All Activity

Battery life has not been a problem with the Z8. I've done 3 dives and 500-600 photos and not dropped below 25-50% power many times. I don't know if it has room for an external battery, but I expect you could add a USB bulkhead for charging in the housing.

Slightly off-topic but - does your Nauticam Z8 housing have room for a powerbank to give your system longer battery life? I know that some Nauticam housings do (or did) but I don't know which ones.

LOL! I will try to keep the history lesson short😄 Initial maritime trade from Egypt to India took place initially over a period of several hundred years and started around 250 BC but possibly earlier. In 30 BC the Romans conquered Egypt and then that opened up trading routes from Rome all the way to the west coast of India - and possibly further. Essentially the Romans sailed goods across the Mediterranean to the Nile, then omn smaller boats they were transported down the Nile, and then carried overland to various ports on the Red Sea coast where they were then loaded onto a fleet of vessels that all sailed at once each year to catch the monsoon winds to India. They then did their trade and bartering etc while waiting two months for the winds to change to enable them to return to Egypt, and the goods that they obtained from India were then sent up the Nile and across the Mediterranean to Rome. Altogether there are four known shipwreck sites from this period although given the vast number of ships sailing the route during the Roman period there are no doubt more to be discovered. Two of the sites consist solely of scattered amphoras, one site has some timbers from the bottom of the hull and some scattered artifacts, and then there is the site that I discovered in 1991. From the style of its cargo of amphoras we have been able to date the wreck as somewhere between AD 10 & AD 30 - so basically 2000 years ago. Because the Red Sea waters are low in oxygen below about 35 metres, the hull of this vessel is intact - the timbers are still solid etc. We haven't done any testing of the timber yet as currently the archaeology permit does not allow us to raise any objects, but we believe that the timber is mahogany, which along with cedar has been used in shipbuilding in Egypt since at least 1500 BC, the mahogany and cedar came from Lebanon. So this wreck is the only known intact wreck from the period of maritime trade between Egypt and India - and so historically it is quite important as we don't know a lot about the maritime aspects of that trade. We do know that the demand from the elites in Rome for exotic spices and silks etc from India was so great that it nearly sent the Roman Empire broke! Given that this ship was loaded with amphoras which probably contained olive oil and wines, this ship was loaded with an outbound cargo destined for India. Just up the coast a little is where the Egyptians launched the Expeditions to the Land of Punt some 3500+ years ago - if we were to ever find a wreck from that trade then it would epic!

OK now, around here you can’t just drop a statement like that, the peanut gallery demands more info! At least give us some hints - please!

The argument here is you need high ISO as you are relying more on ambient light - basically the strobes are turned down to avoid blowing out the water. The real solution to this flat low contrast image is to set your black and white points - here is the histogram of an under flashed ambient light image: and here is is the adjustment in a levels tool: Now the difference this makes is quite significant, this is just a throwaway shot, but it is under flashed in murky water and it shows what happens when you set you white and black points properly- the LH side is out of camera, the RHS only has levels adjusted and shadows boosted a little: There's more that could done to fine tune things, a standard curves tweak, a bit of fine tuning the WB, brightness, etc, but what we are doing with this shot is compensating for the low dynamic range in the scene. The time taken to do this is way less than explaining what has been done, you just grab the white and black points on the histogram and drag them in. Higher dynamic range will make no difference at all to what is going on. It's not that you don't get the benefit of high dynamic range - it's that you don't need this benefit. As an aside you can also do your colour balancing with this tool by adjusting the black/white points on each individual channel.

If you stay within the Nauticam eco-system, this is mostly true however there are some examples I can quote: First a Sydney diver using a D850 wanted to downsize, they went I think with a Z5 camera. The Nauticam housing was the same size and weight as the Seacam for the D850, however the Isotta housing gave significant size and weight savings as it is much more compact in the way it is laid out. Second as recently discussed on here the Nauticam Z5II/Z6III housing is significantly smaller and also cheaper than the other Z series housings. The first Nauticam Nikon(and Canon )mirrorless housings were a lot larger partly as the set the camera back further in the housing by the thickness of Z-F converter so the F mount lenses and their zoom/focus gears would work with the same extensions as they did with the F mount cameras/housings. The new style housings accomplish this by using a Z-F adapter with it's own zoom gear so that the F mount lens zoom gears will work and you don't need to buy new ones. You still have the large ports and extension rings etc and the big lenses but the housing can be made smaller.

