All Activity

In the last iterations, no. All new monitors are 1000+ NITS and they have sunshades.

Good question and It is not either / or. The use case is overlapping and also differs photo vs video. For video the viewfinder is just a no - stability, scene control, surrounding awareness... For photography from my standpoint monitor allows for faster framing on the fly and from difficult angles. See the picture below. Taken when swimming alongside the turtle with WWL-1B so 130deg FOV. Tried to get the sunball in the frame. Now imagine doing this with viewfinder - can't swim sideways really and most likely would end up in corrals. Power draw is actually greater for viewfinder than camera monitor so it's another plus. Plus on some camera you can output over HDMI and have built in monitor disabled which further saves camera battery. The only use case I find viewfinder better is a super macro as framing through viewfinder after creature is found is more precise and faster especially if subject is not stationary. Also manual focusing there. with 3000 nits on wed5-pro not a slightest

I often wonder about reflections in shallower water? Is that an issue?

The problematic Seafrogs Mk-02 looks like this Mk-01, https://seafrogs.com/collections/underwater-video-light/products/sea-frogs-scuba-underwater-diving-torch-mk-01, except battery is 4*18650 and I think there is bit more power. This Mk-70, https://seafrogs.com/collections/underwater-video-light/products/sea-frogs-sf-70-underwater-video-light-7000-lumen, is probably the direct successor model. If they would get reliability in place these could be great (even with increased price points).

One other question about monitors - what are the disadvantages of using a monitor vs a viewfinder underwater? Obviously battery life is one, but are there any practical differences between using a monitor vs a viewfinder for composition, going through menus etc.?

Interesting! The wide lens in the setup is the Canon 10-22 - no idea how useful this lens is but I guess at its widest it is roughly equivalent to a 15mm Nikonos? I'm still learning how to read the Nauticam port charts but it looks like the 10-22 can be used with a 180mm dome which would be a little more travel friendly. The macro lens in the setup is a 100mm + appropriate port. What do I want to shoot? A bit of everything. Do they still make lenses for the Canon mount that the 7D uses + its sensor size? And are new lenses still being developed for it? Seems to be a lot of new lenses coming out of China these days!

Cameras have gotten progressively better over time, the 7D is old old now coming out in 2009. I think these days the much more compact m43 cameras like the Olympus EM-1 MkII can beat it and the lenses and domes are much smaller. You could pick up a Nauticam EM-1 MkII housing for about $1200 these days add on a fisheye and macro lens and you have a versatile little package. The other issue is the 230mm dome is a big beast to travel with and to push around in the water. Assume it's matched with either a 17-40 or a 18-55 lens or perhaps a 10-22mm? This gets into what you want to shoot with it is it macro? wide angle? a bit of everything? Do you need a rectilinear lens?

I'm getting back into underwater photography after a 30 year break. Way back then I taught underwater photo on liveaboards in the Red Sea, on Aggressor Fleet boats in the Caribbean and for Jim & Cathy Church at Sunset House on Cayman. This will be my first time using digital cameras so it will be quite... different I expect. Locally there is a Nauticam 7D setup with 230mm acrylic dome port, macro port, strobes, lenses etc at what I consider to be a reasonable price. Are the latest cameras much much better than a 7D? If so in what areas? Will I find a 7D limiting?

One thing to look out for is that, for regular users (say, diving more than once a week), Weefine and Kraken products are indeed well made and do work well (despite some design quirks like button ergonomics), but unfortunately they do not seem to last very long. I've had repeated issues with Kraken Hydras, as have a lot of other users I've met, and unfortunately they are not really reliable in the long run.The first year or year and a half is fine, but after that repeated button issues, electronics issues, and leaks are quite common. It's as if the material used for some parts is just not resistant enough for regular underwater use. And this is comming from someone who does everything he can to maintain his equipment. Seafrogs product seem very similar in design, but in a slightly lower quality tier from what I've seen, so this could be even worse. It's annoying because I really like Kraken and Weefine products, and the price is acceptable, but if you have to factor in a longevity/reliability of under two years, pricing becomes unviable unless you're sponsored by them for replacements.

As an update, I now have 2 Wurkkos DL40 for bonfire diving (I wanted beam lights to point out, Japanese "light trap" style). Quality is ok, as is power/battery life (they use two 26650 batteries per light). I contacted Wurkkos to buy from them directly but they were unable to match Wurkkos Aliexpress prices shipped. This seems to be a constant with Chinese brands btw, the "official store" on Aliexpress (eg. Seafrog) is cheaper shipped than the manufacturer's website price / direct. We'll see how long they last.

