5 hours ago, Nemrod said:

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

Watching this video from Matt & Alex about the 1/200 sync speeds of the Nikon Z series, their suggests were -
- lower Iso while ensure that you have powerful strobes - which poses the interesting question of are there any shutter speed "sweetspots" with the Nikon Z series?

- use HSS
- if needed after these steps then use a ND filter

Between those it should be OK hopefully - the only place where I would be really concerned is the Red Sea - as anyone who has dived there can attest it is bright as hell there even underwater in summer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSby0YHsboA

On 8/4/2026 at 5:06 AM, 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.

I use the 45mm for video. Qualitys stellar but the AF is really slow even on normal shots on land.

The 30mm is way better even if it reaches its max magnification on glass. IIIRC it uses the same port of the 45mm.

2 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

True - are there any workarounds for this these days?

Yes. A flashtrigger and strobes that does HSS. Turtle, UW Technics… depending on strobes. I have shot with old strobes that don’t do HSS and another z-model doing max 1/200, in bright tropical waters and haven’t felt that limited by it, tbh. But will upgrade it eventually, to increase flexibility.

EDIT. WWL-c and 24-50 does not need to be shot at super small apertures, it’s sharp all across and acceptable already at 5.6 or 6.3 and up, is nice with some added DoF in image. F8 and 1/125 my starting point.

*Have dived and shot plenty in the Red Sea and wouldn’t worry. Matt tested it in GC which is super bright so a good comparison point.

Edited Wednesday at 09:53 AM3 days by Christian K
bad grammars

27 minutes ago, CCRphoto said:

Watching this video from Matt & Alex about the 1/200 sync speeds of the Nikon Z series, their suggests were -
- lower Iso while ensure that you have powerful strobes - which poses the interesting question of are there any shutter speed "sweetspots" with the Nikon Z series?

- use HSS
- if needed after these steps then use a ND filter

Between those it should be OK hopefully - the only place where I would be really concerned is the Red Sea - as anyone who has dived there can attest it is bright as hell there even underwater in summer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSby0YHsboA

With the OM-1 you have 1/250 with the little mini flash and can reach 1/400 without HSS using the Nauticam flash trigger.

You mentioned less noise with 24.5 MP on the Nikon, you have about 1 - 1.5 stops less noise on the Nikon - great but with m43 the smaller sensor means you can shoot at f8 with your wide angle lens instead of f13 with the Nikon and you've got most of your noise back as you can run a stop lower ISO. Dynamic range is a similar story. I rarely shoot anything other ISO200 UW, the OM-1 base ISO.

My opinion is that the 20MP sensor on the m43 cameras is more than adequate for 95% of people, there are cases where you might justify full frame, selling images for a living is one, really low light shooting is another but the OM-1 does surprising well at quite high ISO, finally printing really big. the 20MP OM-1 prints natively to just about A3 size at 300 dpi on an uncropped image, You could easily do A2 on an up-ressed image. Prints out of these cameras beat the hell out of a 35mm film image - I've done plenty of both prints and the digital print is crisper with better colours and shadow detail. Here is an extreme example(not mine unfortunately), the image is land based but shot at ISO10,000:

Hummingbird image ISO10,000

I'm not saying you shouldn't go full frame - if you can afford it and are prepared to lug it around sure. I used to try to ensure I could print all my images as big as practical, but after 40 years I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've actually printed to something approaching A2 and only a handful greater A3. These days give the easy to use and transport m43 rig it's more than good enough for me.

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

With the OM-1 you have 1/250 with the little mini flash and can reach 1/400 without HSS using the Nauticam flash trigger.

You mentioned less noise with 24.5 MP on the Nikon, you have about 1 - 1.5 stops less noise on the Nikon - great but with m43 the smaller sensor means you can shoot at f8 with your wide angle lens instead of f13 with the Nikon and you've got most of your noise back as you can run a stop lower ISO. Dynamic range is a similar story. I rarely shoot anything other ISO200 UW, the OM-1 base ISO.

My opinion is that the 20MP sensor on the m43 cameras is more than adequate for 95% of people, there are cases where you might justify full frame, selling images for a living is one, really low light shooting is another but the OM-1 does surprising well at quite high ISO, finally printing really big. the 20MP OM-1 prints natively to just about A3 size at 300 dpi on an uncropped image, You could easily do A2 on an up-ressed image. Prints out of these cameras beat the hell out of a 35mm film image - I've done plenty of both prints and the digital print is crisper with better colours and shadow detail. Here is an extreme example(not mine unfortunately), the image is land based but shot at ISO10,000:

Hummingbird image ISO10,000

I'm not saying you shouldn't go full frame - if you can afford it and are prepared to lug it around sure. I used to try to ensure I could print all my images as big as practical, but after 40 years I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've actually printed to something approaching A2 and only a handful greater A3. These days give the easy to use and transport m43 rig it's more than good enough for me.