As I recall Nauticam stated that they used the 28-70 kit lenses from Ca-nikon as they had the required entrance pupil size and that faster f2.8 zooms wouldn't work because of their larger entrance pupils. A few people stated that a 52mm or smaller filter size was about the limit for lenses that worked with the WWL-1. It was also speculated that the limitation was related to the size of the rear element of the wet optic the flat port in the case of the WWL-1 or the rear element of the WACP series, which seems to imply a geometric limitation in getting the light bundle from the wet optic into the lens front element. See this from Massimimo on his website for example: https://interceptor121.com/2023/03/11/nauticam-wwl-1-on-sony-full-frame-what-to-expect/ All of this is somewhat speculative, but I have yet to see anyone who has posted "I put a 28-xx lens not on the list behind the WWL or WACP and this is what the images looked like" or similar posts. So we just have these bigger lenses are incompatible but no real reason why and no one has tried done behind one of these wet optics and published what they found at least I don't recall seeing any such posts. Some examples might include will the EF 28-70 f3.6-5.6 lens work behind a WWL-1 on full frame or will a 24-70 f2.8L lens work behind a WACP-1, the question has been asked but I don't recall seeing anyone posting what the result is if you try it.

There are some examples coming out on FB now Andi Voeltz shared some using the 20-50 F4. Pasting one image here (mods - please remove if violates rules - It is pretty clearly branded so gives credit to photog). Looks promising! Can't wait for more images - and I would be really happy if a port like this worked with a lens as nice as the 20-50 (or any L lens for that matter).

Just an update on my progress: I ultimately went with the UWTechnics 11032-HSS. I tested it today using the Retra profile (set to 7) with the Retra Pro Max, and M mode, TTL, and HSS all worked properly. I also did not encounter any black bands caused by flash-sync timing issues with the camera. Anyone having the same issue as me should consider upgrading to a better trigger.

Second, updated edition. Blennies of the Mediterranean Sea introduces readers to one of the most fascinating groups of small coastal fishes inhabiting the shallow waters of the Mediterranean. The suborder Blennioidei, with about 880 species worldwide, is represented in the Mediterranean by the families Blenniidae, Tripterygiidae, and Clinidae, whose members display remarkable diversity in form, colour, and behaviour while living closely associated with rocky coastal habitats. In this second, revised and updated edition, Francesco Tiralongo expands the guide by including additional species, both alien and recently described by science, reflecting the rapidly evolving knowledge of Mediterranean fish biodiversity. Supported by colour photographs and detailed hand-drawn illustrations of diagnostic characters, this book provides clear and reliable tools for species identification, making it an essential reference for ichthyologists, divers, fishermen, and all enthusiasts of Mediterranean marine life.

I was (and remain) very happy with my D850 system. The nudge that pushed me to get a Z8 system was a $10,000 insurance payout for a canceled liveaboard trip due to a broken leg. That and the absolute racket the D850 made shooting rapid-fire on the Kenya Safari trip that ended up breaking my leg. Silent shooting is another big benefit of mirrorless, even if it doesn't matter UW its a big deal for wildlife and events. If I couldn't dive for 3 months at least I could spend the found money on a new camera system! A silver lining in every cloud.

Ok, looking forward to see your Maldives footage 🤩 I see that the biggest complaint from users is that you cannot use the camera for land and underwater shooting because the lenses swap requires a dry and clean station. You cannot do it on the boat or the beach. In the meantime I see perfectly stitched videos. Unfortunately most of them being vertical (I'm old). I guess still there will be problems stitching object passing in front of the camera at less than one meter. https://www.instagram.com/reel/Db8OCxZK-Qt/?igsi=MWpvY2Y0ZzA3Mnd1

My personal experience: Oly 5050 (Oly housing) -> D90 (Nauticam) -> D800 (Nauticam) -> D850 (Nauticam) I waited and waited for Nikon to come out with a DSLR replacement for the D850 - until they didn't - at which point I went D850 with all my legacy glass and Nauticam gear. I'm getting to the point where I may pick up another D850 body to keep shooting DSLR. For ME: I'm changing my packing regimen and getting as much super heavy stuff off my person when I travel as I get closer to 60yo. Paying for a 3rd checked bag, if it's not already included, is a lot less expensive than changing to a mirrorless system.

