All Activity

No, the MFO1 - the LX10 has a zoom lens, so no need for the MFO3 - I got the MFO1 a couple of weeks before I transitioned to the A7SIII so did a few bonfire dives with the MFO-1 on the LX10, and it was really impressive. Like an AF and IQ update (faster focus acquisition, crisper/sharper image and double the amount of focus peaking points - I was shooting in manual focus with peaking as a reference, so this was really striking - the LX10 was in 60mm equivalent). I also have the MFO-3 and it's great - for blackwater style video on the A7SIII with the 100mm, I shoot 80% with the MFO-3, switching to the MFO-1 when I need more magnification.

You mean MFO-3 (or did you use MFO-1 with LX10)? I have MFO-3 and this diopter clearly improves IQ by reducing (the rather large) distance to medium size subjects (and decreasing focal length) and hence reducing the detoriating effect of water on IQ (Sony 100mm GM)...

I was just wondering if there was anyone else who tinker around to do things like make a manual focus lens for which there is no assigned port somehow work etc by adapting bits and pieces etc.?

Keep in mind that I was just measuring the minimum distance at which the lens could acquire focus, not the effect on actual magnification. I actually appreciate having these extra 4 cm of working distance to with, even though light repositioning isn't always easy. The MFO1's heavy restriction on infinity focus is interesting - I use the MFO-3, which, like the MFO1, requires the lens limiter switches to to be turned off (as well as lens OSS when shooting video), but having the MFO-1 on the bare lens acts like a physical limiter, blocking focus hunting at roughly 23cm from the glass. It's quite restrictive but I tend to shoot quite close with the 100mm anyway, and this is actually an advantage for AF as Chris wrote above (and there's always the option to flip it off to use the full range). On IQ, as mentioned, it was really impressive on a lower quality lens like the LX10's zoom lens. Image was sharper, and the number of focus peaking points doubled, probably linked to an increase in contrast. I can't say the results are as impressive on a great lens like the 100mm, and video is not the best for pixel peeping anyway.

This does not sound good, since distance to subject is greatly reduced by MFO-1 (I do not own MFO-1). Using the 1,4x TC seems to be the much better way to increase magnification to me (at least with Sony 100mm GM; with other lenses TCs might not be possible). Storytelling says that MFO-1 improves IQ (at least in theory), but I did not see a rigorous demonstration yet (e.g. testchards)...

Just to add one data point- I booked 3 days - Sat, Sun, Mon - managed to get out all 3 days, but abysmal conditions all 3 days First 2 days, was in the morning group, maybe 5m of visibility. Saw 1 single hammerhead each day from somewhat far away Third day, only the afternoon session was available, I would say less than 5m viz, water was a chilly 20 degrees, saw nothing on either dive. Think this was also because there was another tropical storm that was scheduled to hit the day after. There was only one dive on the second day where our guide said she saw a group of 5-6 very briefly but no one else in the group saw. I may have picked the worst days / gotten very unlucky with the typhoons but frankly I'm not sure I fully believe their dive logs anymore. Or rather, it is not representative. They cram 40-50 divers into each session so you have 80-100 people diving each day and maybe 1 group had 1 sighting... but my second day they posted that big school supposedly in the morning and visibility was nothing like what I had seen in the water. I will not be back. At 20 degree waters, I rather make the trip to Galapagos or Socorro or Cocos for more guaranteed sightings. If I were to stay within Asia, I rather give Banda sea another shot before coming back to Mikomoto. I really hate dives where there is only a singular focus and if you don't see the singular thing you want to see there is absolutely nothing else to see. I got unlucky with the hammers in Banda last Oct as well but in no way did I feel that was a wasted trip as there reef was still amazing, vs I saw nothing but rocks (and occassionally some fish) in Mikomoto... Other than test shots I took zero photos or videos in my 3 days :(

building off of this, a ring specifically for the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's would also be nice. I've always wondered if it would be possible to make focus ring extensions for this very purpose.

I would need to run proper tests taking magnification into account, but what I measured when the MFO-1 + 100mm was as follows: 100mm minimum focus distance without MFO1: 80 mm 100mm minimum focus distance with MFO1: 40 mm 100mm maximum focus distance without MFO1: infinity 100mm maximum focus distance with MFO1: 230 mm (quite restrictive) These are rough measurements taken from the front element of the glass to the subject on the Sony A7SIII + 100mm 2.8 macro, on land, using uncropped 4K video mode, not stills