The lugging around aspect appears to come down to port sizes more so than housing sizes I think - the OM-1 MkII camera body is (LxWxH) 135x73x92mm, and the Z5ii is 134x72x101mm - so the housings shouldn't be much different in size, but the needed ports (especially dome ports) will likely be quite a bit bigger. I will have to take a good look at the housings side by size to see how they compare.

Costwise - I think that it is going to work out quite similar - which I must admit surprised me a little.

Just more things to consider I guess. One advantage with OM-1 MkII is that there are several active members on here shooting it who I can lean on for information or help if needed, whereas there doesn't appear to be any Z5ii users, so any help needed might be from Z8 users - if things are similar between the Z5ii and the Z8.

31 minutes ago, CCRphoto said:

The lugging around aspect appears to come down to port sizes

Not entirely. Lens sizes are significantly different. M43 lenses are tiny. Nikkor FF lenses are not. Compare the OM 60mm with the rough Nikkor equivalent, a 105mm…….. Moving to M43 the size and weight of the lenses is, for me, the biggest difference.

46 minutes ago, TimG said:

Not entirely. Lens sizes are significantly different. M43 lenses are tiny. Nikkor FF lenses are not. Compare the OM 60mm with the rough Nikkor equivalent, a 105mm…….. Moving to M43 the size and weight of the lenses is, for me, the biggest difference.

In my view (from someone who was owning Olympus MFT and is now using Sony FF), the difference in size and weight exists, but depends to a great extend on the type of lenses (there are differences between the FF mount systems; I cannot comment on APS-C systems, I never owned one and have zero overview there (also acryl ports or ports from other companies with comparable parameters will work, of course)):

#1.: Fisheye w/wo zoom capability: Zen DP100 for MFT vs Nauticam140 (or similar) for FF.

=> MFT wins (Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with Metabones 0.7x speedbooster and Zen DP100; similar to Zuiko 8mm, that, however, has no zoom out capability)). I, personally was using the, optically superb, Canon 8-15mm with Nauticam 140 - almost no difference in size and weight then.

#2.: WA wet lenses: work more or less on both MFT and FF (at present, Sony FF seems to have no WWL-C compatible lens and is the exception (WWL-C was developed for compact cameras; I am not sure about IQ on FF)).

=> No difference in practice.

#3.: rectilinear WA: ZenDP170(or Nauticam180) vs Nauticam230 for FF.

there are, however, exceptional lenses like Tamron 17-28mm that work very well behind DP170 (I have one, but almost never use it, since i use adapted canon 8-15mm fisheye with 2x Sony TC). In this case no difference to MFT. I do not know, whether this lens is available in Nikon Z, but Google does.

=> MFT wins (but not miles ahead); no difference compared with Tamron 17-28mm on FF.

#4.: Intermediate focal range for fish portrait (normally seldom used): I am/was using Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 pro for MFT as well as Sony 20-70mm f/4 G behind Zen DP170. Both delivered excellent IQ. Now replaced by MFO-3 that also delivers very good IQ and is not flexible, but portability when travelling is so much better.

=> No difference

#5.: Macro: here comes the really big difference: Macro rig with Zuiko 60mm or Panasonic 45mm extension (one can use the 45mm Nauticam port for both, 60mm needs an additional 20mm extension) is such a tiny and smart rig compared to the Nauticam rigs with Sony 90mm or, now, 100mm GM macrolens.

In my MFT days the WA rigs (type #1, #3, #4) used to be the biggest and heaviest, while now the situation is reversed. The macro rig is the biggest and most monstrous rig I assemble with my Sony A7R5 (I use #1, #2 (WACP-C), #3 (I do not own a 230mm dome), #4).

=> Only type where MFT is a clear winner in my eyes (when focus is totally correct and no motion blurr, one gets excellent IQ in both systems (FF offers more postprocessing power, but this makes little difference in practice).

Edited Wednesday at 12:32 PM3 days by Architeuthis

15 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

In my view (from someone who was owning Olympus MFT and is now using Sony FF), the difference in size and weight exists, but depends to a great extend on the type of lenses

Sure. I can only compare what I'm seeing now on M43 (essentially the OM 60mm and the Panasonic 8mm FE) with what I have used on Nikon APS-C or FF: the Nikkor 60mm, 105mm, 16-35mm, DX 12-24mm, DX 10-24mm, DX 10.5, Sigma 15mm and Tokina 10-17mm Other than arguably the Sigma, Tokina and Nikkor DX 10.5 are all hugely bigger. I couldn't believe the size of the Panasonic 8mm when I opened the box. I've seen bigger cotton reels. The OM 60mm is minuscule compared to the Nikkor 105mm.

