Hi! I'm here for my sort of bi-annual visit. Today about wide-angle shooting.

Today I use a Sea&Sea housing with a Nikon Z7. For wide and not-so-wide angle I have three lenses, all with appropriate ports.

• The 8-15 fisheye on FTZ, with a small dome port.

• The 14-30/4 with Sea&Sea correction lens, with a large glass dome port.

• The 24-70/4, with the same glass dome port. This one is rarely used but could potentially be good for eg shy sharks.

I have, once again, started considering switching to a Nauticam housing to go with my Nikon Z8. This would require new ports all around (also for macro which I don't even go into here).

For WA I would then use the 24-50 lens, which I already own, together with a nauticam WWL-C wet lens.

I'm hoping this would more or less (not quite) cover all my three lenses of today.

• It seems to have about the same angular coverage as the 14-30, though with a distortion profile somewhere bewtween rectilinear and fisheye - correct?

• If there's a shy shark, I should be able to flip the WWL-C away and shoot at 50 mm through just the flat port, right? (You might say, if it's that far away, don't bother to take the shot, but oh yes I would take the shot.)

• Fisheye - well it's obviously not as wide as the fisheye, I would have to dive with the WWL-C and see if I'm happy or if I want a fisheye port too.

Expected pros with this switch:

• Would be able to use my Z8 underwater, with better AF than my Z7.

• Would get access to the front buttons on my camera (I think?), which my Sea&Sea housing does not allow.

• Significantly reduced weight and bulk when travelling, which is important. (Unless compared to only bringing the fisheye with today's equipment, that's probably similar)

Expected cons with this switch:

• Hugely expensive, as these things are measured by my humble circumstances

Have I missed or misunderstood anything important?

You could also consider Isotta for a Z8, they take all of of your S&S ports directly so no need to buy new ports and they also have a port chart for using Nauticam wet lenses like the WWL-C with their system. I expect you would just be up for new zoom gears. Here is the port chart for Nauticam lenses:

Nauticam Wet lens chart - Isotta

That's very good intel, thanks! There are reasons for looking at Nauticam specifically, namely what's carried by retailers in my not-really-neighborhood. But I'll definitely investigate the Isotta alley.

...wait a minute. If Isotta takes S&S ports directly, does it work the other way around too? Can I use Isotta ports on my S&S housing?

And in that case, could I use the Isotta solution for WWL-C on my S&S housing?

Then it would still be my Z7 camera, but vastly cheaper.

According to the posting below, Sea & Sea ports can be used on Nauticam housings via adaptors or minor exchanges at the ports basis:

3 hours ago, horvendile said:

...wait a minute. If Isotta takes S&S ports directly, does it work the other way around too? Can I use Isotta ports on my S&S housing?

And in that case, could I use the Isotta solution for WWL-C on my S&S housing?

Then it would still be my Z7 camera, but vastly cheaper.

yes that will work, the port chart may or may not apply for port length, I don''t recall exactly though I think I remember hearing they do. You could ask Isotta? They are fairly responsive.

The 14-30 is not quite as wide as the 24-50+wwl. It would be equivalent to app. a 11-31. It has a light barrel distortion at 24. You can unscrew the wwl uw and shoot the 24-50 behind the flat port, if you’d find a suitable situation for that.

Slightly bent curves @24

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Christian K

8 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

According to the posting below, Sea & Sea ports can be used on Nauticam housings via adaptors or minor exchanges at the ports basis:

Thanks, great thread. I have some investigating to do. Lucky me that next week of my vacation will be rainy!

Okay, one thing bothers me, if I start mixing housings and ports from different manufacturers. I'd need to know each manufacturer's distance from camera lens mount to housing lens port mount. I don't even know what that distance is called so I have difficulties searching for that information. Is it easily obtainable?

For example, Isotta has a port for using WWL-C as stated above, and Isotta ports can apparently be used on S&S housings, but if the distance from camera to port hole is different between Isotta and S&S I expect to run into trouble.

Same if I want to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing. Not saying it would be insurmountable but definitely something that needs to be handled.

7 hours ago, horvendile said:

Okay, one thing bothers me, if I start mixing housings and ports from different manufacturers. I'd need to know each manufacturer's distance from camera lens mount to housing lens port mount. I don't even know what that distance is called so I have difficulties searching for that information. Is it easily obtainable?

For example, Isotta has a port for using WWL-C as stated above, and Isotta ports can apparently be used on S&S housings, but if the distance from camera to port hole is different between Isotta and S&S I expect to run into trouble.

Same if I want to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing. Not saying it would be insurmountable but definitely something that needs to be handled.

