All Activity

Cheers Phil, looks like I can cross a few off the list! To answer @Grantmac 's question - fullframe macro and CFWA - Nikon Z.

Greetings from OM Digital Solutions. We are contacting you to follow up on our phone conversation regarding the TG-7 underwater accessories. FD-1 (Flash Diffuser): Can be mounted, removed, and used underwater without any limitations. It is the ideal accessory for underwater macro lighting, effectively directing the built-in flash light. CLA-T01 (Adaptor Ring): Can be changed underwater without restrictions. It is suitable for attaching underwater filters or converter lenses (such as the FCON-T01 and FCON-T02 fisheye lenses). LG-1 (LED Light Guide): Not suitable for underwater use. Water fills the optical channel of the accessory, altering refraction and preventing the correct diffusion of the LED light. LB-T01 (Lens Barrier): Not recommended for use underwater. Water and small air bubbles become trapped in the rotating blade mechanism and in front of the lens's front element, impairing image quality and causing fog or spots in photographs.

I am using my 90mm with SMC1. Just got back from Lembeh. Would users recommend adding the SMC3 for super macro?

I'm just saying if we knew what housing, body and intended image projection we're dealing with it would drive the conversation into more productive directions.

The OP specifically ask about the Laowa 15mm for CFWA. If you are not aware this is a full frame lens. Nikonos lenses were also mentioned and they are full frame lenses. In addition for Nikonos lenses you need an adapter only made by Nauticam for sony full frame cameras. cameras. The images were taken with the AstrHori in a Marelux 140mm dome port which is simply a fact, this is a port that can also be used on Nauticam and several brands. If you would like to start a thread regarding unsupported M4/3 lenses I would be happy to help with that. Housing brand has little to do with camera/lens combos as most work in many different housings with proper extensions.

I suggest getting both! These are both really great lens setups. While there is some overlap in range they both have unique properties and use cases. With the 8-15 under a 140mm dome, there size is also fairly similar. The WWL-C with 24-50 is a great all around setup. Many divers would be happy with this as their only lens. It handles standard wide angle down to near-macro subjects. Very versatile and high quality. (don't consider the 24-50 without the WWL-C) It is also easy to shoot and master. The 8-15 fisheye and 140mm dome are possibly the highest quality image you can get in a wide angle. However it is more difficult to shoot and light your subjects effectively. It can shoot an entire Humpback Whale from 3 feet range, or a 3 inch fish from Zero inch ranges. Extremely wide to Close Focus Wide Angle small subjects. This is a more expensive lens and will take some learning, large strobes, and investment of time to master.

I am looking to switch from my Nauticam D500 to Nauticam Z8. Any thoughts on using the Nikon 8-15 mm vs the Nikon 24-50

Knowing which system the OP is starting from would probably help drive the conversation in productive directions. A recommendation for FE in a Marelux wouldn't do much for a M4/3 Nauticam user.

My Nauticam trigger also works fine. It is just very basic and does not support key features like Rear curtain or HSS. Combined with random sync/preflash compatibility issues I think there are better options.

FWIW, I have the 11032 and have had no issues with a Z8 and pro max and maxi strobes. I would imagine that whatever the issue, UWT will make it right. I had a problem with my first 11032 and sent it in for examination/repair and a new was sent to me.

I have tried a verity of manual focus lenses behind a verity of dome and flat ports, including the Laowa 15mm 1:2 macro. I found the Laowa not to be worth the effort. Wide lenses like the 110 degree AOV 15 Laowa need to be to close to get to 1:2 inside a dome port. With wide primes you have the cost of the lens + the custom focus gear and in the case of the 15mm Laowa you would still only be able to get to about 1:4/5 behind a 200mm dome or larger dome. You would be able to do the same or better with the 112 degree 14mm F/4 Viltrox which has a more achievable 1:4.35 magnification at a minimum focus distance of 13cm. The lens retails for $199.00 in the US, got mine on sale for $159.00 on sale and works with Sony FE and Nikon Z. I have also used the Sony 14mm F/1.8, Sigma 14mm, Sanyang/Rokinon 14mm AF lenses and the cheap Viltrox is every bit as good in a dome because of its close minimum focus. Same/same with the Rokinon 14-24mm F/2.8 which has a minimum focus of 18cm, all the other 14-24mm lenses and 12-24mm"s focus to 28cm which is a disadvantage behind a port. The Rokinon is also the only lens that can be used with 77mm front filters. I used the AstrHori 6mm F/2.8 220 degree circular Fisheye, a manual lens in Bali last year pre-setting the lens at F/11 and just shy of infinity on the focus ring. This gave me around 8 inches to infinity in a 140mm dome. This lens can be had for Sony FE, Nikon Z, Canon RF and L mount systems for a retail of $299.00 US. If you are looking for cheap options to expensive lenses like a Canon or Nikon 8-15mm or 7-14mm for circular Fisheye this is a fun alternative. I have tried a lot more to numerous to list. Images from AstrHori in 140 Marelux dome.