But totally accept your point that it depends on which and whose lenses. I was assuming (yeah, dangerous I know) that if you're thinking of a Nikon Z5 chances are you're going to use (some) Nikkor lenses. I thought it worth bearing those lens sizes in mind. On pre-M43 travel I could not fit Nikkor lenses with the housing, strobes etc into my Pelican 1510 roller box. It now looks as though everything will fit in: housing, strobes, ports, lenses.....

OM-1 MK2 + PL 45mm F2.8 macro (90mm FF equiv.)

Nikon Z5II + Nikkor 105mm F2.8 macro

OM-1 MK2 + Olympus 60mm F2.8 macro (120mm FF equiv.)

Nikon Z5II + Nikkor 105mm F2.8 macro

Play your game:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#918.930,946.991,ha,t

What’s very specific for the z5ii is the ability to use the z24-50 and the wwl-c. It is a very petite set-up that kind of throw the conventional wisdoms on FF out the window inme. The wwl-c was developed for 24 mm focal lengths according to Nauticam, not necessarily compact cameras and not for any sensortype. The wwl 1 for 28. IQ should be the same if set up correctly. But I haven’t used Sony or Canon and not the wwl 1. I suggest asking @MatthewSullivan if he can see any IQ variations between the two wwl:s, as I believe he has used both of them. It will be a little more expensive. It will be some more weight and bulk (lenses as TimG point out, how many will you need for a trip?) of course. But surprisingly little for the basic set-up, and the z5ii brings some heavy weight abilities into a lightweight fight. Worth considering inmo. YMMV.

Edited Wednesday at 02:03 PM3 days by Christian K

When I moved to M4/3 I could fit nearly everything for the camera system into a carry on and my hold baggage shrank by a bag.

• Camera system less vulnerable to baggage bashing.

• Camera system no longer susceptible to pilfering in dodgy airports.

• I save on hold baggage fees. First flight with M4/3 system I saved £70 each way. I have given up counting, but given enough dive trips it will pay for itself.

9 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

True - are there any workarounds for this these days?

Yes, HSS and occasionally some triggers may allow you to trick the camera to a higher sync speed. My UWT trigger allows me to get to 1/200 though the native sync is 1/160. But, it is fussy.

There is simply no way I will ever purchase another high dollars underwater rig that does not have at least 1/250 sync speed. Unlike land photography, nearly every shot we make underwater is with strobes. And really, I would like headroom to 1/500 without resorting to HSS. Anything Matt and Alex say about compensating for 1/160 or 1/200 sync limit can be applied to a camera with a 1/250 sync speed for even better results.

For macro shooters, okay, not a problem perhaps but for wide angle, that darn sun seems to hang out right where I want to take a shot.

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

OM-1 MK2 + PL 45mm F2.8 macro (90mm FF equiv.)

Nikon Z5II + Nikkor 105mm F2.8 macro

OM-1 MK2 + Olympus 60mm F2.8 macro (120mm FF equiv.)

Nikon Z5II + Nikkor 105mm F2.8 macro

Play your game:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#918.930,946.991,ha,t

As a comparison with z24-50 and IDK about olympus but a 9-18!? Would that be what you’d use with wet optics?

7 minutes ago, Christian K said:

As a comparison with z24-50 and IDK about olympus but a 9-18!? Would that be what you’d use with wet optics?

Yes, @Architeuthis post explained it vwery well. it depends.

14 minutes ago, Christian K said:

As a comparison with z24-50 and IDK about olympus but a 9-18!? Would that be what you’d use with wet optics?

Sorry, no. On WWL you would use a 14-42mm. I'm not expert about other wet lens.

An Oly 9-18mm (not very good) or a Pana 8-18mm are wide already (16-35mm) and they use a 180mm dome.

3 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Sorry, no. On WWL you would use a 14-42mm. I'm not expert about other wet lens.

An Oly 9-18mm (not very good) or a Pana 8-18mm are wide already (16-35mm) and they use a 180mm dome.

Ok, so even more surprising size comparison. I’ll stop here or people think I’m some kind of Nikon rep… but just think it is worth looking into the z5ii.

9 hours ago, Davide DB said:

I use the 45mm for video. Qualitys stellar but the AF is really slow even on normal shots on land.