In general you can compare extensions on the port charts to work out any difference in required extension between different housing manufacturers. For example the 14-30 in S&S uses a 40mm extension while Isotta uses a 60mm extension. So a S&S uses 20mm less extension than an Isotta based upon this. It should follow over to the macro ports so the h63 port on the port chart for ISotta you should need a h43 which Isotta also make. - BUT please contact Isotta to confirm this. Once you know you need x mm more or less extension with S&S housing compared to the port chart you are set for any combination. You would need to source a zoom gear though and may need to get that 3D printed, but given the cost savings of not getting a new system, it seems like it's worth it. You could ask on here if anyone has 3D printed a gear? You may also be able to adapt a zoom gear you already have if one of your lenses is close to the dia of the 24-50.

There was a tread about his distance, maybe you can get the required information from there:

Furthermore, the Google AI says that Isotta and Sea&Sea are "cross-compatible", since they have the same distance - but this MUST be confirmed by Isotta, Sea&Sea or owners here, before building on this:

"How big is the difference in flange distance between Isotta, Sea & Sea and nauticam housings for underwater use of FF cameras?

In underwater photography housings, the "housing flange distance"—the mechanical measurement from the camera’s actual lens mount to the front opening of the housing where lens ports or extension rings attach—varies considerably across brands. [1, 2]

Isotta and Sea & Sea share an identical native port mount design, meaning their housing flange distances are effectively the same, while Nauticam stands apart with a significantly longer flange distance on its standard full-frame (N120) housings. [1, 2]

The Flange Distance Comparison

When comparing housings designed for Full-Frame (FF) mirrorless cameras (such as Sony E-mount, Canon RF, or Nikon Z), the approximate mechanical distances from camera mount to housing port opening are:

• Isotta (B120 Mount): ~38 mm

• Sea & Sea (Custom Bayonet): ~38 mm (Native cross-compatibility with Isotta)

• Nauticam (N120 Mount): ~60 mm (ranging between 58.8 mm and 66 mm depending on the specific camera model’s native body depth) [1, 2, 3]

The difference in housing flange distance between Nauticam and Isotta / Sea & Sea is roughly 22 mm. [1]

Why This Difference Matters

Because Nauticam positions its housing port opening roughly 22 mm further forward, it changes how lenses align inside the port system: [1, 2]

• Port & Extension Ring Lengths: If you cross-adapt a port between these brands, you cannot use the same extension ring sizes. A lens setup that requires a 40 mm extension ring on an Isotta/Sea & Sea housing will typically require a much shorter extension ring (or no ring at all) on a Nauticam housing to keep the lens elements perfectly aligned with the dome port's optical center. [1, 2]

• Native Cross-Compatibility: Because Isotta and Sea & Sea share the exact same physical bayonet system and flange depth, their native ports, extension rings, and dome ports can be swapped directly between housings without any adaptation. []

• Using Nauticam Ports on Isotta/Sea & Sea: You can use Nauticam N120 ports on Isotta or Sea & Sea housings by swapping out the port's rear lug plate for a Sea & Sea style lug plate. Because the Isotta/Sea & Sea housing is shallower (~38 mm) than the Nauticam (~60 mm), the adapted Nauticam port will sit closer to the camera. To compensate, Isotta offers specific adapter rings (like the H18 and H26 B120-to-N120 adapters) which physically space the Nauticam port forward by 18 mm to 26 mm to perfectly recreate the correct optical distance. [1, 2, 4, 5]

If you are trying to calculate a specific configuration, what camera body and lens model are you planning to use? I can help you look up the precise extension ring math or official port charts for your setup. [1]"

17 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Isotta and Sea & Sea share an identical native port mount design, meaning their housing flange distances are effectively the same, while Nauticam stands apart with a significantly longer flange distance on its standard full-frame (N120) housings. [1, 2]

This sentence shows where AI got it wrong, it saying that as they share the same bayonet the housing flange distance must be the same, this is completely incorrect as that flange distance is totally different from the how the port is locked in place. You can see this with Nauticam when they first bought out RF and Z housings for Canon/Nikon, They both use N120 ports but the RF and Z housings have the flange distance longer by the thickness of the EF-RF and F-Z adapters specifically to allow the same zoom gear and extensions to be used when using adapted lenses when you upgrade housings. Doing a little research it lifted this comment from a comment on a post on Waterpixels. It didn't realise there is more to the problem than just being able to mount the domes/extensions. There seems to be some scatter in the port charts with S&S either 10 or 20mm less than what Isotta suggests with Z mount lenses.

So I agree best to check with Isotta.