Yeah, RAW workflows can be challenging, especially when they first came onto the scene. Back then, most editing packages couldn’t handle RAW footage natively, so you had to render or transcode everything into a workable format before you could even start editing. It added a whole extra step to the workflow and took up a lot of time and storage. If I’m shooting stock or working on my own projects, I’ll usually go through the footage, dump anything that’s unusable, and back up everything worth keeping. I have several RAID 5 systems that I use to store my footage, and when you’re dealing with RAW files, that storage gets expensive pretty quickly. :) When I’m shooting for a production, it’s a different story. I generally hand the footage over to the production team and they take it from there. They’ll dump and back up everything, then catalogue and detail each clip before it makes its way into the edit. Working with RAW today is definitely much easier. Most modern editing packages can handle multiple codecs and formats on the same timeline, which makes life considerably easier than having to transcode everything into a single format before editing. That said, you still have to be smart about your workflow. Just because you can edit everything at the highest possible resolution and quality doesn’t necessarily mean you should. Start throwing multiple streams of high-resolution RAW footage, effects, colour grades, and graphics onto a timeline and things can get complicated—and demanding on your system—very quickly. Proxies and optimized media can still be your best friends.

Hummmm on the other side, I'll only need this camera underwater ;) Change one time and that's it. 😀 I have a X4... took it with me during a dive trip.... and since never again... For me it's a feature for instagrammer ..;)

Hey all I'm traveling from work to Hong Kong at the end of October and staying through the beginning of November. I'll have a few days for diving from about the 6th to the 9th of November. Does anyone have a recommendation for a diving center or a guide in that area? I hope to find nudies, frogfish, etc., and who knows, maybe even a blue ring octopus :) Sagi

I used it at the lens' 60mm FF equivalent on the LX10, and there was quite an increase in image sharpness compared to the bare flat port. What also really impressed me is how focus peaking points doubled, this is the first thing I noticed, and how snappy the AF was. I'm not sure how the LX10's rather dreadful AF worked, but I'm guessing this linked to contrast somehow. I posted this in the other thread at the time, but here is a screen capture a raw clip shot, Lumix LX10 + MFO1 at 60mm equivalent, 4K 30fps (larval long-arm octopus)

You may be interested in this pool test, if you haven't seen it already: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2612-sony-100-mm-macro/page/6/#comment-21021 After 9 months of use - the 100mm is a fantastic lens. But I seldom add the 1.4xTC and never the 2.0xTC, the focal length and reach is too long for regular macro subjects. I would recommend getting the double adapter and the SMC-3.

So the question has been answered. Now, the youtube is full with X6 promotion reviews but only very few underwater footage so far. The only longer test is by Hugh Hou (only snorkelling) and the information he has shared is a bit troubling. In order to use the dive case, you have to change the lens on the camera. I think it has to do with the 1 inch sensor and the hyperfocal distance set by the above water lens, plus the dome of the dive case. It will be interesting to see some real scuba diving tests.

Hi Joakim, Chris beat me to it - that thread that he linked to should give you a pretty good idea on the various thoughts on what is available in the more compact/lightweight systems and the relative size differences.

I'm interested in having a tinker with some odd macro lenses from China, and also some CFWA lenses such as the Laowa 15mm CFWA lens. Laowa seem to have some unusual lenses in their range actually.

Is this at the wider angles available on the LX-10 zoom? As I understand things the MFO lenses are designed to compensate for diffraction problems of shooting through a flat port and this is deterioration of quality steadily getting worse as the angle of view increases. On 105mm macro lenses the effect is fairly minimal but noticeable on 50-60mm lenses (FF equivalent) and getting worse as you zoom out. It would make sense that macro lenses with a wider field would be helped more. Add to that there is less water to image through and things improve on both fronts.

You'll find a few people on here who are keen to try lenses that are not on the port charts, it's an interesting exercise and some people like the challenge and to try new things. Myself it's an exercise I know a bit about, but for me if it doesn't have AF and auto diaphragm I'm not that interested, apart from Nikonos lenses which are really only readily adaptable to a few specific systems I question if there is any possibility of significantly improved performance, at least as far as lenses behind a regular dome goes. If you search you might find some posts on specific lenses, popular topics include using Nauticam wet optics in other systems and alternative lenses not on the port chart for the wet lenses. There's also a lot of discussion about 3D printing zoom/focus gears for adapted lenses. I recall a classic I think triplet lens being talked about as well.

Welcome Joakim, hope you find the forum useful. Feel free to browse the forums, on you specific question there is a long thread which is likely relevant here: Have a good read and feel free to post follow up question in this topic or for different aspects open a new topic.