A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 11th 18, 04:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,059
Default 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  
Old September 11th 18, 07:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 675
Default 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  
Old September 11th 18, 08:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,488
Default 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  
Old September 11th 18, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,488
Default 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  
Old September 11th 18, 10:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 675
Default 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  
Old September 12th 18, 06:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,059
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.