8 hours ago, TimG said:

Would a 45-degree finder not work for you? They are brilliant for macro and much smaller than a monitor. Although that said, the Nauticam one is surprisingly large!

And expensive! I was surprised to see the number of people shooting Kraken monitors. Equally surprised that monitors now cost less than the 45 Nautical viewfinder.

Edited Tuesday at 03:13 AM4 days by ACHiPo

13 hours ago, Nemrod said:

The Holy Trinity of underwater photography:

1. Strobes

2. Camera and housing

3. Lens and accommodating ports (including water contact optics)

Each is equally important. I think that sometimes strobes are like an afterthought. A lens that can accomplish your shooting style/vision and strobes that can light up the frame are at least as important as what camera body and housing and sensor size is chosen.

Totally agree. I think perhaps strobes became an afterthought because for a long time there wasn't a massive choice, and you certainly couldn't get high-powered strobes like are available today - I guess partly due to the limited battery technology that was available at the time.

8 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

They also provide the ability to have diopter corrections built in so for those of us who use glasses, you can see what you camera is doing without sort of squinting and thinking you know what your settings are or how the picture looks. So +1 for 45 degree (surprisingly large) viewfinders.

I have to dive with corrective lenses in my mask anyway or else I can't read my computer - I need +4 prescription lenses just to be able to make out the numbers on the computer screen - bit of a pain but that's life.

11 hours ago, SwiftFF5 said:

I have seen the reports on the fatality, but no details yet that I am aware of. Unfortunately, there are more Public Safety Diving fatalities during training than on calls. Part of that is we have to do a lot of training to keep our skills sharp since we don't get that many calls (which is a good thing), but that means most of our exposure is during training. Many of them seem to be medical issues, but I don't know about this particular case. She seemed to be young and fit, so she doesn't fit the profile for a cardiac event. I will be watching to see if they report what happened. Sorry for the thread hijack.

Will PM you a bit later.

1 hour ago, ACHiPo said:

Yes she has the OM-1 ii. And she was comparing to the E-M1 ii. She echoed Chris's comments that she only saw a slight improvement in autofocus underwater with the OM-1 ii over the E-M1 ii. She also was unable to get satisfactory results using CAF tracking underwater, although we both hypothesized that is likely due to the large amount of particulates in the water in Lembeh (vis was only 20-40 feet). With all the hoopla about AF tracking on the OM-1 being fantastic for fisheyes, etc., it seems in clearer water it might be a significant improvement.

Interesting. Someone posted earlier that they thought that OM's autofocus had been step behind the others since Covid etc, if I go the OM-1 route then it may well be worthwhile me waiting a few months until the OM-1 MkIII is released and if it fits in the same housing as the MkI & II then go that way.

I've never dived Lembeh - is 20-40 feet vis typical for there?

1 hour ago, ACHiPo said:

I shot the P/L 45 mm a few dives in Lembeh, including one blackwater dive. It seems to be the ideal focal length for blackwater.

I liked the 45 mm on daylight dives. It did not focus quite as quickly as the 60, but on blackwater it was very frustrating. I missed several shots because the 45mm (on my E-M10) just wouldn't focus. On shots where I got focus, however, the image quality is at least as good as the 60 and 30. Maybe it will work better on an OM-1?

The 30mm on blackwater worked great. At least as snappy as the 60, and with the ability to focus almost to the port it was great for subjects that got very close.

Many thanks for that feedback - I might opt for the 30 instead of the 45 or 60 then. With 60 really being in effect a 120 that just seems a bit long for 1:1.

1 hour ago, ACHiPo said:

This is why I bought HF-1s that were >2x what my starter camera and housing cost. I definitely am happy with the purchase--they continue to deliver consistently which makes me not hate their size and weight so much.😎

At the end of the day, if you are happy with them then that is what matters!

1 hour ago, ACHiPo said:

And expensive! I was surprised to see the number of people shooting Kraken monitors. Equally surprised that monitors now cost less than the 45 Nautical viewfinder.