The 30mm is way better even if it reaches its max magnification on glass. IIIRC it uses the same port of the 45mm.

Davide,

That is consistent with my findings—no complaints about image quality when it focused. I suspect it would be better on an OM-1 body, but not sure. The 45 on land seems decent for me—maybe a little slower than the 30 and 60–and even daytime dives the 45 wasn’t awful. On a blackwater dive it sucked. The 45 uses the same AOI port as the 30, but without manual focus capability.

Evan

12 hours ago, CCRphoto said:

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.

I shot the 30 mm on two daylight dives by mistake (the hazards of assembling camera gear before coffee when jetlagged!) inside the 60mm port. Shots turned out amazingly well, although I wondered why my CMC 2 was so easy to shoot and seemingly lower mag than expected!🤯 I did not notice any creature spooking issues, but again I was unaware I was shooting the 30 until after the two morning dives when I pulled the camera for a battery swap so I wasn’t really looking for any difference. The 30 worked great on blackwater.

4 hours ago, Davide DB said:

OM-1 MK2 + PL 45mm F2.8 macro (90mm FF equiv.)

Nikon Z5II + Nikkor 105mm F2.8 macro

OM-1 MK2 + Olympus 60mm F2.8 macro (120mm FF equiv.)

Nikon Z5II + Nikkor 105mm F2.8 macro

Play your game:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#918.930,946.991,ha,t

These plan view comparisons are really helpful for a sanity check! I handled/shot the Sony A7RVI in the Singapore airport and gave it a thought as it was a joy to hold and shoot (and FAST AF!), but the cost, weight, and bulk of lenses, ports, and housing sobered me right up!

On 8/3/2026 at 8:13 PM, 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.

By the way one consideration on housing is if there is any thought to adding a monitor as I think only aluminum housings accommodate the HDMI needed.

I was talking to another diver/photographer friend a few weeks ago before we were to meet on Grand Cayman, and I mentioned that I was going to bring a MFT setup as a reduced size and weight experiment. He asked me what strobes I was using and I told him I planned on bringing the Retra Maxis. He laughed and I realized that two strobes that were each about the size of the housing and weighing over 1kg each did sort of undermine my small and light concept.

In the beginning, God said, let there be light. And Retra complied, and there was. And it was good!

49 minutes ago, JohnD said:

I was talking to another diver/photographer friend a few weeks ago before we were to meet on Grand Cayman, and I mentioned that I was going to bring a MFT setup as a reduced size and weight experiment. He asked me what strobes I was using and I told him I planned on bringing the Retra Maxis. He laughed and I realized that two strobes that were each about the size of the housing and weighing over 1kg each did sort of undermine my small and light concept.

Top to Bottom: Backscatter Atom, Backscatter HF-1, Retra Maxi.

The Maxi is the biggest, but also the by far the lightest in the water - nearly neutrally buoyant.

The other consideration is that you can get by with smaller cheaper strobes on m43. I used the Z240s a lot till I got Retra pures, but tests on here showed the tiny cheap INON S220 have similar output to the Z240 and I'm sure would be quite enough particularly for macro on m43. You can do this as you don't need to stop way down - f8 is my go to when I shoot with fisheye - both the Panasonic 8mm and the Canon 8-15 and I'll drop back to f5.6 on occasions. On full frame you are shooting f11-13 generally. Macro I shoot at f10 mostly - FF often stops down more than this, but it's not so much an advantage as the strobes are very close to the subject. Opening up means you need less flash power. On the other side of the coin you can mostly shoot at ISO200 making it easier to get sunballs and you also undo some of the gains of FF where you might often use ISO400. on HSS you can use the Nauitcam flash trigger to get 1/400 without needing to resort to HSS.

On the rectilinear front I recall seeing a post on shooting the excellent 12-40 lens in a 140mm dome - much more compact if 24mm FF equivalent is wide enough for you if you need a rectilinear. You can go smaller and lighter on the lens side using the excellent 12-45mm f4 lens as well. and the 140mm dome will also suit a fisheye lens well. On the Isotta side you could use their 6"dome for these lenses for a very compact rig.

17 hours ago, TimG said:

Not entirely. Lens sizes are significantly different. M43 lenses are tiny. Nikkor FF lenses are not. Compare the OM 60mm with the rough Nikkor equivalent, a 105mm…….. Moving to M43 the size and weight of the lenses is, for me, the biggest difference.

Hopefully I will get a better idea of the size comparison at the Sydney dive show in a month's time - I think that once I have seen and handled things there then I will be able to make a decision.