All Activity
Past hour
-
Just a thought, but does your camera have IBIS or the lens have stabilization? Turn it off. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems sometimes I see a corner in a RAW file and the jpeg is clean. I managed to trick myself into thinking my Nauticam was leaking. I was in Fort Lauderdale so dropped by Reef to have them check it over. I also mentioned I thought the camera off center. The service tech pressure checked and found no fault and said he made an adjustment and handed it back to me. Since they did not charge me anything for the checkover and adjustment I did not ask what it was he adjusted.
-
I don't have this issue with the 140fe on my Nikon 8-15 setup, with or without 1.4 tc. Can you examine your hood carefully, perhaps using a bubble level? It could be misaligned. A good hit might have altered it.
Today
-
Thanks for your reply! Does the Nauticam triple flip have dedicated, fixed(!) 'detents' for each flip that hold the flips in position? The Saga has detents, but they are far too soft and therefore can no longer hold the weight beyond a certain tilt.
-
I have the Nauticam triple flip holder, no problem yet (with the MFO3, MFO1 and a +12.5 diopter) in positions I've tried. Only issue I found so far is that the central flip isn't compatible with the 100mm port's cold shoe mount - you can mount the triple flip + a cold-shoe ball mount attachement for instance, but the flip's central hinge is partially blocked by the ball mount's screw (one solution would be to mount the triple flip upside down, so that the central flip is under the housing, but it's not the safest for diopters)
-
I'm using the Nauticam 140mm FE dome with the Canon FE 8-15/4 in combination with the two RF extenders and I've noticed that when zooming out, the lower right corner of the dome's lens hood is always the first part of the image to appear. There's an inaccuracy and I don't know the cause. It could be due to the lens hood's manufacturing, or perhaps the camera's position in the housing isn't perfectly precise—or a combination of both. Has anyone else noticed this? It's not a major issue, but it does reduce the FOV somewhat.
-
Hello, I own a Saga M67 triple flip adapter, which is very good in principle. Unfortunately, it has a design flaw: at a vertical tilt of approximately 45°, it can't support the weight of heavier close-up lenses, causing them to flip forward. This can have serious consequences, as the lenses can get scratched because they collide with each other. Besides, there are rare situations where you actually want to shoot vertically. Does anyone know of another manufacturer of triple flip adapters that doesn't have this problem?
-
The max magnification varies depending of focal length for the MFO3 with the Sony 90mm reporting 0.8x from the port charts. All lenses focus between 0 and about 1500mm with the MFO3 added . The stated design from Nauticam is that the MFO3 corrects for having a flat port so has better corners than what a 50/60mm macro would have through a flat port and also shifts the the focus range of the so that in common 0.5x to min magnification range corresponds to the lens focusing to infinity and the fact the lens is out in the range where AF is fast and snappy on the bare lens, so AF improves. In my case with the olympus 60mm macro my limit is 0.5x - but for what I use the MFO3 for - it's a non issue. I've certainly found my MFO3 to be snappy when focusing once the lens racks out to the focal range needed after I first attach it, beyond that I don't even think about AF, it just snaps on. Whether or not the corners improve - I have not done any sort of detailed comparison, I'm just very happy with what it does. In terms of sharpness crushing - a lot of people are using the MFO2 now it seems and I don't recall anyone complaining about sharpness. These lenses are being used with Canon/Nikon/Sony top line macro lenses which are as a rule no slouch optically, seems to me it would be a hard ask for a different supplementary lens to claim to be crushing relative sharpness performance when using the add-on lens unless Nauticam is destroying it. As good as the bare lens or a little better - sure seems quite plausible. I haven’t used the Marelux version so don't know how it performs but have no reason to doubt it produces top notch images. Needs someone to spend some pool or test tank time shooting resolution targets to put the question to bed. Me personally - I'd rather go diving - but would certainly review the results with interest if someone was keen enough to produce some images to compare. Any volunteers?😅
-
For Sale $750.00 Oregon, USASony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS for sale. one small blemish on the side that does not affect performance. The lens has been recently serviced by Sony P…
-