There clearly are ways to reduce noise and INCREASE sharpness at the same time during post-processing. Yes, this is AI - at its best. And these algorithms are likely driving much of the improved signal/noise ratio in the new camera bodies' jpg engines (no matter which sensor format).

I'm just finalising my purchase plans for getting back into underwater photography after a 30-odd year break - my last underwater camera was a housed Nikon F4. I'm choosing to go mirrorless due to the ability to fit a large 5 or 7 inch monitor to the camera rig which will make underwater shooting easier for me. It will be a FF mirrorless, probably a Nikon Z5ii in a Nauticam housing, but potentially it could be a Sony FF in a Nauticam housing.

You’d have to move down from the super heavyweight class to middle weight 🙂 Unfortunately DX does not have any great options atm in the z-series for UW inmo. The new z5ii is however inmo a very interesting FF alternative unless you think you must have 45 mp instead of 25. With the new Nauticam design that thing is seriously small. I’d be surprised if it doesn’t challenge the M4/3 Olympus in a Nauticam for weight and petiteness.

Hey Tomo Great to have you with us. A warm welcome to Waterpixels. Best wishes Tim

Hi everyone, just joined from here in the UK, looking forward to exchanging with you all on here, cheers!

As well as Nauticam X6 replaces lenses. Different distortion so stitching can work out the housing thickness and also mainly much closer focus to be able to have virtual image produced by the housing in focus. It also means that above water nothing except of very very close to housing is somewhat in focus. Now Nauticam replacement lens is built into the housing, into their glass port. With X6 you get separate lenses. The pool samples show that up close Nauticam with X5 is much much sharper. In the distance it may be up to camera sensitivity as X6 shown better contrast and resolution from like 1M on. X6 will not and cannot fit in X5 housing but anyone having X5 housing may have little incentives to jump onto X6 if they have camera mounted on DPV. For me and placement on camera housing lighter X6 package makes more sense.

That’s been my experience, too. One ends up with images that have low contrast. Lightroom’s Dehaze is a real life-saver, but it’s only a work-around. The camera might have lots of dynamic range, but you don’t get the benefit when shooting in haze … and we often have these conditions here in North Carolina.

From what I've read, they provide special lenses for the underwater housing.

There’s a Sony ”screw-on” fisheye that one attach to a 28/f2 mm prime, I saw in the latest UWP show. Turns it into a 16 mm FE lens.

Hi, I also have been a Nikon DSLR user for many years. After starting underwater photography with an Olympus C7070, I moved on to a D300 in a Hugy housing. Next came a D800E in a Seacam housing, and I arrived at the D850 in a Nauticam housing. I was lucky enough to buy a used NA-D850 setup—including the camera body and a 45° viewfinder—for 3,000 euros in 2023. That same year, I also managed to find a new, genuine Nauticam-to-Seacam adapter in Western Australia, allowing me to continue using my Seacam ports. I remain very satisfied with the system and see no compelling reason to switch to mirrorless. I struggle to follow the arguments regarding the weight and size differences between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. Given my age, I would certainly appreciate lighter gear, but I don't quite see the advantage here. I once compared the dimensions of Nauticam housings for Nikon cameras via the German importer: Nikon Z7: 360x200x160mm, 3kg Nikon Z8: 356x204x163mm, 3.4kg; Nikon D850: 360x195x135mm, 3.1kg. Camera weights: D850 1kg, Z7 0.6kg, Z8 0.9kg. I honestly don't understand where the significant difference lies that would justify a switch regarding weight and dimension. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Mirrorless cameras certainly offer innovations and various advantages. However, switching systems in underwater photography costs a hell of money. Everyone has to decide for themselves how much it is worth to them and to what extent it will actually result in better photos. The situation regarding weight and dimensions is, of course, different with Micro Four Thirds (M43) systems. But in my opinion, comparing M43 to full-frame is like comparing apples and oranges. Otherwise, we wouldn't need the different formats—or pay the corresponding prices for them. Ultimately, everyone has to decide what works best for them and how much money left on the account.