This has just appeared - timely - will watch it a bit later today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z59n8LIhvkY

34 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

The AF with the 60mm macro is pretty decent on the OM-1. I previously shot the EM-1 MkII and prior to that the EM-5 MkII. The EM-1 MkII was a significant step up over the Em-5 mkII and the OM-1 a slight step up again. The EM-10 is a base model and I understand the AF is not as good.

The 60mm AF works really well is you are close in, it can hunt if you suddenly decide to shoot a bigger subject a meter away, particularly if contrast is low with average vis or there are particulates. But it does snap on quickly if the focus distance is similar. I have it set up to use back button AF, controlling AF with my thumb, make sit easier to control AF. The 60mm is a bit long in focal length - 120mm FF equivalent so you may find yourself backing off more than you would like. Several solutions - one is to use the Panasonic 45mm, the other is the MFO3.

Chris,

Thanks! The biggest issue I had initially with the 60 was getting too close as it has about 100mm min focal length. Once I got calibrated for set up it generally works ok for high contrast subjects.

The biggest AF issues I had in Lembeh were 1) blackwater with the PL 45mm. The 30 mm wasn’t easy, but it focused much faster than the 45. The 45 produced some decent shots, but I missed a lot due to AF issues. 2) AF with the 60 or 45 on thin subjects—pipefish, whip coral with gobies, etc. This was amazingly frustrating as it didn’t seem what I was trying to do was that difficult. I’ll try to replicate the focus issues above water so I can compare the “gateway” EM10 to the M1.

If the EM-1 mkii AF is just a little worse than the OM-1 ii I might move in that direction as I have a line on a used EM-1 ii with housing.

Evan

1 hour ago, CCRphoto said:

Interesting. Someone posted earlier that they thought that OM's autofocus had been step behind the others since Covid etc, if I go the OM-1 route then it may well be worthwhile me waiting a few months until the OM-1 MkIII is released and if it fits in the same housing as the MkI & II then go that way.

I've never dived Lembeh - is 20-40 feet vis typical for there?

It was my first time, so I’m not sure, but I suspect so. I certainly didn’t hear any grousing about the visibility being worse than usual.

9 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

Many thanks for that feedback - I might opt for the 30 instead of the 45 or 60 then. With 60 really being in effect a 120 that just seems a bit long for 1:1.

I've used the 30mm Panasonic a bit, the problem is 1:1 is so close to the front element you hardly have any working distance. 1:1 is achieved at about 22mm from the front of the lens so it's about 10mm from the front of the port. The practical limit is about 0.5x to have a bit of space and to be able to light the subject. Focusing on whip corals can be a challenge, but it's really practice to hold the AF point on the target. I use a single small point. any patterns of focus points may grab the background.

On 8/3/2026 at 11:06 PM, CCRphoto said:

Am giving the Nikon Z5 ii a bit more thought now after reading what you said about sensor size etc. and watching that review. Lots to think about!

it'll be more expensive for the housing, plus the N120 ports and extension rings will be pricey and your are back to needing big ports for rectilinear wide angle shooting. Price out all the components to see what you are up for.

4 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

it'll be more expensive for the housing, plus the N120 ports and extension rings will be pricey and your are back to needing big ports for rectilinear wide angle shooting. Price out all the components to see what you are up for.

Totally agree with Chris. A Z5ii, nice though it is, is taking you back to an FF system with all that means for port and lens sizes, costs and moving the gear.

I mulled over housing a Z6iii but it came down to the same thing. Taking FF underwater is a much more expensive and travel-unfriendly proposition for any potential gain.

30 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

it'll be more expensive for the housing, plus the N120 ports and extension rings will be pricey and your are back to needing big ports for rectilinear wide angle shooting. Price out all the components to see what you are up for.

Excel spreadsheet for both the OM-1 MkII and a Z5 ii is currently being populated😄

24 minutes ago, TimG said:

Totally agree with Chris. A Z5ii, nice though it is, is taking you back to an FF system with all that means for port and lens sizes, costs and moving the gear.

