8 minutes ago, Byron said:

So, this is an MFO and a Kraken plus 6 stacked. The real question is why would you want to stack them though? The SMC and the MFO are different, for different purposes. The only reason I stacked these is I couldn't get the ring off my Kraken to put it into a bayonet holder so the only work around was the screw it into the MFO .... However it all works fine and dandy 

Two words: Strap Wrench

3 hours ago, Byron said:

So, this is an MFO and a Kraken plus 6 stacked. The real question is why would you want to stack them though? The SMC and the MFO are different, for different purposes. The only reason I stacked these is I couldn't get the ring off my Kraken to put it into a bayonet holder so the only work around was the screw it into the MFO .... However it all works fine and dandy 

 

 

Beautiful image! It’s impossible to know whether it would’ve turned out the same without adding the MFO.

 

My question is, does the Black Mojo focus range adjustment also happen with M43 lenses?

Edit: my bad, I've just discovered that Nauticam updated its M43 N85 port chart with MFO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/180prPNEGE2nAfoxEYAq9FLkWj6XOiV-M/view

 

 

On 4/8/2025 at 11:29 PM, Tom Kline said:

I use a lens shade in the threads of my SMC-1. Probably a good idea with the MFO unless one is overly concerned with extra drag.

@Tom Klinewhich lens hood do you use in your SMC1? That sure would be nice in rivers to prevent inadvertent scratches! 

1 hour ago, DriftC said:

@Tom Klinewhich lens hood do you use in your SMC1? That sure would be nice in rivers to prevent inadvertent scratches! 

The hood is shown in the link that I posted up-thread. Scroll up and click. It is generic, i.e., no brand. The only text on it is 67mm.

1 hour ago, DriftC said:

@Tom Klinewhich lens hood do you use in your SMC1? That sure would be nice in rivers to prevent inadvertent scratches! 

He shared a link to a generic shade designed for a top side lens.

 

I just made a 3d printed tpu rubber shade for the MFO and will try it tomorrow. I will share the design after testing.

 

I am always happy to send out copies for the cost of shipping.

Does the MFO-1 work with the Sony 28-60mm?

On 3/14/2025 at 1:37 AM, Dave_Hicks said:

I shot my new MFO-1 last night with a Nikon Z8, 105mm F-mount, and Nauticam housing, dual flip with the MFO-1 and Subsee +5.

 

Quick observations are that the Subsee is likely going on the shelf. The MFO both reduces and extends focus range to over a meter and reduces it beyond what the 105 can do by itself. The Subsee +5 has been my go-to macro accessory as it also reduces the shooting distance while not magnifying too much. However, it has a very limited range of maybe 30cm. I often have it flipped down and then mistakenly try to shoot something larger beyond its range, causing a delay to flip it up. The MFO can get in tight but also provides useful range.

 

The first critter I spotted last night was a pretty large Pacific Ruby Red Octopus, about 12 inches long, This is about as big as they every get. I was able to take full body shots from about 1 meter away no problems. 

 

Here are two sample photos:

f16, 1/200s, iso250

 

f16, 1/200s, iso100

The bottom is amazing 👍 love it. 

This thread has been very useful for discussing the MFO. We have two in our family... I've been using mine on the front of my Z8+105 - no noticeable change to focus speed, however the slight bit of magnification is quite useful. I just don't ever take it off (unless I'm looking to shoot super macro).

Where the MFO really shines is on my daughter's A7RV+90mm in a blackwater setting. This is a game changer... this combination is now more than useful shooting translucent and moderately translucent subjects.

Alex M discussed this during a recent Underwater Photography Show episode...

 

Edited April 13Apr 13 by OneYellowTang

7 hours ago, OneYellowTang said:

Where the MFO really shines is on my daughter's A7RV+90mm in a blackwater setting. This is a game changer... this combination is now more than useful shooting translucent and moderately translucent subjects.

 

How is it a game changer? 

And why is it a game changer with her but not you. 

 

Thanks. 

55 minutes ago, hedonist222 said:

 

How is it a game changer? 

And why is it a game changer with her but not you. 

 

Thanks. 

The Sony A7 series (started with the A7III, A7RIV, and now the A7RV) with the 90mm lens (specifically shooting blackwater) suffers from the lens hunting (often) while trying to grab focus on translucent and semi-translucent subjects (think jellies, salps, etc.). There are a few shooters that claim this combination is fine shooting blackwater - that's not really the case - if you compare this set up with either a Nikon D500 or a D850 with a 60mm lens, there's a massive difference - you would need to experience this to really understand.