165mm port seems a bit small for 7mm lens, I know that I used the Panasonic 7-14 a little in a Zen 170mm dome - there were two issues with it, first to prevent vignetting the entrance pupil was placed a bit forward of the centre of curvature which is down in side the extension it was also established that at least for stills a 170mm dome was a little small at 7mm focal length. I expect though that video it will be less critical, it's hard to pixel peep the corners in a moving image. The 12-35 will be much more forgiving. As for extensions, the 7-14 f4, 7-14 f2.8 and 8-18 all use different extensions with the 180mm dome in Nauticam, The Nauticam 180mm dome has the same problem, anything wider than 8mm (for m43 - 16mm FF equivalent) requires you to place the entrance pupil forward of the optimal point to stop vignetting. For a wider lens I would suggest either the Panasonic 8-18mm or the Olympus 8-25mm f4. Be aware that the 7-14mm f2.8, 8-18 and 8-25 all require you to assemble the camera into the housing then mount the lens then mount the extension/ports as they will not fit through the n85 port ID. This is where Isotta is a better option for m43 as it uses a 102mm port system for m43 and these lenses fit through and can be installed from the back of the housing. Unfortunately they only do a GH5 housing and only have 16mm bulkheads. You also don't need the very pricey N85-N120 adapters.

I should have provided a specific example that I think is consistent with the discussion here. Consider the Sony 28-60mm lens in a port with a flat (or spherical) surface versus behind the Nauticam WWL-1. Compare the rectilinear distortion ('barrel distortion'), the point spread function (spatial blurring) across the field, and any potential cropping of the field. Then compare that lens to another under the same conditions. The same could be said for a different lens on the same camera (sensor - FF) or the same lens on a different camera (sensor - eg, APC). The objective assessment of performance will provide a basis for analysis suitability for specific tasks. I hope this makes sense. Tim

I don't know, you'd have to test I think. The 69mm is as reported by Nauticam, the 90mm is MFD- lens length - flange distance and doesn't take the port into account. The difference of 20mm seem like a bit much for a change of 1.4 to 1.5x as a typical macro lens increases magnification fairly rapidly with only small changes to working distance. For example my OM 90mm macro focuses at 1x at 250mm and 2x at 224mm. So I'd expect the MFO-1 plus 100mm to focus a little closer at 1.4x compared to the bare lens if you follow my thinking.

It must be an incredible tool to work with - on average, how much data do you come back with after a shooting day? And how do you work with it in terms of storage? Do you basically just keep anything that could be useful for future projects, or do you shoot for a specific project, after which the rushes are discarded? I was upgrading my camera rig recently, and was tempted by the Nikon ZR for its RAW shooting capabilities, precisely for the reasons you mention, but after looking into file sizes, I concluded I probably wouldn't be shooting in N-RAW 90% of the time, since I archive my footage with a dual backup. I'd love to hear about your RAW footage workflow, especially when it comes to data management. Thanks! Ben

To follow-up on my previous interrogatons, since I last posted in this thread I now shoot a Sony A7SIII which has... usable AF - however it does not offer tracking AF underwater, a major caveat for anyone interested in the camera. On the A7SIII, tracking AF is activated by touching the screen or, and this is the most frustrating part - by assigning a button FOR STILLS ONLY - the toggle AF tracking on/off button is not available in video mode on the A7SIII, unlike on newer models like the A6700. Super frustrating, but that's life. Animal face recognition AF is also not available in video mode, it works for stills only - and who shoots stills on the A7SIII 😂 That said, AF is usable, especially "manual AF", where you manually trigger the AF to acquire focus through back-button focus (I have mine mapped to the top thumb lever on the NA-A1 housing, with the switch between AF and MF mode on the bottom lever). It's something I had on the LX10, and a must for most UW video applications. Manual AF aquisition can be done in manual mode (in which case focus is locked after acquisition and trigger release) or in actual AF-C mode (where the backbutton manually forces the camera to refocus). Both these modes are super useful, manual mode for slow-moving static subjects and AF mode for faster action (blackwater for instance). I use peaking, which is available both on the camera screen and on the monitor (Sony cameras do not transmit focus peaking or zebra data through HDMI, so it has to be a monitor function), and it's fine. Blackwater video is the trickiest of course, as you're tracking small, extremely rapid subjects moving in 3D in the water column. This really pushes AF performance, but luckily the A7SIII's AF (refocusing) is fast, especially coupled with a newer lens like the 100mm macro. I acquire focus manually (back-button AF) and then follow the subject, trying to work/help the AF have the time to make the micro-adjustments needed to keep it in focus. On the LX10, I did this in MF and just followed with peaking after aquisition (elbow-focus...) - now I can trust, to a certain degree, the camera to adjust which is great. When it loses track, I just refocus manually. Shooting in 60fps helps, as does 120fps in some cases for very jittery critters. True manual focus I've only used for standard macro, after the usual manual AF acquisition, to tweak the focus point. The NA-A1 housing has a workable focus knob on the left side, which is great for micro-adjustments, using peaking, but this is for slow-moving or static subjects, say refocusing on a nudibranch, or the eyes of a critter... it's not perfect but usuable for this. For me, the most useful tools by far are manually triggered AF (back-button focus for manual AF acquisition, in both manual and AF modes) as well as peaking, which I have set to high and red. I've never tried a cinecam housing with actual cinema focus knobs - this must be great for blue-chip documentary-style focus pulls and reveals, but my shooting circumstances are much more run-and-gun as a rule, and I wouldn't trust the focus knob enough for this kind of approach. cheers