In general I see a lot of the google AI summaries when searching for references related to topics raised here, for technical issues I see lots of problems, often conflating two or more topics to came to a false conclusion. AI can be great for example to develop a summary from a meeting transcript or similar tasks organising words, but the results need to be checked very carefully on technical topics. They are large language models which predict which words follow the previous and responses are highly tuned to the exact syntax used when asking a question. I glance at the results in the AI section and go into the actual results to find my answers.

You need to double and triple check AI. Gets it wrong consistently.

Thanks. I was confused.

This takes some of the advantages going the Isotta route away. I would still be able to use my S&S wide-angle ports, which all have at least 20 mm of extension on my S&S housing, but the whole point of switching brands would be using WWL-C for most WA shooting. I would NOT be able to use my macro ports, which are monolithic.

I have also started making a spreadsheet comparing costs for Isotta and Nauticam, and if I discount the need for new ports (admittedly a big if), Nauticam doesn't seem that much more expenisve.

Related to the subject in general:

Has anyone tested the Nikon 24-50 with the SMC-1? nauticam lists CMC-1 as a functioning option.

Thing is, I already have an SMC-1, and I thought it would be neat being able to use that on a 24-50 setup. I'm not expecting it to be a complete macro solution, but possibly useful?

On the other hand, that would make most sense with SMC-1 and WWL-C mounted on a dual flip holder, and I recall someone saying that becomes too front heavy.

6 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

This sentence shows where AI got it wrong, it saying that as they share the same bayonet the housing flange distance must be the same, this is completely incorrect as that flange distance is totally different from the how the port is locked in place. You can see this with Nauticam when they first bought out RF and Z housings for Canon/Nikon, They both use N120 ports but the RF and Z housings have the flange distance longer by the thickness of the EF-RF and F-Z adapters specifically to allow the same zoom gear and extensions to be used when using adapted lenses when you upgrade housings. Doing a little research it lifted this comment from a comment on a post on Waterpixels. It didn't realise there is more to the problem than just being able to mount the domes/extensions. There seems to be some scatter in the port charts with S&S either 10 or 20mm less than what Isotta suggests with Z mount lenses.

So I agree best to check with Isotta.

In general I see a lot of the google AI summaries when searching for references related to topics raised here, for technical issues I see lots of problems, often conflating two or more topics to came to a false conclusion. AI can be great for example to develop a summary from a meeting transcript or similar tasks organising words, but the results need to be checked very carefully on technical topics. They are large language models which predict which words follow the previous and responses are highly tuned to the exact syntax used when asking a question. I glance at the results in the AI section and go into the actual results to find my answers.

I think that AI got it right (this time). It seems to me that Sea&Sea and Isotta are totally compatible, but there are also different port sizes and this has to be taken into account also (but again - it is important to check with manufactureres/dealers before investing a single cent)...

I found two dealers that praise this cross-compatibility in their advertisements (maybe ask these dealers in addition for specific camera/manufacturer/port combinations?):

Backscatter states that "Many Port Options

Isotta housings use a simple port system, which is identical to Sea & Sea's method. The good news here is that Sea & Sea brand ports are fully compatible, so if you have any in your arsenal they will carry right over. You could also run a Nauticam port as long as it has a Sea & Sea style bayonet mount on it, so right out of the box you have tripled your port options. Isotta also makes a full suite of domes and flat ports, along with extension rings so that you can dial in just about any lens combo you would want for underwater imaging. There are two port sizes, one for DSLR and full frame mirrorless cameras, and another for micro 4/3 cameras."

https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Introducing-Isotta-Underwater-Camera-Housings

Underwatercamerastore states "7. Wide Range of Port Options

Isotta uses a simple and effective port system compatible with Sea & Sea ports, meaning photographers can easily transition to Isotta without needing to invest in entirely new port setups. Additionally, Nauticam ports with a Sea & Sea-style bayonet mount are also compatible, providing even more flexibility. Isotta also manufactures a full range of domes, flat ports, and extension rings, ensuring compatibility with nearly any lens combination.

Isotta Underwater Housings | Premium Red Aluminum Protect...

Discover Isotta underwater housings, featuring premium red anodized aluminum for superior camera protection. Perfect for deep diving, these housings offer...

Edited July 18Jul 18 by Architeuthis

1 hour ago, Christian K said:

You need to double and triple check AI. Gets it wrong consistently.

Totally agree!

2 hours ago, horvendile said:

Thanks. I was confused.

This takes some of the advantages going the Isotta route away. I would still be able to use my S&S wide-angle ports, which all have at least 20 mm of extension on my S&S housing, but the whole point of switching brands would be using WWL-C for most WA shooting. I would NOT be able to use my macro ports, which are monolithic.