I have now had Marelux 60 lens for about a month. I bought it for the specification of focusing well beyond the ~1 meter MFO-3 limit. The MFO-3 had been on my radar since the announcement. I was about to buy the MFO-3 about the time Phil wrote his blurb on the Marelux lens here on Wetpixels. I then looked on the Marelux site and contacted them to verify this specification which they did so I ordered it right away as I have one use case here in AK and it was due about 1 month after the solstice: the arrival of Pink Salmon in an intertidal creek near where I live. For a few days sea lice stay attached and I wanted to shoot them with a normal focal length. We had a lot of rain from several storm systems during July. When it cleared up the residents along the creek told me they had been there for just a couple of days and it looked like the whole run entered at once likely triggered by all the rain. So I had my chance. This was also my first salmon shoot with the new Maxi strobe which I had pre-ordered way back when. See pix. One is square crop of a D800 image showing the flank of a Pink Salmon. Note the bug near the center. I looked at it at 300% and did a frame grab which is attached as well. This is an early stage of a sea louse. Prior to the big rain I attempted shooting it in the nearby lake on a sunny day. Although it looks calm there was enough of a swell to cause the algae I was shooting to sway so those pix had to be binned. The other pix show how I used the lens on a Seacam housing. I used a Nauticam bayonet adapter and bayonet holder on a Saga port. I bought a cheap 77mm thread petal lens shade that has a plastic thread so is semi-disposable. I would avoid using metal-metal threads in seawater. The rubber shade used on my first trial (in pic) did vignette.
-
MBartick joined the community
Yesterday
-
Thanks Phil, not surer how I missed the details on the Marelux page. I was mostly curious about minimum focus rather than maximum, and obviously cannot get much shorter than 0. Hopefully someone can share some experiences with the lens.
-
kellym77 joined the community
-
No, not as yet. Got a trip coming up and will try them then. Both seem very good.
-
Hey Tim! Welcome to Waterpixels. Very good to have you with us. We hope you enjoy the forum Best wishes from another Tim Tim
-
Hi folks I'm Tim. I've been diving for about 30yr but am a relatively inexperienced underwater photographer. I've been involved for a few years but only get to dive 100 divers/yr if I'm lucky (work, etc., and I don't dive locally). The Caribbean is only a half a day away and the water is warm... I've been reading posts here and am looking forward to learning more from WaterPixels members.
-
Nice reports. Have you made a selection yet?
-
Want to Buy
The Nikon 8-15mm works great with the Z-body cameras using the FTZ adapter. Excellent quality. It is my favorite wide angle lens, often paired with a …
-
Both the Nauticam and Marelux lenses have a 0.9X max magnification and on full frame are generally assumed to be suitable for 90mm, 100mm and 105mm macro lenses. So AOV's of 27 degrees, 24 degrees and 23 degrees. With the MFO-3 and MV-60 in place the result is an AOV of around 47 degrees+/-, 40 degrees and 38 degrees. Nauticam states it was tested with the Nikon Z 105mm macro and has a working distance of 0-1500mm or 59 inches. The Marelux MV-60 was tested using a 100mm macro so 24 degrees and 40 degrees with a working distance of 0-infinity, spec's from each websites. I am sure many will say that shooting beyond 59 inches/1500mm is a waist of time however what shooting to infinity points out is the large difference in lens design between these two lenses. My guess is that having a flat front element allows the MV-60 to focus to infinity while the curved front element of the MFO-3 restricts working distance. This may also explain a difference in AF speed although this is purely speculative. Different camera systems have a wide verity of AF choices and to have a relevant comparison you would need to be using the same system with the same AF setting I would think.
-
Want to Buy
I use the Nikkor 8-15mm on both a Z6iii and a Z9 - not underwater. Works really well with the FTZ.
-
Want to Buy
Note that Nikon has "archived" (discontinued?) this lens. It was made for DSR. Don't know how well it worked with the FTZ adapter for mirrorless. M…
-
Someone broke their OS-1 snoot card clips and was looking for replacement parts. So I made some. https://makerworld.com/en/models/3145830-replacement-card-clips-for-backscatter-os-1-snoot You can find more of my designs here: UW Photo: https://makerworld.com/collections/16165730 ` Scuba: https://makerworld.com/collections/16165676
-
I would also love to see some comparisons or tests. I am not saying that as some sort of challenge or dispute. I have found the MFO to be very useful, and if the MV60 does it better, even without being better to the point of "crushing" the MFO, I want one. I would also be curious about working distance and magnification comparison, especially working distance. I just looked and cannot find those on the Marelux website.