I mulled over housing a Z6iii but it came down to the same thing. Taking FF underwater is a much more expensive and travel-unfriendly proposition for any potential gain.

That is the other side of what I need to look at - I don't think that anyone ever said that deciding on a system was easy unfortunately!

1 hour ago, CCRphoto said:

That is the other side of what I need to look at - I don't think that anyone ever said that deciding on a system was easy unfortunately!

Very true! It'a huge investment in both cash and emotional energy.

On 8/2/2026 at 4:08 AM, CCRphoto said:

LOL!!

I'm a top 20 shareholder, it has taken longer than expected for this project to produce the fruit as the filter press that they installed when building the processing plant turned out to be a complete piece of crap, they spent a lot of money to get a good one from a well known & reputable Italian manufacturer and the problems only became apparent when commissioning the process plant, so they were only operating at about 45% capacity for more than a year while a new one was made by a Chinese manufacturer - that one is operating reliably and doing so at a rate that is higher than its ted capacity - China for the win - wasn't expecting that compared to a long established Italian manufacturer but anyway...

I don't want to spend all of my winnings on underwater photography gear, so If I could obtain a secondhand Nauticam OM-1 housing I would happily go that route, however secondhand ones seem rarer than rocking horse dung at the moment - it seems that everyone is quite happy with their setup.

There is a nice looking Isotta OM-1 for sale here

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Totally agree with Chris. A Z5ii, nice though it is, is taking you back to an FF system with all that means for port and lens sizes, costs and moving the gear.

I mulled over housing a Z6iii but it came down to the same thing. Taking FF underwater is a much more expensive and travel-unfriendly proposition for any potential gain.

Not necessarily. Z6iii is bigger and I went that route with Nauticam and actually downsized from Nikon DX xxx:s in Hugyfot, which is a very tight housing. Then you have the wwl-c and 24-50, which is petit and covers a lot of WA and CFWA. So old rules do not always apply (hate it when it happens). The z5ii is even smaller, so is the Nauticam Z5ii housing. It ain’t cheap though, that’s for sure. But not crazy steep either. Would be very interesting to see it with the wwl-c next to a OLY Nauticam with the same or a smallish dome. EDIT If you haven’t already, watch Alex and Matt Sullivans reaction to z5ii+Nauticam in the UWP-Show posted earlier. Size was brought up.

Edited Tuesday at 04:25 PM3 days by Christian K
Added info detail, spelling

11 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

Many thanks for that feedback - I might opt for the 30 instead of the 45 or 60 then. With 60 really being in effect a 120 that just seems a bit long for 1:1.

In case you want to go near 1:1 it depends on the shyness of the critter and on the clearness of the water which focal length to use, in good vis the focal length cannot be long enough. In my MFT days I had both the Pana 45mm and the Oly 60mm (I did not have a 30mm macro), but prefered almost always the 60mm. 45mm only in bad visibility, but the compromise is reduced working distance.

The problem with the 60mm (and also with 45mm, but to a less extend) comes when one makes fish portrait from medium to large size fishes. Then the working distance is really big and IQ detoriates a lot, because of the water. In these days people use the Nauticam MFO-3 (often on flip holder) for that purpose that greatly reduces the focal length of a macro lens...

Note that at least in Australia the Nauticam Z5ii housing is about AU$2000 less than the Z6iii housing. It is even a couple hundred AU$ less than the small A7Cii housing. The attraction of the kit less that works with the smaller, cheaper WWL-1C rather than the WWL-1B is an advantage. The housing is about $1000 more than the Nauticam OM1ii housing but the Nikon Z5ii camera costs about AU$800 less than the OM1ii.

Isn't the Z5II another camera with only a 1/200 sync speed vs 1/250.

14 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I've used the 30mm Panasonic a bit, the problem is 1:1 is so close to the front element you hardly have any working distance. 1:1 is achieved at about 22mm from the front of the lens so it's about 10mm from the front of the port. The practical limit is about 0.5x to have a bit of space and to be able to light the subject. Focusing on whip corals can be a challenge, but it's really practice to hold the AF point on the target. I use a single small point. any patterns of focus points may grab the background.