Hi folks This lengthy discussion of tradeoffs in imaging system performance piqued my curiosity. It has been very interesting to read and consider. There is a lot there. I come from the world of the physics of medical imaging systems and in that space I know that imaging system performance is task-dependent. Subjective assessment of image quality ('do I like what I see') is valuable, but it is like art appreciation - I might not see/value what you see/value. Objective assessment and metrology are essential for imaging system performance. Those results are then applied to analysis of specific tasks and required (or desired) performance for particular tasks. Might I suggest photographing standard test objects in air and underwater with whatever lenses/ports you would like to compare to perform objective assessment and then discuss the tradeoffs on capturing specific scenes? If you don't like some particular degradation in performance with a class of (or specific) lenses/ports/whatever, quantify it under various tasks and consider the implications for those tasks and the associated tradeoffs. I understand a broad investigation is a big 'ask' for the typical part-time UW photographer like me, but it is an objective approach to describe the underlying issues with specific examples. It might be 'manageable' to do it with two lenses and two ports/WWL on a single camera/sensor just to make a point. Respectfully, Tim

The trays that we use have two screws

Like any tool or technique, it is useful when it is and not when it is not.

Paul, Do you use any specific focus tools such as peaking? Housing or port gear? Any suggestions for a newbie learning to pull focus?

Hey Tim I always setup for only one type of photo dive: macro or wide-angle. I never try to do both on one dive. If macro, I’d have the snoot on my left-hand strobe and usually the Retra macro rings on the right. I usually only light the subject with one strobe. Typically I’ll use the snoot for most of the dive. It’s not often that I’d take it off. But if I do, I either clip it on to a d-ring on my BCD via a shackle I added to the Retra lanyard; or occasionally, I’ll put the snoot into a Zeagle tech pocket attached to my BCD. The Retra LSD just about squeezes in. Cheers Tim

Nice overview. Thanks Tim. Rookie question for you: I obtained a snoot packaged with a new strobe and wonder how to 'not use' it. When shooting with a snoot, are you typically devoting the entire dive to shooting with a snoot or do you attach and remove as desired? Assuming the latter, what do you personally do with the snoot when not actively using it? Do you let is 'flop' hanging from a D-ring or have a more elegant solution? Thanks Tim H

I've used all three of the editing packages mentioned, and at this point, DaVinci Resolve is by far my preferred choice. Adobe Premiere has become far too buggy and unreliable for my liking, and I feel Apple really dropped the ball after Final Cut Studio 7. As David mentioned, YouTube is an excellent resource for DaVinci Resolve tutorials. There’s a huge amount of information available covering everything from colour grading and compositing to masking, tracking, effects, and more. Resolve has become an incredibly powerful all-in-one platform, particularly when it comes to colour and finishing. @Davide DB — In your previous post, you mentioned using a red filter. If you're shooting with a camera that doesn't give you much control over colour temperature or white balance, then yes, I would definitely recommend using one. It can make a significant difference underwater and give you a much better starting point in post. I shoot on a RED Helium, which gives me extensive control over the camera settings and produces excellent results underwater. Pairing that with the flexibility of shooting RAW is where it really shines. In post, you have tremendous control over colour temperature, tint, exposure, and the overall colour balance of the image, allowing you to recover and bring out colours that would otherwise be difficult to work with. This is also where DaVinci Resolve really excels. Its RAW workflow and colour-grading tools give you an incredible amount of control over underwater footage, particularly when you're dealing with the colour loss and shifts that naturally occur as you go deeper.

As a lefty, we have two choices to get our hands reoriented. Swim inverted or take selifes. 😃

Thanks Dave, I will take a look!

FYI - The Turtle Manual trigger is about $150 less if you don't need TTL and I and I confirm it works. Support HSS / Rear Curtain / Rapid Fire. It's also a bit more portable and not a fixed design for a specific housing. https://www.backscatter.com/TRT-i-Turtle-SMART-3-MANUAL-Trigger-for-Nikon-Mirrorless-DSLR-Cameras?custcol32=2

The PCB layout looks exactly the same as mine, but apparently my trigger still doesn’t work properly at 1/200s. I’m planning to get a UWTechnics 11032-HSS as a replacement trigger, and I’ll report back once I’ve had a chance to test it.

This is the "good" version of the Nauticam trigger. It's seemingly the same as yours by the numbers. However I am not sure the hardware tells the full tale, there may be a firmware component as well. There seems to be only one IC on this circuit board, and I have no idea if it is programable.