The MFO prevents the 90mm lens from hunting about 80%-90% of time for most blackwater subjects -so it's very much a game changer in this scenario (actually, for translucent subjects, it's the difference of being able to get a shot or not - given the quick, 3D movement of subjects, etc in a BW setting). By eliminating the lens hunting for focus it has significantly changed the type of subjects my daughter is able to shoot with her rig in this scenario.

 

For the Nikon Z8, I shoot BW with the FTZ adapter and 60mm lens. Hunting & getting focus is not on issue with this combination...I haven't decided if it's as good as either the D500 or the D850 with the 60mm lens, but it is fairly close (at least). The slight bit of extra magnification might be interesting on a BW dive - I might try this in Anilao in a few weeks.

 

Edited April 13Apr 13 by OneYellowTang

On 4/12/2025 at 3:11 PM, shokwaav said:

Does the MFO-1 work with the Sony 28-60mm?

I did try the MFO with a 60 mm macro, it works nice on pretty close subjects, but it starts to vignet (badly) at subjects at a little more distance.

I guess this will make it not so usefull on even wider lenses, although i havent tried it.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't entirely share the positive comments about the MFO-1 - at least when paired with the Sony 90. But I'm a fish nerd and haven't used any water contact optics since I sold my WWL-1 years ago. I prefer macro lenses to close-up dioptres.

I was intrigued by the MFO, because of its extended focus range cf dioptres, and improved IQ across the frame cf using just the flat port. Also someone mentioned taking it to Lembeh (where I hope to visit shortly) and shooting it with their 90 most of the time. Someone else said it was good for lower viz waters...

So I bought one. First test this morning, using: Sony 90, A7RV, Nauticam, AFC, focus tracking, medium spot or expanded spot, subject recognition on and off, 90 AF on Full.

Good points:

It's as sharp as everyone claims... IF you can get the subject in focus!

The area of central focus is increased cf the 90 behind just a flat port. This aligns with my experience shooting 50mm macro lenses behind a dome, which significantly enhances overall IQ, albeit introducing some AF problems.

Bad points:

The rig is incredibly negatively buoyant, so much so that mid water subjects are almost impossible. But I don't use floats or floaty arms, so others who do will rightly say 'well, duh!' but the truth is I've never felt the need for them, until now.

Focus is very slow, slower than any other rig I use, even the much maligned Sony 50 macro. It slows even further as you move in towards 1:1, effectively ruling out small moving subjects. And it still hunts sometimes...

AF failures: AF failed in 28 out of 42 shots, even though I took care to focus on the eyes of mainly stationary fish targets. AF was OK on stationary non-fish subjects such as sea stars, where the potential focus target is larger and flatter.

I later compared the downloaded images with the originals still in the camera in Playback mode, because I have set up Playback to show the green frame that was allegedly the actual position focused on. I found in the fish images the green frame is often NOT on the part of the frame that IS in focus - i.e. the Playback indicator appears to 'lie'.

I don't think this is a camera fault, but instead it reflects that you need to 'wait' after you THINK you have focused on the subject with the 90 / MFO, before you take the picture, to allow the very slow focus process to conclude!

And yes, I have the priority set in AFC / AFS on AF.

Conclusions:

I can (reluctantly) sort the buoyancy issue, but the AF issues are a deal breaker. If I focus on the eye of a fish, I expect it to be razor sharp almost all the time for stationary subjects, and most of the time for moving targets. Nothing less will do.

As a fish nerd, the 20-70 seems a better bet, even with the disadvantage of the bulky 180 dome, which makes shooting small subjects on the bottom more difficult. But it is doable at the 70 end, with MUCH better AF. Also the rig handles sweetly, without buoyancy aids.

The Sony and Zeiss 50 macros are also better performers, although using them with a dome introduces some similar AF issues (but not as bad).

Curious to see if anyone has had similar experiences with their MFO / 90 rig, and what they did to improve things.

The MFO is marketed as improving the AF of the lenses that it's designed for, but I didn't see that - more like the reverse. Perhaps it works better with AFS - but I don't use that mode.

Thought I better post some examples - but didn't dare try that with a long post in case everything disappeared! All are uncorrected and uncropped.

OK:

Completely out of focus pic of small goby: camera Playback shows the camera as having found an 'eye' (tiny green square) behind the actual eye, Normally when this happens, at least the detected eye is in focus.

Pic of blenny nearly head on: Playback shows the focus point as between the eyes, which is approx where I would have placed it. Obviously didn't happen like that.

