All Activity

Hi On a french diving forum, I had some discussion with a ex diving instructor living in Playa del carmen. His wife own a dive center. He allways say NO PROBLEM comming here, nobody need to pay taxe for camera etc... Heavy discussion over month I give up... and to be honest he didn't post at the forum anymore, probably he is tired fighting the evidences.

oh my bad, it should be 82mm! according to the calculator, the final result is 27.82mm I will try 25mm and 30mm and try to have a feedback! thanks @Isaac Szabo

@jyuny1 Almost everything looks correct to me except for "The distance from the sensor plane to the Nauticam N120 housing interface is approximately 45.2 mm". Did you measure that yourself, or did you look it up somewhere? I believe 45mm is the distance for Sony N100 housings and that the correct value for Nikon N120 housings is 82mm. If I'm correct, I think that would result in an ideal extension length of around 28mm, so a standard 30mm extension should work well.

Best thing to do unfortunately at this time is to not go to Cozumel unless you are okay with 19% taxes on cameras, computers including dive computers and other expensive gear like rebreathers or anything with a new value over $500. And let them know why you are not going. And give no tips to anyone if you are there now and where taxed for bringing in personal items. Whatever is going on there, the stress takes the fun out of the adventure, there are other places to go.

This post seems quite relevant: Red/green it seems gave you a chance of avoiding scrutiny but now they seem to be going all out.

Good analysis, I would suggest don't count on using your current fisheye dome with Nauticam, unless you can find a lug ring in stock somewhere. You seem to have a macroport in both systems? Or is that the port for the 24-50 On the WWL C it goes from slightly wider than your 14-30 to about 35-40mm equivalent while your 24-70 gets to 70mm of course. Whether it's a complete substitute depends upon whether you use the 40-70mm range on your 24-70 much. Other than that it is effectively a complete substitute for the 14-30 and big dome- unless of course you are a dedicated wreck diver and want trust rectilinear rendering for your wreck shots. As you mentioned there is some fisheye distortion in the WWL-C. I's also suggest asking about using the WWL-C on a flip as it only attaches by the Nauticam bayonet fitting. It's quite a hefty piece (though nowhere near as big a 9"dome) and I've only seen one post where they said they took it off and swapped it for diopter and even then they removed it and stored it in a pocket. which changes buoyancy of the rig. I expect using it on a flip is going to be an issue due to its size. As far as whether the WWL-C substitutes for a fisheye, it depends on what you are shooting, the FE is the choice for reef scenics for me at least. A left field option might be adding a Kenko 1.4x which requires 20mm more extension and that gets you out to the field of a 16mm rectilinear based on horizontal field of view.

Particularly important for LED triggers which only produce a narrow beam of light. On the topic of 613 fibre cables, the YS-D2 historically has a history of difficulties in triggering due to a rather weak slave sensor and needs the very best optic fibre cables. I recall one instance where cleaning the windows the LED trigger fires through solved a problem. It will work though with coiled or straight cables if they are the 613 fibre variety.

I rented one and used it with the 30mm extension - see comments and images here: I did not try the 20mm. There was no obvious vignetting with the 30mm extension. the 7-14 and the 8-15 are very close to the same length after you add the EF-RF adapter to the 8-15. Would be nice if it was even better with a 20 vs the 30! Solid lens. To your other point - I have never put another lens behind the 140mm dome. Not sure when I would use the 50 or 35 underwater - although I do bring the 24mm macro to use when I want simplicity (but don't love any of those focal lengths underwater...) but I use that with the 180mm port.

I believe Andy Sallmon will have the demo lens first to test on Canon and then it will be shipped to me for testing with Sony lenses. I hope we should have it by the end of the month. Sill no reply as to why the Canon RF 28-70mm F/2.8 is not listed as an option for NA or MX systems.

Hi @Dave_Hicks and @Isaac Szabo , I took the relevant measurements and used GPT-5.6 to calculate the estimated extension length. The dimensions and calculation results are shown in the figure below. I estimated the required extension length by aligning the center of curvature of the curved port with the entrance pupil of the Nikon 60 mm lens. The distance from the Z8 sensor plane to the front of the lens is approximately 135 mm. The entrance pupil of the Nikon 60 mm has been measured at approximately 34–42 mm behind the front of the lens, so I used the central value of 38 mm: Sensor plane to entrance pupil: 135 − 38 = 97.0 mm The distance from the sensor plane to the Nauticam N120 housing interface is approximately 45.2 mm: Housing interface to entrance pupil: 97.0 − 45.2 = 51.8 mm For the curved port, the measured outer chord diameter is 109.8 mm, and the sagitta is 28.0 mm. Assuming a spherical surface, these dimensions give an outer radius of curvature of approximately 67.82 mm. The center of curvature is therefore: 67.82 − 28.0 = 39.82 mm behind the chord plane The complete curved-port assembly is 55 mm deep, while the exposed curved acrylic section is 28 mm high. Therefore, the chord plane is: 55 − 28 = 27 mm in front of the curved-port mounting plane This places the center of curvature: 39.82 − 27 = 12.82 mm behind the curved-port mounting plane To align this center of curvature with the entrance pupil, the required extension length is therefore: 51.8 + 12.82 = 64.62 mm Based on these measurements, the estimated ideal extension length is approximately 65 mm. Since the entrance pupil may vary from 34 to 42 mm behind the lens front depending on focus distance, the corresponding extension range is approximately 60.6–68.6 mm. Here is the online calculator, please correct me if it is wrong!

