses is only the first step of at least three. You also need: 2. the UW camera housing for the body. If it isn't sold, you're stuck. Yup. 3. the UW lens port/dome for that body+lens combination. If this isn't sold, then you have to pick another lens. Yup For example, the UW housing manufacturer with the broadest product line is Ikelite. So feel free to show us where they sell a body for your MILC model. Then, go he https://www.ikelite.com/pages/lens-port-charts ...and identify just what lenses are supported. For my particular camera Ikelite does not build a housing. However, Aquatech, Nauticam, Subal, and Meikon do. Perhaps not Ikelite, but capable. Well first off, meikon is immediately off my list because I can see from its URL that its max depth rating is inadequate (only 130fsw). OK! However, I suspect that the Meikon would be OK for photographers shooting sports such as surfing where max depth is not too critical. Sure, but I'm scuba diving, not surfing/etc. Granted, I didn't explicitly state this, but for anyone who's familiar with UW Photo, it became self-evident as soon as I mentioned having (dual) strobes. And some circumspection is required when it comes to individual brands .. a good rule of thumb is to not buy anything that the more reputable suppliers (such as Backscatter) doesn't carry in their product lines. That knocks out aquatech...and also Fujifilm, interestingly enough. Well not all vendors can be all things to all consumers. Regardless of whether,or not Backscatter, carries Aquatech, or carries a housing for Fujifilm cameras, there are undeniably users of Fujifilm cameras, and some of them would engage in UW photography. And _not_ being a be-all store is where Backscatter has an edge over B&H in this specialty market. https://aquatech.net/collections/fujifilm/products/atb-xt2-camera-water-housing-kit https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-il-camera-housings/products/na-xt2-housing-for-fujifilm-x-t2-camera http://subal.com https://meikon.com.hk/collections/underwater-waterproof-camera-housing-case-for-fujifilm/products/fujifilm-x-t2-40m-130ft-underwater-camera-housing-kit-with-seafrogs-dry-dome-port-v-1 FYI, if you come up empty (no suitable product exists), then welcome to my world ... feel free to provide alternate solution recommendations. Alternatives provided above. There's a chance with the Nautica (can't get Subal to load right now); they offer support for only three lenses: a 50mm, a 60mm macro, and the "FUJINON XF10-24mmF4 R OIS", but since the XT-2 body is an APS-C sensor, these are "good enough" in that they sufficiently match my current setup from a focal length standpoint ... but that means (a) no room for capability growth, and (b) the same question on the fundamental optical quality and distortion on the WA lens+dome port. Given that their dome is 180mm (~7", which is smaller than my current 8" dome), that's a risk of repeating the same problem I have now. Plus there's also some work to check on how they do their strobe communication ports, as it might not be compatible with my current UW strobes, and having to also replace a pair of UW strobes adds another ~$2K to costs. But at least its a start that there's now at least an option (vs none) and its hopefully smaller than current .. I'd have to check the dimensions and weight to see if its significant or not. Yup! It is a start, not that I am going to be engaging in UW photography any time soon. -hh |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On 11/09/2018 20:36, Savageduck wrote:
[] I had thought of a fisheye, but it would only be a novelty lens for me. Fuji has just released an 8-16mm f/2.8 which is huge, and about $2000. There are still a few lenses I would like to have available, so I have a wish list. Needless to say I do not carry all my stuff on shoots. I tailor my load to my needs for that day. My Fujinon lens selection from wide to long is currently: XF14mm f/2.8 XF16mm f/1.4 (my current favorite) XF23mm f/2.0 XF35mm f/1.4 XF18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 XF55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 XF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 The fisheye is almost a novelty lens at ~US $100, but it does work: https://www.photographyblog.com/revi...ody_cap_review My MFT kit consists of: 9 mm fisheye 9-18 zoom 14-140 zoom Panasonic GX7 for a 35 mm equivalent 18-280 mm. All fits in the same bag as I needed for my mirrored DSLR and one lens, and about half the weight too! There's a delightfully compact 20/1.7 too for lower-light occasions: https://www.thephoblographer.com/201...o-four-thirds/ -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital SLRs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | March 9th 08 12:07 AM |
P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 109 | August 4th 07 05:10 AM |
When does SLR start to make sense ? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 39 | November 17th 06 06:09 AM |
Why these deep-set grips make little sense | Rich | Digital Photography | 15 | March 2nd 06 08:37 PM |
Do full frame sensors make sense for you? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 62 | June 7th 05 12:58 PM |