Pic of blenny head side on: I took 6 pics of this blenny in this position, focusing on the eye each time. Playback on this frame confirms the eye and near tentacle are the target in this frame. This is the best focus of the 6 pics, but is still not quite right, although could work if I wanted to use it. But the other 5 are way out of focus and unusable. Missing focus on 6 of 6 with a clear stationary subject is not good enough, and wouldn't have happened with the 20-70 or either of the two 50mm macros.

@dentrock

Not our experience shooting with the 90mm and the MFO.

It's both sharper, and helps with focus in a number of situations. We've found it to be significantly faster to find focus (in part, because it doesn't hunt nearly as much vs. without it).

We do not have this issue on an A7RV.

For what it's worth @Alex_Mustard didn't either....
Discussing Gear And Techniques From Anilao, Philippines

Edited April 21Apr 21 by OneYellowTang

27 minutes ago, OneYellowTang said:

@dentrock

Not our experience shooting with the 90mm and the MFO.

It's both sharper, and helps with focus in a number of situations. We've found it to be significantly faster to find focus (in part, because it doesn't hunt nearly as much vs. without it).

We do not have this issue on an A7RV.

Is there difference in the 90mm manufacture dates/serial numbers like some other lenses have?

It is an fairly old lens already.

Has anyone used MFO with the newer 90mm from Tamron?

I can see the argument about AF getting better with the MFO, but not sure how it could make things worse? I think you said the sharpness improvement was there so it seems to working as advertised there, but I'm not sure how it could cause the camera/lens combo to hunt and be slow to AF, I may to be totally missing something But I would look in the direction of the camera/lens more so than the MFO as it is "just" a mild diopter with air/water correction turned on. You could perhaps try it with the Sony 50mm macro - it is on the port chart for the Panasonic (m43) 45mm macro so you would think it would work on either of the 50mm macros to see if it degrades the AF there as well. The other question is if you popped the MFO off during the dive to see if the the bare 90mm was an improvement?

Perhaps a good first approach would be to compare camera/AF settings with others using the 90mm/A7RV combo.

14 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

You could perhaps try it with the Sony 50mm macro - it is on the port chart for the Panasonic (m43) 45mm macro so you would think it would work on either of the 50mm macros to see if it degrades the AF there as well. The other question is if you popped the MFO off during the dive to see if the the bare 90mm was an improvement?

Yes I should have removed it, but dive conditions were deteriorating rapidly and I ran out of time. It's been a while since I shot the 90 behind just a flat port, but I don't recall it behaving that bad. I know I used to use it successfully with my A6400.

Lately I have been testing the 90 behind a dome, but without success - I think because the EP shrinks heaps towards as you focus in.

Re the Sony 50 macro + MFO, I had intended to try that (and the Zeiss 50), but I suspect it won't work because the Sony extends 25mm as you focus in. But the Zeiss should work, since it doesn't extend. However, using these lenses with a dome makes such a huge difference in IQ, I can't see the MFO is necessary.

Re settings, I tried it with subject recognition off, which seemed to improve things a little. In that case, all that's left to adjust is AF tracking sensitivity. I have previously explored those settings and concluded the default 3 is about right.

I could turn tracking off (or use AFS) but that limits my ability to maintain sharp focus on even a stationary subject that is off centre.

So I'm interested to hear what detailed settings people are successfully using with their 90 / MFO.

One thing I haven't checked: I set the 90 on Full with the MFO.

Is that correct - I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere?

I may test it again (trying the above options and any others suggest), but at this stage, I'm so p...d off that I'll sell it. Anyone want a mint condition MFO? !

1 hour ago, dentrock said:

Re the Sony 50 macro + MFO, I had intended to try that (and the Zeiss 50), but I suspect it won't work because the Sony extends 25mm as you focus in. But the Zeiss should work, since it doesn't extend. However, using these lenses with a dome makes such a huge difference in IQ, I can't see the MFO is necessary.

One thing I haven't checked: I set the 90 on Full with the MFO.

Is that correct - I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere?

I may test it again (trying the above options and any others suggest), but at this stage, I'm so p...d off that I'll sell it. Anyone want a mint condition MFO? !

On the Zeiss macro the main point would be to check if it has the same impact it does on the 90 macro. I only say this because others are reporting in this thread they are pleased with how the MFO is auto-focusing with the 90mm macro, plus Alex Mustard is using it as well, though maybe with the A1 rather than the A7RV. It's always possible your 90mm is playing up.

on the focus limiter, second post of this topic says that is what you should do. Infinity focuses on something just over 1 meter away with the MFO according to the port chart.