If you are using the 7-14 fisheye with a 140mm dome port then it should work with the 20mm extension for best results. Marelux has not yet released a zoom gear or port and extension recommendations for Canon RF 7-14mm fisheye.

I was NOT assuming OP had multicore 613 fiber (that's why I recommended purchasing this kind if he couldn't solve the issue). Believe it or not when I had sync issues with older fiber optics, I found that sometimes unwinding fibers caught around the clamps and even loosen the velcro straps attaching the cable around the floats (I also use velcros for 2m cables) helped, it proved it worked "somehow" better. Hence my experience is that for with lower quality fibers too much twirling does impact on the signal liability.

Well, starting with the comparison. I think it might be easiest to just upload a screenshot of the spreadsheet! I wrote it for myself but I think it should be possible to understand for English speakers too. The Nauticam section is with prices from Swedish shop exposureunderwater. The Isotta section is with prices from uwcamerastore, except for a few things that may be bought from Sweden. In this screenshot I used 11.5 as exchange rate € - SEK. The flip adapter x2 may have to be swapped out but it's the same price in both sections. So, this is my calculation for a setup with only the WWL-C. (Continued below the screenshot) For macro I expect to be able to use my current port with Isotta. If I go Nauticam I expect I need a new port, which is the macro port 80. The focus gear I consider optional. It would be nice but I don't have one now. Question is how useful it would be to be able to use my current WA ports. I expect the WWL-C to replace my need for the 14-30 and 24-70. However, if I want to continue using the fisheye there would be an advantage in being able to use current ports. And, as for the low-budget option of continuing to use my S&S housing - I've sent a question about the flange distance. I've also asked about 3D-printed zoom rings. It's worth investigating.

I would skip the mini flash, getting it to work was a pain for me. I'd look at one of these: https://underwaterlightandmagic.co.uk/

I will be heading this direction courtesy of some cables that Dave is making up for me. I tried fresh cut ends and a single bushing end on one of the cables I have, and it still didn't work. So, those must not be up to snuff (brand unknown and not labelled). I'm not super psyched by the brightness of the little LEDs in the Nauticam flash trigger, so if the cables dave sends don't work, I'll look into one of the bright mini flashes on Amazon, and see how I can re-orient the flash element to be directed at the cable ports to get a brighter signal to the strobes.

Damn FB! The last post I see on that page is dated March 6... Impossible finding something on FB. Edit: It's on the group not the page. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18bTgGA3mp/

Andrew I will add this to my list of things for Marketplace to look at. However I uploaded images straight from my iPhone and they seemed to work. Maybe admin rights took over there. Ill take a look thou, its a custom application I made for invision so pretty much can do what I want with it where as other parts of the site (ex within forums) is a bit more locked to what invision gives us.

Thanks for the the update. Would you have a link to the post? Unfortunately Robert isn't on here (big Bobetc fan here), but feel free to link this thread on the BW group as well - the more talk there is the better! cheers

I have had no problem with coiled 613 cable with any strobes (Inon, Retra, Marelux) but I have had with YS. I would use single bushing ends, not doubles, make sure you have quality multicore 613 type cable and fresh ends that are not recessed up into the bushing or plug.

I was with you until this last point. Wrapping or twirling the cable has no impact at all. The bend radius of 613multicore fiber is 2mm before loss of signal will be a problem. Most vendors coil the cables more tightly than you are going to wrap your cables. As long as you don't tie it into knots it will work perfectly. Anyways, just use some Velcro straps to fix your strobe cables to the arms.

Hi Andrew Automatically, sorry, no... that has to be a mandraulic issue. Just resize the down preferably in jpg format.

In a conversation I had with Oskar at Retra some time back, he mentioned that a centred hole in a bush was important for some strobes.

Is it possible to automatically downsize the images? I can’t even upload images taken on my iPhone.

Interesting ideas. I wondered about the double hole bushing (as that's what the current cable has), and will see if a single hole with better alignment works. I hadn't thought of cutting the current connectors off and "re-plumbing" with new ones to check alignment. That's a great idea as well. I'm getting a new set of better quality cables, but will try your ideas as well. If I can get these working, backups are never a bad thing to have. Thanks for the thoughts!

Had a similar issue with an old Nauticam Port which 67mm thread was completely damaged, it couldn't screw and hold anything like a macro wetlens. I used a neutral filter mount I had removed the glass before, and glued it to the damaged thead. It worked for a year and 2 dive trips, I anyway had to buy another (new) port since I changed my whole rig as well.