Alex Mustard did a video on the the choice between 32 and 40° versions. You should be able to find it on the underwater photography show channel. The short version is Alex thought he would prefer the higher magnification 32° version but ended up liking the wider 40° version as it was easier to see all of the information, search for the video to see the details. As Dave says you could also look for an old version 45° viewfinder and use the EVF shrink function to save some money the corners might be a bit soft in that but it's usable.

That one looks like the original 45° viewfinder, the difference between the two versions is the nosepiece that fits into the housing. This is the manual which shows the difference, one of which is the 32203 has alignment pins while the 32205 has a flat section cutout. Your looks ike a 32205: https://www.nauticam.cn/upload/portal/20190124/201901241132017209.pdf When you say it's too short what exactly do you mean? Does the nose go in the viewfinder hole far enough to fit the retaining o-ring? If not you need a different nosepiece. I believe this collar adapter is what you would need to turn your 32205 into a 32203: NauticamViewfinder Collar Adaptor for 32204 (from A153408) and 32...Allows for the 45/º viewfinders to be adapted from MIL to DSLR housings. Instruction Manual PDF DownloadAgain you would need to confirm this with Nauticam or a dealer. If someone can confirm they are using a 32203 on a Z8 housing this seems to be what you would need to adapt it.

Hi Dave, I have been using the attached 45 viewfinder with my Nauticam OM-1 housing and wanted to use the same viewfinder with a Z8 housing however it does not appear to fit well as it is 'too short'. I have seen different collar adapters online but I am not sure which one I need as I dont know the exact model of my viewfinder, it could be a na-32205 or na-32203. Does anyone know what collar adapter I need for it to work with a Nauticam Z8? Thanks

Here is an old tread about the viewfinder issue (it seems both 0.8:1 and 1:1 work on Z8, but 0.8:1 is recommended; better ask there again):

i don't have any infinity focus video underwater, sorry.

Unless they are at some place at the website I have not found, the answers are not on the website. The information on viewfinders is muddy and technically incomplete. Oh, they say both are great and one of them is sometimes better for some cameras. Ok. Granted, they don't mention the Z8 among the cameras benefiting from the 0.8 but then again they don't always update the information on their site. They don't say anything about flip adapters for WWL-C. This is a very big purchase for me and I want to make as few guesses as possible. Unfortunately, my experience is that product websites in the diving industry are at best enthusiastic - and then Nauticam's is one of the better. If I want more information then I can ask the manufacturer (and they forward the questions to the reseller, it appears, but he doesn't have the technical information), or I can ask here. Well, I'm doing both. And in the end I hope to make an informed decision.

Which model is it? A friend of mine bought two of latest hi-power Sea Frogs. Everything ok so far but we will see in the long run. I've seen the more expensive Weefine equivalent and the mechanical quality is gorgeous as my monitor but I didn't have the chance to test their light underwater.

Were you able to take a picture of it?

Don't you have a clip at infinity focus?

Not much Gopro labs firmware v2.00.70 Glowdive adapter with AOI UWL-03 lens

Update on my experiences: Out of the two warranty replacement Seafrog Mk-02s one broke in one week or so of use. I still have one, but have not used it much. Seafrogs has made several new models since then (all more expensive, roughly the same capability). If someone has used those, it would be interesting to hear of the reliability. My brand expectation for Seafrogs is now very negative. I have been happy (enough) with LetonPower 4*18650 unit as my primary GoPro light. One had problems with machining quality of battery compartment, but all in all they have been reliable enough. They have similar 3*21700 model as well (and units with usb-c charging which I do not want to have). One of the three Archon units with single 18650 battery got broken electronics (probably due to physical hit in rough weather shore entry). Two still going strong after all the years. I ordered one Wurkkos DL08 to test as possible upgrade; slightly larger 21700 battery and more powerful LEDs. Not received that one yet.

I'm not sure why you asked the questions since you have all the answers. Just read the Nauticam web site.

As someone currently considering the 8-15 Canon this is definitely very on my mind. However I did just pickup a Zen dp100 for Tokina at a good price and I'll grab a Tokina in the meantime. Given how poor our vis usually is I doubt I will be limited in IQ and from what I've read the Tokina offers some interesting crop opportunities on FF.

Why would I want the 40 deg version? Does the 32 deg (32213) not cover the whole EVF? In that case, I would totally agree. The reason for taking the WWL-C off is to be able to shoot @ 50 mm through just the flat port, in case there are shy sharks semi-close by. That's a realistic scenario on my next trip. And secondarily, to be able to put a CMC-1 or similar there. Not as a complete macro solution, but nice to have the option. I already have the 24-50 since several years. Bought it for topside use when I want a small and light casual zoom.