Totally agree that 10mm from the front of the port is just too little room! What is the approximate distance from the front of the port at 0.5x? I guess another interesting question is what does everyone think is the minimum distance from the front of the port to the subject to be able to effectively light the subject with strobes?

12 hours ago, TimG said:

Very true! It'a huge investment in both cash and emotional energy.

Being an ExcelAddict helps in some ways I think but we will see - its makes me feel old when I realise that Excel hadn't been invented the last time I bought an underwater camera system!😂

12 hours ago, bvanant said:

There is a nice looking Isotta OM-1 for sale here

Ah OK - I will have to do a search - hadn't realised that! Many thanks!

12 hours ago, Christian K said:

Not necessarily. Z6iii is bigger and I went that route with Nauticam and actually downsized from Nikon DX xxx:s in Hugyfot, which is a very tight housing. Then you have the wwl-c and 24-50, which is petit and covers a lot of WA and CFWA. So old rules do not always apply (hate it when it happens). The z5ii is even smaller, so is the Nauticam Z5ii housing. It ain’t cheap though, that’s for sure. But not crazy steep either. Would be very interesting to see it with the wwl-c next to a OLY Nauticam with the same or a smallish dome. EDIT If you haven’t already, watch Alex and Matt Sullivans reaction to z5ii+Nauticam in the UWP-Show posted earlier. Size was brought up.

I have watched that UWP-Show episode - many thanks for posting it as Mathew's comments were what made me consider it. My understanding of your comments about sensor size etc is that 24.5mp full frame sensor would have a lot less noise etc than a 20mp M4/3rds sensor? And would have other advantages as well.

I might have a chat to the Australian Nauticam dealer and see if he can bring a Z5ii and a OM-1 housing to the dive show in Sydney next month. The sheer size of Australia means that me visiting him at his showroom would be a three day trip and probably $2000 for the total of six flights needed to visit him and get home again.

12 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

In case you want to go near 1:1 it depends on the shyness of the critter and on the clearness of the water which focal length to use, in good vis the focal length cannot be long enough. In my MFT days I had both the Pana 45mm and the Oly 60mm (I did not have a 30mm macro), but prefered almost always the 60mm. 45mm only in bad visibility, but the compromise is reduced working distance.

The problem with the 60mm (and also with 45mm, but to a less extend) comes when one makes fish portrait from medium to large size fishes. Then the working distance is really big and IQ detoriates a lot, because of the water. In these days people use the Nauticam MFO-3 (often on flip holder) for that purpose that greatly reduces the focal length of a macro lens...

It sounds like choosing a M4/3rds macro lens is much trickier than choosing between a 60 and a 105 back in the old 35mm film days. I realised that @ACHiPo said he was getting good results with the 30mm - but that was doing Blackwater dives, and well here in Australia I don't think that anyone is doing those because of well umm - the big things with teeth! DaDum DaDum DaDum etc...

So the 45mm might be the better option.

8 hours ago, John E said:

Note that at least in Australia the Nauticam Z5ii housing is about AU$2000 less than the Z6iii housing. It is even a couple hundred AU$ less than the small A7Cii housing. The attraction of the kit less that works with the smaller, cheaper WWL-1C rather than the WWL-1B is an advantage. The housing is about $1000 more than the Nauticam OM1ii housing but the Nikon Z5ii camera costs about AU$800 less than the OM1ii.

That is how it is looking on my spreadsheet too - although I haven't really looked for the cheapest deals on camera and lenses yet. The other advantage that I can see with the Nauticam Z5ii housing is that there is a lot more secondhand ports, extension rings etc available on ebay etc in the N120 size compared to the N85 size that the OM-1 housing takes. There are also some good aftermarket dome ports etc in N120 while very little if anything aftermarket is available in N85.

2 hours ago, Nemrod said:

Isn't the Z5II another camera with only a 1/200 sync speed vs 1/250.

True - are there any workarounds for this these days?