-
I can answer some of these questions about the Marelux MV-60 V. Nauticam MFO-3. Weight, NA is 602g and 120g negative in water. MX is 535g and 35g negative in water. NA has a curved front glass and MX has flat front glass. The Marelux front lens appears slightly larger in diameter and because the front optic is flat it allows 77mm threads on the front of the lens so you can direct mount filters and a lens cap without need for an adapter. Regarding cost the Nauticam MFO-3 retails for $730.00US and the M82 filter holder is $57.00. The Marelux MV-60 retails for $599.00. The MV-60 ships with a neoprene storage bag, front and rear caps and a spacer for direct mount to a 67mm flat macro port. I have never seen the MFO-3 but assume it includes the same items. Both work on flip adapters and can be interchanged between NA or MX adapters depending on which flip you own. Regarding the IQ and AF performance I have no opinion because I have never used the MFO-3. The second photo is the new Marelux housing for Sony A7R VI with the new MX double flip adapter. You can see it works with both MX-macroview and NA-closeup lenses.
-
Having recently written about installing the o-Turtle trigger into a Nauticam housing, I’ve now had a go with a UWT internal trigger for the Nauticam NA-OM1 housing. UWT describes it as the 11072-22-HSS TTL-Converter for NAUTICAM for OLYMPUS/ OM SYSTEM. The UWT trigger arrives in a bubble-wrap envelope in a small cardboard box. No frills functional. It consists of a small electronics board with two LEDs and a cable leading to a hot shoe connector. The manual explains that strobes are selected through a small click-dial (just visible in the bottom right of the picture). That is the whole of the setup. There is no battery with power being drawn, I guess, from the camera. The trigger provides Manual, TTL and, with the right strobes, HSS initiation. The manual explains that, no surprise, the board is fixed to the housing bulkhead so that the two LEDs shine through the housing fibre optic ports. Unlike other UWT boards (eg for Subal - which uses two screws), the fastening is achieved by two strips of double-sided tape which are pre-installed on the trigger board. “Simply” peel back the tape, and push into place. Full details are here: https://uwtechnics.com/product/11072-22-hss-ttl-converter-for-olympus-for-nauticam-underwater-housings-na-om1-em1-iii-em10-iv-em1x-em5-ii-em-5-iii-om1/ Installation seemed simple, but having experienced initial placement failure with the o-Turtle, I was more than slightly nervous about sticking the UWT board in place. After hours of thought, I used a very soft pencil (3B) to draw two straight lines on the inside of the housing which ran vertically through the LED ports; and single a horizontal line across the LED ports. The lines were longer than the size of the board so that they could be seen even with the board in place. The lines meant the alignment of the LED ports was visible even when the board hid them. Then, with the camera installed in the housing and strobes plugged in to the bulkheads, I pushed the connector on to the camera hot shoe and watched how the cable allowed the electronics board to drop onto the bulkhead. Moving the board around slightly it was still possible to see the guide marks. Holding the board with a finger in what seemed the correct position, the shutter trigger was pulled - and bingo - the strobes fired. Yay! Couple more trial goes followed just to make sure. Then removing the protective film from the sticky pads on the board and, again, using the pencil marks for alignment, I secured the board into place. Wiping the beads of sweat off my forehead, I pulled the trigger a few times and my Retras happily flashed away. Playing around, Manual and TTL were a breeze. HSS took a little while to discover the settings needed on the OM-1ii but that was soon going too. Using a UWT trigger on a Nikon/Subal system for over a decade proved very reliable. Any problems and Pavel, who is Mr UWT, is a tremendous source of help. Now based in Taiwan, UWT triggers are available by mail order or from the usual underwater photography dealers. -
Want to Buy
Sorry. I missed that. Good luck.
-
Helmica joined the community
-
Many thanks - helps heaps - and I like the way that you keep the fibreoptic cable attached to the arms! Must be nice to be able to dive in waters where the sharks aren't trying to eat you!
-
Interesting - I've heard that it was lighter, cheaper than the MFO3 and that it has a flat front element vs. a more concave one for the MFO3, but hadn't heard anything about sharpness or AF improvements of one over the other