I have also started making a spreadsheet comparing costs for Isotta and Nauticam, and if I discount the need for new ports (admittedly a big if), Nauticam doesn't seem that much more expenisve.

Can’t help you with any real advice, sorry, but even if the mount is the same you are as Bon Jovi sings, halfway there. Where AI seem to screw it up is the flange distance. Camera bodies sit at different distances to the opening in different UW housings. This is camera model specific. So you need to examine the Isotta z8 housing compared to a Sea&Sea z8 housing and measure the cameras position in each, and then calculate what needs to be added or subtracted in the way of isotta extensions for each specific lens and port.

If you’re lucky, someone trustworthy has already done it and you don’t need to make any mistakes. Or you can volunteer as a guinea pig 🙂. YMMV.

4 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I think that AI got it right (this time). It seems to me that Sea&Sea and Isotta are totally compatible, but there are also different port sizes and this has to be taken into account also (but again - it is important to check with manufactureres/dealers before investing a single cent)...

I found two dealers that praise this cross-compatibility in their advertisements (maybe ask these dealers in addition for specific camera/manufacturer/port combinations?):

Backscatter states that "Many Port Options

Isotta housings use a simple port system, which is identical to Sea & Sea's method. The good news here is that Sea & Sea brand ports are fully compatible, so if you have any in your arsenal they will carry right over. You could also run a Nauticam port as long as it has a Sea & Sea style bayonet mount on it, so right out of the box you have tripled your port options. Isotta also makes a full suite of domes and flat ports, along with extension rings so that you can dial in just about any lens combo you would want for underwater imaging. There are two port sizes, one for DSLR and full frame mirrorless cameras, and another for micro 4/3 cameras."

https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Introducing-Isotta-Underwater-Camera-Housings

Underwatercamerastore states "7. Wide Range of Port Options

Isotta uses a simple and effective port system compatible with Sea & Sea ports, meaning photographers can easily transition to Isotta without needing to invest in entirely new port setups. Additionally, Nauticam ports with a Sea & Sea-style bayonet mount are also compatible, providing even more flexibility. Isotta also manufactures a full range of domes, flat ports, and extension rings, ensuring compatibility with nearly any lens combination.

Isotta Underwater Housings | Premium Red Aluminum Protect...

Discover Isotta underwater housings, featuring premium red anodized aluminum for superior camera protection. Perfect for deep diving, these housings offer...

The port charts don't agree unfortunately take the Nikon Z 14-30, on Isotta they suggest a 60mm extension for all ports. Sea and Sea suggests a 40mm extension again for all ports. The Canon 14-35mm f4 Isotta recommends 50mm, S&S say either 30 or 40mm depending upon port. The statement from Backscatter could mean the ports have the same mount and will fit, it doesn't specifically say the extension rings remain the same after all they would like to sell you some!

4 hours ago, horvendile said:

Thanks. I was confused.

This takes some of the advantages going the Isotta route away. I would still be able to use my S&S wide-angle ports, which all have at least 20 mm of extension on my S&S housing, but the whole point of switching brands would be using WWL-C for most WA shooting. I would NOT be able to use my macro ports, which are monolithic.

I have also started making a spreadsheet comparing costs for Isotta and Nauticam, and if I discount the need for new ports (admittedly a big if), Nauticam doesn't seem that much more expenisve.

Regarding expense it depends- you could just continue with your Z7 and just buy the Isotta flat port and it will be dirt cheap, you mentioned that as one option for you. I think the Isotta housings are certainly a lot cheaper in Australia, but it seems to vary by country, their extensions are about half the price of Nauticam in USA. Their ports are closer in price, but Isotta still a little cheaper.

If you went with Isotta Z8 and assuming they 20mm more extension you just need one 20mm extension ring which would work with all of your other ports including your macro port. So you would be up for Housing plus 20mm extension (if you don't have one) plus a set of zoom gears. Looking at your lenses and guessing you have a 20/30/40mm extension you would appear to be fully covered??

If you went with Nauticam then it's a different story - you should Be able to convert your ports over to Nauticam bayonets, but the extension rings have their lugs machined in and are not adaptable meaning you need to buy some Nauticam extensions unless you can find an adapter. One exists for Nauticam ports on Isotta housings but doesn't seem to be one for Isotta/S&S ports on Nauticam housings so Nauticam will add up to more. You need Zoom gears if changing housings and Isotta are about 1/2 Nauticam price. To convert your ports to Nauticam they need to have a removable lug ring, not all S&S ports have this. The Nauticam lug rings also seem hard to find now and are essential to re-use your ports unless you find an adapter.