22 hours ago, dentrock said:

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't entirely share the positive comments about the MFO-1 - at least when paired with the Sony 90. But I'm a fish nerd and haven't used any water contact optics since I sold my WWL-1 years ago. I prefer macro lenses to close-up dioptres.

I was intrigued by the MFO, because of its extended focus range cf dioptres, and improved IQ across the frame cf using just the flat port. Also someone mentioned taking it to Lembeh (where I hope to visit shortly) and shooting it with their 90 most of the time. Someone else said it was good for lower viz waters...

So I bought one. First test this morning, using: Sony 90, A7RV, Nauticam, AFC, focus tracking, medium spot or expanded spot, subject recognition on and off, 90 AF on Full.

Good points:

It's as sharp as everyone claims... IF you can get the subject in focus!

The area of central focus is increased cf the 90 behind just a flat port. This aligns with my experience shooting 50mm macro lenses behind a dome, which significantly enhances overall IQ, albeit introducing some AF problems.

Bad points:

The rig is incredibly negatively buoyant, so much so that mid water subjects are almost impossible. But I don't use floats or floaty arms, so others who do will rightly say 'well, duh!' but the truth is I've never felt the need for them, until now.

Focus is very slow, slower than any other rig I use, even the much maligned Sony 50 macro. It slows even further as you move in towards 1:1, effectively ruling out small moving subjects. And it still hunts sometimes...

AF failures: AF failed in 28 out of 42 shots, even though I took care to focus on the eyes of mainly stationary fish targets. AF was OK on stationary non-fish subjects such as sea stars, where the potential focus target is larger and flatter.

I later compared the downloaded images with the originals still in the camera in Playback mode, because I have set up Playback to show the green frame that was allegedly the actual position focused on. I found in the fish images the green frame is often NOT on the part of the frame that IS in focus - i.e. the Playback indicator appears to 'lie'.

I don't think this is a camera fault, but instead it reflects that you need to 'wait' after you THINK you have focused on the subject with the 90 / MFO, before you take the picture, to allow the very slow focus process to conclude!

And yes, I have the priority set in AFC / AFS on AF.

Conclusions:

I can (reluctantly) sort the buoyancy issue, but the AF issues are a deal breaker. If I focus on the eye of a fish, I expect it to be razor sharp almost all the time for stationary subjects, and most of the time for moving targets. Nothing less will do.

As a fish nerd, the 20-70 seems a better bet, even with the disadvantage of the bulky 180 dome, which makes shooting small subjects on the bottom more difficult. But it is doable at the 70 end, with MUCH better AF. Also the rig handles sweetly, without buoyancy aids.

The Sony and Zeiss 50 macros are also better performers, although using them with a dome introduces some similar AF issues (but not as bad).

Curious to see if anyone has had similar experiences with their MFO / 90 rig, and what they did to improve things.

The MFO is marketed as improving the AF of the lenses that it's designed for, but I didn't see that - more like the reverse. Perhaps it works better with AFS - but I don't use that mode.

Do you think it would make any difference trying your 90 on a different body? Or trying a different 90? You experience seems so different from what other folks are saying. I'd be happy to take the thing off your hands if you can't get it sorted.

Thanks for the further comments. A couple of things:

My 90 works fine on land (insect macro) and as I mentioned it was also fine behind flat ports, although I suppose I need to recheck that, as Chris suggested.

I also checked for firmware updates, as I purchased mine years ago. But there are none (and none for the 50 macro).

I reviewed yesterday's pics on a better monitor, and found another type of AF failure I've not seen before - a photo of the blenny with the eye perfectly in focus, but Playback on the camera showed it as a false detected eye well away from the fish (false eye detections are normally in focus). Go figure...

I reckon the problems probably arise from a combination of a primitive AF motor in the 90 (compared to the latest AF lenses) which doesn't do tiny adjustments well; plus using AFC / tracking (which requires those tiny adjustments). As I already mentioned, I had similar AF failures (though not as many) using the two 50 macro lenses behind a 140 dome. But the gain in IQ is such that it's a hard call as to which way to go (flat or dome) with those lenses. And the 90 doesn't do domes at all as far as I can tell (the 90 was released a year before the Sony 50 macro).

The mystery is more like why some other Sony users aren't reporting problems, but my guess is they might be using AFS with single point AF and focus / recompose techniques. I used that method for many years with various Nikons and a Nikkor 60mm micro, but it's a recipe for slightly out of focus pics in many cases.

So if some of those other Sony 90 / MFO users could kindly let us know their detailed settings, that would be appreciated...!