From: -hh on
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)> said:
> > I was looking at an Ikelite housing, so as to get wired TTL controls
> > for a dual external strobe setup (Ikelite DS-161 strobe/movie).
> > Considering this bump and working with Fred at Backscatter East for
> > modding things like going from Ike to Ultralite strobe arms, I figure
> > that a nice G11 setup thus would probably be right around $4K.
> Yup. Here is the Ikelite at B&H $616.95 + 2xDS-161 ($2,373.90) + Dual
> handle $69.95 + G11 $444.95
> Total = $3505.75
> <
> Since the G11 does not have a wide convertor there doesnt seem to be a
> need to buy the WD-4 Wide-Angle conversion Dome port @ $284.95

I guess you could say that its optional, but the WA converter is
appropriate for making the 28mm lens a 28mm again, due to refraction
from the flat port giving it a ~25% magnification.

What would really be needed to get real WA out of the system would be
a WA adaptor that would fit inside the housing's flat port (ie, with
sufficient clearance), which would then probably also require a +2 or
+4 diopter stacked on top of it (more clearance issues) so as to allow
the system to focus sufficiently on the virtual image from the dome
port ... and pray that all of the geometry works out after these
stacked changes so as to not get horrible vignetting in the corners.
Bottom line is that its a lot easier to just go with a system that was
designed to do this from the beginning. Hence, the Ike 8" diameter
dome port over an EF 10-22mm with a +2 diopter.

The system's been bought and is working; I'm satisfied with it:

At this point, I merely just need a lot more time in the water to
practice those newfangled controls, like Autofocus ;-) as its a
pretty big change from years of shooting full manual with a non-SLR
rangefinder system.

And in addition to the cost of the camera system, there was also an
additional $300 expense involved, namely to go get a new dive mask
that had my full prescription in it with bifocals so as to be able to
see/use its controls. My familiarity with the old camera system was
such that I didn't need to look at any of its controls to change
settings, and I had been apparently operating it by touch for the
past (few? several?) years.


From: Neil Harrington on

"MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:16:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>> > On 2010-08-01 16:39:29 -0700, Larry Thong
>> > <larry_thong(a)> said:
>> >
>> >> I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a
>> bit >> lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty
>> old >> 70-200 VR2. It worked!
>> >>
>> >> <>
>> >
>> > This is a nice capture, but it is spoilt by shooting wide open and
>> > having the right arm OF.
>> >
>> > I don't know what your actual aperture was, as we have no EXIF
>> > data. I can only guess you were wide open at f/2.8. I would have
>> > thought there was more than enough light + VRII to shoot at
>> > f/6.3-f/12 bringing that arm into focus.
>> Thanks. I'm content with the arm not being in focus as this is what
>> I wanted.
> Why? What was your reasoning behind wanting a big blurred arm acros
> the bottom of the frame? The whole image is spoiled by it.

Yes. A *little* OOF would have been fine as it would have centered attention
on the man's face and violin. But *way* OOF is just distracting.

Also, because of the long lens's spatial compression that near arm looks too
small. It's so small as to almost look like a deformity. At 200mm shooting
from that angle it couldn't be helped, but a shot taken a little earlier or
later when the right elbow was lower would have allowed that forearm to be
cropped out.

Other than that though, a very nice shot.