On the WWL-C it mounts using a Nauticam bayonet only so you would have to take it off and put it "somewhere" to swap to a CMC/SMC and it's big lump of alloy and glass. I don't think swinging is an option. It should be a little wider than a 14mm rectilinear and much smaller physically. Something like equivalent to 12-13mm of horizontal field and will zoom into about a 50° horizontal field, equivalent to about a 40mm lens or so. They stretch more in the corners so are not as wide horizontal field wise as the diagonal field of view suggests. So it would replace your 14-30 and be both wider, longer lighter, physically smaller and won't need to stop down so much.

Using the 24-50 with a macro lens is doable but fiddly getting to 0.9x and giving 49mm working distance, but that it from an approximately 150mm wide disc, rather than the ~75mm diameter OD of the nose of a macro port, which will limit approach angles a bit for many subjects.

Again, thanks!

Turns out S&S doesn't have a zoom ring for 24-50. I guess I could see if my existing zoom ring would fit, though I'll have to wait a week. But without zooom ring, S&S is no longer an option. And yes it would theoretically be possible to 3D-print one but in practice, probably not really. And I'm given to understand that you want to be well placed with your lens för WWL-C. "It's probably about 20 mm" sounds shaky.

I do have a 20 mm extension, which could maybe see me over for using my existing macro port(s) on an Isotta housing. It's worth considering.

Also, I did find a Saga adapter to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing, but if the flange distance is larger on Nauticam than S&S it doesn't help much.

However. I did put one Nauticam WA package and one Isotta WA package together in a spreadsheet. Final prices will depend on the euro - SEK exchange rate, I've used 11.5 SEK for a euro now. Then I get

Nauticam: 89000 SEK

Isotta: 84000 SEK

Not much of a difference really. Mind you, that's with Inon 45 degree viewfinder, I don't know how much superior Nauticam's own is. It costs three times as much.

A macro port for nauticam would set me back about 5500 SEK more.

So yes, Nauticam is a bit more expensive than Isotta but not a big difference, and then I have a Swedish retailer. I'd say the omens indicate a Nauticam solution - either that, or do nothing and stay put. Well, I won't have to decide today. And I could investigare Isotta a bit more.

4 minutes ago, horvendile said:

Again, thanks!

Turns out S&S doesn't have a zoom ring for 24-50. I guess I could see if my existing zoom ring would fit, though I'll have to wait a week. But without zooom ring, S&S is no longer an option. And yes it would theoretically be possible to 3D-print one but in practice, probably not really. And I'm given to understand that you want to be well placed with your lens för WWL-C. "It's probably about 20 mm" sounds shaky.

I do have a 20 mm extension, which could maybe see me over for using my existing macro port(s) on an Isotta housing. It's worth considering.

Also, I did find a Saga adapter to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing, but if the flange distance is larger on Nauticam than S&S it doesn't help much.

However. I did put one Nauticam WA package and one Isotta WA package together in a spreadsheet. Final prices will depend on the euro - SEK exchange rate, I've used 11.5 SEK for a euro now. Then I get

Nauticam: 89000 SEK

Isotta: 84000 SEK

Not much of a difference really. Mind you, that's with Inon 45 degree viewfinder, I don't know how much superior Nauticam's own is. It costs three times as much.

A macro port for nauticam would set me back about 5500 SEK more.

So yes, Nauticam is a bit more expensive than Isotta but not a big difference, and then I have a Swedish retailer. I'd say the omens indicate a Nauticam solution - either that, or do nothing and stay put. Well, I won't have to decide today. And I could investigare Isotta a bit more.

Sounds to me like you have reached a decision 🙂. I’d suggest picking up the phone and have a chat with Magnus @exposureunderwater in Malmö. He’d be able to give you the lowdown. And I’m pretty sure he recently received a lightly used macro port that could or could not be a part of your z8-package. Lycka till!

Edited July 18Jul 18 by Christian K

10 minutes ago, Christian K said:

Sounds to me like you have reached a decision 🙂. I’d suggest picking up the phone and have a chat with Magnus @underwaterexposure in Malmö. He’d be able to give you the lowdown. And I’m pretty sure he recently received a lightly used macro port that could or could not be a part of your z8-package. Lycka till!

I sent him an e-mail with some questions earlier today!

To figure out flange distance I'd compare macro port length, not extension for domes. Just because companies seem to make different dome geometries for the same lenses.

Remember that you can save quite alot on Nauticam N120 and N100 extensions if you comfortable printing them yourself.

Also alot of zoom rings can be printed and this shouldnt require any courage like extensions.