A) The remark about depth of field was, in context, a guess about what the poster meant by "one-dimensional". Some interpretation must be given to this, since all photographs are in fact, two dimensional. My comment was meant to imply that the only meaning I can get from such a criticism is that the depth of field on the fisheye is too great, whereas the the 7-14 is not. Notwithstanding you might have actually read what I said "...If you don't want things to be in focus from 8mm to infinity..."; and not made such a tirade. I didn't say what was, conveyed that you need all the depth of field you can get when shooting big animals.
B) If you have a problem with the table I supplied, then by all means correct the figures. In case you did not know it, there is often talk here of re-using flat ports for other lenses because they will fit. I'm sorry if you didn't like my providing information on why that is a bad idea. Perhaps the calculations were wrong? I did round the numbers, I really should have clarified the last bullet point about 9-18 with "in a flat port", but I figure other people could do the math themselves. Hence the table.
C) I said it was lighter and less expensive. You then rant on and on about how I am right; it is lighter and cheaper. Moreover, it is smaller; a significant consideration for anyone with limited packing space for travel.
D) I don't know what your problem about the dome ports is. All of the DSLRs on the boat were using giant 12-14" domes. That is a fact.. Anybody knows that there are 25.4mm per inch. I never said anything except that the DSLR folks were eye-balling my MFT and it's compactness and it's 4.33" dome with keen interest. BTW: congratulations, you win. Yours is definitely smaller than mine.
The post that I was speaking to was specifically OM-D MFT, and that blanket advice given in that post was what I was replying to. Read for content and interpret in context.
E) I have plenty of shots of Humpbacks, but unfortunately, I did not have a fisheye, or even WA. I assure you, I wished I did. Silver Banks is not far from Fort Lauderdale and Tom Conlin and Aquatic Adventures run trips every year; so do Dancer and Aggressor, but having been with Tom and his excellent crew, and custom-built chase boats, I wouldn't go with anyone else. It's not hard to do. You should try it sometime.
F) Nobody knows who you are You claim to post under a real name, but there is just no verifying it. You say it's you, but that just doesn't mean squat. You don't show ID to get an email address. No doubt you will huff an puff about all the board members you've met who, all taken together, do not constitute legal identification. Just go ahead and try to board a plane with "Pufferfish knows me" as your only ID; or try "I have website!". It's a nasty cyber world out there. Do what you like and stop pretending that your choice makes you superior.
G) When you quote people other people in your posts it is the height of dishonesty to misquote them(as you did). You also need to learn what words mean and how to interpret sentence construction. Do you know what "probably" means? Do you know why I said that? Do you realize that "my favorites" are different than "your favorites" and there is no absolutely positively no argument about that? The whole thing is subjective
BTW, I did not say anything offensive or untrue about Guy Harrison. I perused his online portfolio and complimented it; did you? Did you see any Underwater photos? I didn't but I may have missed something. Your platitudes about air photography and water photograph are flat out wrong. Photographic principles, and the art of composition translate very well, but that doesn't mean squat until you know what your subjects are, what they do, how to approach them, and have the skills necessary to do so.
Clearly you are a fan of choosing your U/W lenses based on in-air utility. Congratulations.
My Lightroom gallery has about 11,000 U/W shots in it, dating back to 2004 starting on a lowly Sony P200 with no strobes. I outright delete 50% or more on first review. I guess I have at most 50 good U/W photographs and maybe 200 that are decent; the rest are specimens and memories. It is quite a bit harder to turn out a decent shot with P&S than with $20,000 image processing super computer. High priced equipment
I had almost 1000 dives in my log before I ever took a camera underwater. I have at my feet, a Nikon F3, and a Leica M6J. I started photography in about 1969, so I know more than a little about what translates and what doesn't.
It was good of you to drop by and remind me why this board is such a waste of time. Taken in context , I said nothing offensive or incorrect.
B) If you have a problem with the table I supplied, then by all means correct the figures. In case you did not know it, there is often talk here of re-using flat ports for other lenses because they will fit. I'm sorry if you didn't like my providing information on why that is a bad idea. Perhaps the calculations were wrong? I did round the numbers, I really should have clarified the last bullet point about 9-18 with "in a flat port", but I figure other people could do the math themselves. Hence the table.
C) I said it was lighter and less expensive. You then rant on and on about how I am right; it is lighter and cheaper. Moreover, it is smaller; a significant consideration for anyone with limited packing space for travel.
D) I don't know what your problem about the dome ports is. All of the DSLRs on the boat were using giant 12-14" domes. That is a fact.. Anybody knows that there are 25.4mm per inch. I never said anything except that the DSLR folks were eye-balling my MFT and it's compactness and it's 4.33" dome with keen interest. BTW: congratulations, you win. Yours is definitely smaller than mine.
The post that I was speaking to was specifically OM-D MFT, and that blanket advice given in that post was what I was replying to. Read for content and interpret in context.
E) I have plenty of shots of Humpbacks, but unfortunately, I did not have a fisheye, or even WA. I assure you, I wished I did. Silver Banks is not far from Fort Lauderdale and Tom Conlin and Aquatic Adventures run trips every year; so do Dancer and Aggressor, but having been with Tom and his excellent crew, and custom-built chase boats, I wouldn't go with anyone else. It's not hard to do. You should try it sometime.
F) Nobody knows who you are You claim to post under a real name, but there is just no verifying it. You say it's you, but that just doesn't mean squat. You don't show ID to get an email address. No doubt you will huff an puff about all the board members you've met who, all taken together, do not constitute legal identification. Just go ahead and try to board a plane with "Pufferfish knows me" as your only ID; or try "I have website!". It's a nasty cyber world out there. Do what you like and stop pretending that your choice makes you superior.
G) When you quote people other people in your posts it is the height of dishonesty to misquote them(as you did). You also need to learn what words mean and how to interpret sentence construction. Do you know what "probably" means? Do you know why I said that? Do you realize that "my favorites" are different than "your favorites" and there is no absolutely positively no argument about that? The whole thing is subjective
BTW, I did not say anything offensive or untrue about Guy Harrison. I perused his online portfolio and complimented it; did you? Did you see any Underwater photos? I didn't but I may have missed something. Your platitudes about air photography and water photograph are flat out wrong. Photographic principles, and the art of composition translate very well, but that doesn't mean squat until you know what your subjects are, what they do, how to approach them, and have the skills necessary to do so.
Clearly you are a fan of choosing your U/W lenses based on in-air utility. Congratulations.
My Lightroom gallery has about 11,000 U/W shots in it, dating back to 2004 starting on a lowly Sony P200 with no strobes. I outright delete 50% or more on first review. I guess I have at most 50 good U/W photographs and maybe 200 that are decent; the rest are specimens and memories. It is quite a bit harder to turn out a decent shot with P&S than with $20,000 image processing super computer. High priced equipment
I had almost 1000 dives in my log before I ever took a camera underwater. I have at my feet, a Nikon F3, and a Leica M6J. I started photography in about 1969, so I know more than a little about what translates and what doesn't.
It was good of you to drop by and remind me why this board is such a waste of time. Taken in context , I said nothing offensive or incorrect.
Last edited by a moderator:
