Hero3 Black with Blurfix3 SO and macro filters

[dpaustex]

Don't understand why someone would put so much money in lights, etc., with a low quality camera.

 

[flareside]

Don't understand why someone would put so much money in lights, etc., with a low quality camera.

For the same reason people spend money on lights for high quality cameras...... They can't see in the dark.


It's not about the quality of the camera but about the quality of the image and the medium the image will be played back on. In the proper hands, images created by GoPros can look just as good as ones from broadcast quality equipment when viewed on youtube through an uncalibrated monitor. But no image is going to look good if not properly lit.

 

[RockyHeap]

Don't understand why someone would put so much money in lights, etc., with a low quality camera.

Thank you David Price for your viewpoint. I went out to your website and you some VERY nice photo work and have awesome depth of field focus and F-stop / shutter speed control. Nice very Nice, sincerely great work from a fellow photo nut myself.

So back to this GoPro Forum, and the use of $20-$50-80 Macro Lenses per this topic and post, I've added a photo of your own photo equipment from your website.

I'll make some general assumptions, but I see two Ikelight stobes like mine, most likely DS-125's (current used value about $500 each) new DS-160/161's are pushing $1000 each. Throw in your dual synch cords and arms, lets say that's another $350-400. Ikelight housing for your DSLR, I'll guess $1500. Don't know your mfr of DSLR Camera/Lens/Ports, but that's an easy $3000.

Soooooooo your sunk cost is $8000-10,000 in gear, just from that one photo on your website.

The GoPro isn't a photo rig by far, but for video, with the right lights, and wet-mount macro lenses or SRP filters, can produce stunning video to share with friends/family on the living room couch or post to the web.

It's all fun, run what you brung.

Not picking on you, but just it's not a level playing field comparing a $1000 GoPro set-up to your $10,000 rig.

Go Pros are cheap fun in comparison and don't take up a whole suitcase or more in weight and travel space, nor insurance or mental worry about taking $10,000 in gear around with you.

 

[Marty Cerven]

Once again, Marty is in the lead forging new grounds.

Macro is the one weak area of the GoPro, and your lens work and experimentation is awesome.

Mate, you rock and are a GoPro GOD

Cheers and THANKS from the rest of us mere mortals.

Thanks, but GoPro God just a mere mortal like everyone else but I like to push boundaries and try many things others dont. Some works some doesnt but you never know until you have a go.

Those filters do wonders in reducing the minimum focal length, but there isn't much of a "zoom" effect. I was just watching the 2" mark and how close it got the camera plane as you stacked them. I guess it won't help much to zoom in into a wide light beam (that is not wide enough for the wide FOV of the GoPro) as I thought it would.

Can you stack +10+10 (if you had them)? And keep stacking +10 until it looks like this?

I think 2X +10 will be the best option for the GoPro, any more you will get bad vignette and also bring focus in the other side of the camera lol. Is that a camera or a WMD in the pic.

As can be seen in the land tests a single +10 has an effective "in focus" area between about 9-19cm away and +17 about 6-9cm away. The 4 filters stacked extend out about 3.5cm so your getting focus 2.5cm from the lens, any more then +20 and you will likely only get about 1cm of actual in focus area to work with and this will likely also be inside the last lens so of very little use.

Nice work with the diopters Marty. As others have said, macro is the GoPro weakness. It's the super wide angle lens and lack of zoom that limits it. For real good macro video you need zoom. Most subjects are not going to stay still with a camera lens stuck in it's face. Macro video is super tough no matter what equipment or camera you have.

I am going back to Belize in Jan. It will be interesting to compare how my GoPro 3 Black does against what I shot with my Gates FX7 5 years ago.

Macro isnt easy either way, using a wide angle lens like the GoPro can work quite well but does need to be in the face of subjects as you say. Using a regular camera with a zoom lens a little further from the subject is good for those shy critters but also makes it almost need a tripod to keep the camera still enough. These close up filters are a pretty cool extra to a GoPro and the thing I love about it the most is how easy it is to just rip the macro filters off and shoot regular wide shots if something bigger comes around. Just being able to get in closer is nice but its still just not a big camera setup replacement by any means but does give some extra tools to play with for those creative enough.

Great stuff Marty you certainly picked a good day for Flinders Pier. The purple fish is an Ornate Cowfish (Aracana ornata) and is found in Port Philip Bay and obviously at Flinders Pier.

Flinders at its best I think not as many little fish this dive but seeing 3 nice rays and a little shark was pretty cool in vis up to about 25m. Shame the shark didnt make the camera but one day I will get one on camera in Victoria. I think the fish is more likely a "Shaw's Cowfish" they are quite similar but to me it looks a bit more like the shaw's then the ornate.

Flinders at its worst you cant see your elbows

Don't understand why someone would put so much money in lights, etc., with a low quality camera.

All camera's need lights as Flareside said and if anything a smaller or crappier as you may say camera would need better lights. As they tend to struggle more with lower light then a larger camera will. Also being a very wide angle lens it needs good wide angled video lights, use crappy lights on any camera and you wont get any benefit out of the lights so those lights IMHO are a complete waste of money if bought for video use.

Considering its such a crappy little camera as some say I think it punches well above its weight, the camera is only a tool as are the lights and other parts of the setup. In the wrong hands the best tools wont help but in the right hands you can get the most out of whatever you have to use.

I was pretty impressed how the quality ended up and maybe you should download the original from vimeo and see how good such a low quality camera can be with a decent setup that you'd need to spend many times more for a significant improvement in image quality.

[video=vimeo;54770036]https://vimeo.com/54770036[/video]

A good DSLR lens will cost more then my entire GoPro setup, you will need more then one lens if you want to actually take advantage of the camera plus a good quality camera and very good quality housing. Thats before you even start looking into lights which you will likely get way more powerful lights then mine, if you've already spend over $6k before looking at lighting why start cheaping out at that point

I will move onto a larger setup at some point too but will still end up using GoPro's underwater quite a bit not only because of the cost difference but the size, much easier to handle in rougher conditions where you likely wouldn't want your $10k+ setup being smashed around and traveling much lighter with a compact setup.

 

[rharraka]

Thanks for all the insight on this thread and forgive me if I'm asking something already covered. I have a Hero 2 and not interested in upgrading to the 3 yet. I have the SRP Blurfix and various SRP filters.

Can I use macro lenses such as these ? Amazon.com: NEEWER® 55MM Macro Close-Up Lens Set 4 Filter Kit +1+2+4+10 Magnifications: Camera & Photo

If so, how would it work exactly (I've never used macro before) in terms of my existing SRP filters and putting on above or under water. Do these screw onto the filter or directly onto Blurfix. I don't have my camera right now to look closer.

Will be in Belize in a couple weeks so will likely want to use my CY filter.

Thanks for the help and advice. Robert

 

[Marty Cerven]

Thanks for all the insight on this thread and forgive me if I'm asking something already covered. I have a Hero 2 and not interested in upgrading to the 3 yet. I have the SRP Blurfix and various SRP filters.

Can I use macro lenses such as these ? Amazon.com: NEEWER® 55MM Macro Close-Up Lens Set 4 Filter Kit +1+2+4+10 Magnifications: Camera & Photo

If so, how would it work exactly (I've never used macro before) in terms of my existing SRP filters and putting on above or under water. Do these screw onto the filter or directly onto Blurfix. I don't have my camera right now to look closer.

Will be in Belize in a couple weeks so will likely want to use my CY filter.

Thanks for the help and advice. Robert

These should work but how well is hard to say as its not been tested, with the original BlurFix not being a wet lens it does add a couple off issues that dont effect the BlurFix3 SO.

Main thing is that the original BlurFix needs to maintain an air pocket to keep focus underwater so this means you need to use a macro as the main lens or stacked on top of a clear lens. Stacking on a clear lens wont work with the SRP UV filters as the outside filter threads have been ground off to reduce vignetting and so you would need to use a standard height UV filter. By using one of those you will be adding vignette in wide modes most likely but using macro you dont really want to be using the widest FOV anyway.

Using that setup would allow you to use a macro most likely just a single +10 on top of the clear filter in medium mode but no guarantee of this being vignette free. Only way you will find out by trying it on land and basically whatever you get on a land based test will be slightly reduced underwater with the magnification effect water has. Using this method you would need to thread the macro filter on once below the surface but the UV filter or clear lens will need to stay on at all times. You could also un-thread the macro and replace it with a URPro lens for colour correction, possibly you could also thread the URPro on top of the +10 filter but looking at the filters in that link. The +10 has a very low profile filter ring and may not allow you to stack another flat filter on top, if this is too close then possibly you may crack your URPro filter so be aware to make sure there is a good margin between the center of the Macro lens and any filters you attempt to stack onto it. If you see the filter I used in my test the +10 has a very deep filter ring and easily allows stacking on top of it, the advantage of the one you have linked is it will have less vignetting then mine but may not allow stacking.

The other method would be to put the Macro filter on as the first filter if the large o-ring is capable of maintaining the seal and keep the air pocket water tight. With all macro and close up lenses being made a little differently I cant say if that one will work. If the back side lens is flat or close too then it should work as long as the o-ring is large enough to seal with the glass but you would need to test this. This way you could only use the camera setup for close focus all dive an stacking a URPro filter on top would be depending on if that filter allows for it or not. A single +10 will give a pretty useable focus length but all long distant objects will be out of focus so using this method you may miss out on capturing anything you can get close enough to.

The other main drawback of the dry filter option is that the first filter will need to hold up to depth and as these filters are untested there is no real idea of how they will go under pressure and what depth they are likely to fail at. Also stacking your URPro filter on the end could cause it to break so best not to risk using it combined with the macro's on a dry lens setup.

I will be trying out using macro's on the original blurfix in the next week or 2 underwater and will post any findings and I will post whatever brands of filters I have used and to what depths. If I had a pressure chamber I could test things a bit easier as I likely wont be doing any very deep tests of the original BlurFix and Macro filters in the near future.

I had heard of this quite a while back when another user had tried similar things but I never did it as I found the negatives more of a hassle then I was willing to deal with at the time. When I first got the BlurFix3 and came back to the idea I could see how all those negatives I mentioned arent really an issue any more as it is a wet lens and can be easily added or removed underwater. Also the filters dont have to handle any extra pressure so should not be effected in any way by depth.

 

[flareside]

Main thing is that the original BlurFix needs to maintain an air pocket to keep focus underwater....

You might retest this theory. The original GoPros were functionally "nearsighted" underwater and with the addition of these macro filters you are turning a Blurfix corrected system back into a nearsighted camera again. The lack of the air gap may not have any noticeable difference.

 

[RockyHeap]

I've got some special Macro lenses on the way from Santa Claus for my SRP H3 naked mount, and will be doing macro testing in my 135 gallon saltwater reef tank in my living room.

Still working on getting the other reef flat corals to fit in my next tank.............grins...........minus tide in Fiji, stunning above OR underwater. The locals go walking over these to go fishing at the reef drop off.

 

[ronscuba]

Are these macro filters magnifying the subject ?

I ask because I have used +2, +4 diopters that slightly magnify but are used more to allow the camera lens to focus up close. For example, a typical camcorder needs to be 1 foot away to focus, but adding a diopter allows it to focus from 4 inches away. The magnification was minimal with the diopters I used. When I got them I was expecting +2 and +4 to make the subject 2x and 4x larger, but that is not how they work.

 

[Marty Cerven]

You might retest this theory. The original GoPros were functionally "nearsighted" underwater and with the addition of these macro filters you are turning a Blurfix corrected system back into a nearsighted camera again. The lack of the air gap may not have any noticeable difference.

I will have to look into it as I never really tried it without a flat lens, are you saying functionally near sighted basically meaning it will actually be in focus very close to the camera? From my use of the regular housing I never noticed this but never paid much attention to it really, as it looked out of focus at all distances I thought but I will take another look. If you dont maintain the air gap it will bring focus closer and if with th round lens its already too close adding a macro filter will only make that worse or closer.

Are these macro filters magnifying the subject ?

I ask because I have used +2, +4 diopters that slightly magnify but are used more to allow the camera lens to focus up close. For example, a typical camcorder needs to be 1 foot away to focus, but adding a diopter allows it to focus from 4 inches away. The magnification was minimal with the diopters I used. When I got them I was expecting +2 and +4 to make the subject 2x and 4x larger, but that is not how they work.

There is only a very slight magnification effect with these filters, but mostly it justmoves the focus point closer to the camera. If it also had a magnification effect of even 2x at +10 this could also be interesting but from what I can tell most macro or close up filters work in the same way.