All Activity

Many of the decisions in the review were made for a point, and while we all like to internet judge others - the more we do that the less likely future iterations like this will come out. If this comparison was nothing more than the slider tool, it would remain one of the most helpful comparisons out there. What else do we have? Hard work by Dave and others that are one offs between 2-4 strobes (which are super useful!)? Information from other sites where everything is great - even a gopro that can't focus close enough to be usable underwater being a good choice? Or a lot of people who just bought a strobe and say how great it is. In the retra response "A retailer testing what it sells" - Is not correct as it also tests strobes it doesn't sell. Backscatter also does not recommend any strobe, including their own (which is branded - so I think the COI is pretty obvious). So the attempt to be impartial is there. They have also - and specifically - not steered people towards their branded items in their many review videos. If a good option, they have - in the past - recommended one of their own products but also suggested strobes from other brands. When someone comes out with tests like this, everyone loves to jump on them for not doing it this way or that. Each of the decisions was for a reason. Is it to make their strobe look good? Or was it that they have to choose one way, and any way will be flawed to some degree. Then we can balance that with most people's attention span - there is only so much people will read these days. Personally, much the like comparison tools that have helped us buy cameras on sites like dpreview, this is at least an attempt to provide one more piece of information that allows people to compliment information gained on sites like waterpixels and various youtube channels.

Hi Leslie I've just switched to an OM-1ii with a 60mm Zuiko lens but, like you, have not yet got it in the water. Just in case you've not found this already...... Messing around topside, as you do, I noticed one issue which would be a pain underwater especially shooting in Manual: it seemed to me that the default setting was that the EVF/screen would lighten or darken depending on the ISO/aperture or shutter speed. Set to Manual mode, with a shutter speed of, say, 1/200 and an f stop of, say, f11, the EVF/screen was pitch black and impossible to see the subject. I want into MENU > ⚙ GEAR page 3 > LV Mode and set "S-OVF" ("Simulated Optical ViewFinder"). This avoids the problem.

Aloha and welcome @McSweaterson !

These are beautiful. I just purchased an OM-1 with the AOI housing and will be using it primarily for macro (60mm and 90mm lenses). Can't wait to get it in the water!!!!! Any advice or "gotchas" to look out for?

It appears we will have the answers to all or most of our questions on Tuesday Sept 8th when Sonyalpharumers.com say the lens and the 400mm and 600mm F/4.5 lenses will be announced by Sony. They say price around $1499.00.

Totally agree. Horrible topside but underwater, superb! Add a 1.4TC and even more flexibility.

For aps-c, a tokina 10-17 still rules wa zooming inmo, if you can find one.

10-17 Tokina, just get close and creative for the small stuff.

thanks, @ColdDarkDiver . I should have made the crop sensor camera more clear 🙃

Thanks for the information, @Chris Ross !

The whole premise of the 18-45 with the R50 in Nauticam and AOI with the fixed port is to use it with wet lenses, wide is quite OK, the WWL-1 gives a nice range and focuses up to the port. You can get to 0.8x with a 44mm working distance with the CMC-1, all the data is on the port chart here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15eHIQlhHCVuz8zPu2pzFTHPhgqHwsn0v/view the CMC-1 only focuses between 44 and 81mm so is a bit cludgy compared to a TG-7 in this regard, but certainly it's workable. 44mm working distance is getting a bit small and hard to light though. The CMC-2 would be easier at the cost of only getting 0.6x. These figues would apply equally to the AOI housing, assuming you can mount the right bayonets. Swapping between the WWL and CMC is a bit of an issue, some people are happy to do it, others state they don't want to deal with what to do with the big lump that is the WWL-1B , you need to put it somewhere when you take it off. It can get very close and do semi macro shots though.

Have to wait for the specs to see what the field is as it depends on the projection they have chosen for the design. To get a 180° field the focal length can be anywhere between 11 and 21.5mm. Or put another way 14mm could give anything between 150 and 200° depending on the projection. Most likely though it will hover somewhere around 180°. The 7 Artisans 10mm fisheye gave a full frame 185° field as it was quite a different projection, closer to a rectilinear.