All Activity

FWIW I've had similar issues with strobes from other brand (Fotocore) for which the strobe light detector is known not to perform that well (unlike Inon or Retra strobes for instance). Here are some actions that willl allow you to test and may improve the light transmission, at least it did on my side : (if none works, I'd suggest you purchase new fiberoptics, S&S multicore 613 fibers would be my choice) I assume you're using S&S type connectors : check your cable bush plugged into the strobe port. do not use double hole bush, it might not work (I got this hint from the owner), it seems critical that the strobe end cable is centered into the optical port, hence a single hole type. check how the cable connector is fitting in its hole (I had a loose one that didn't work). In this case I'd rather change the connector & use a new rubber bush : first cut the cable end with a sharp razor blade (not scissors!!!) and try triggering your strobe adjusting the cable end with various insertion depth into the bush (ie. cable barely visible from the bush end, protruding 1/2mm from the bush, etc.) until you get a consistant firing. Make sure your cable does not twirl too much around the strobe arms or the clamps, the light might be lost through those twirls.

I recall most people using full frame tend to stop down to f11-13 range with the 8-15 fisheye, you might try that. If you have a 20mm extension you could try that as well. Nauticam list a 20mm extension with the 7-14, while both Nauticam and Marelux list a 30mm extension for the EF 8-15, suggesting that 20mm may work on Marelux. I would not suggest buying a 20mm extension yet until you see a recommendation from Marelux. Perhaps @Phil Rudin may see the thread and comment?

There was a thread on Blackwater Cozumel page on Facebook started week ago by Robert Stansfield (not sure if he is on this board). it is quite lengthy now, over 100 responses (some pure Facebook quality). Reading the thread, looks like the "taxation" has spread even more, people posting about being hit "taxes" on dive computers ect. There was also mention about director of customs being fired, but if i understood correctly, its Cozumel, not Mexico-wide director. Maybe theres light at the end of the tunnel, for Cabo aswell. But not having my hopes up too high.

Thank you for sharing. What brand of diopters do you use?

With Canon RF camera bodies you can have an almost exact focal length display activated as an overlay in your EVF and LCD screen. This is also why I know what focal lengths (zoom range) works. Coming back to this Aquista135D: really curious about the first results. Has anybody shot it so far and can post some sample images?

Yes, there isn't much information. My friend has already used this lens on the Marelux R52, using a 30mm extension ring and obtaining images at aperture F8. I think there is some blurring in the corners, which may not have fully realized the potential of the lens

Dear Yiheng,.. I think I reported back on the 15mm + 20mm a while ago, beeing slightly sharper, but that was with the Canon EF 8-15mm not to confuse with the new 7-14mm fisheye. About the RF35mm - yes it works great and there has been a forum post about it. You will be able to enhance its AF performance by using a diopter behind the small 140mm marelux dome.

I don't recall any detailed discussion on extensions for this lens on the forums as the lens is so new. SO far it seems only Nauticam has it on port charts where it uses 10mm less extension than the EF 8-15. It is likely it also uses 10mm less on Marelux, but needs to be confirmed as it is not on the port chart yet. There was a lot of discussion on the optimum extension for the 8-15 lens but it was rather inconclusive , the samples provided IMO showed no improvement for the longer extension. Nothing so far on the 7-14 I recall. Have you tested with 30mm extension at the 7mm end?, due to the 190 field the lens needs to be placed further forward to prevent vignetting, which is probably why Nauticam use 20mm. I would expect the 7-14 to vignette at 7mm with a 35mm extension, but it needs to be tested. Regarding a 1.4x it seems it's currently not possible to use a 1.4x, as you note the nose is too long. Also I believe the mount is keyed to prevent mounting it even if the nose was shorter. Kenko 1.4x is not available in RF mount so out of luck to use a 1.4x. Currently the EF 8-15 lens is the only way to get a fisheye plus 1.4x in combination with Kenko 1.4x and some people have used the RF 1.4x with the nose inside a Comcast RF-EF adapter that has been enlarged by filing it out and reported good results. On the 35mm f1.8, Marelux recommend the 140mm dome, the 50mm would be fine in that dome I think but you would need to test if it focuses well UW as the 50mm has a long 30cm min focus distance.

In addition, after testing, rf 1.4TC can’t be used together, even if the rear filter is removed, it is too long. But the color filter and rear filter are a good match. Even when magnified multiple times, there is no decrease in image quality

I used the Marlex R5 and purchased an RF 7-14 lens. The official recommendation is a 30mm extension ring, but I saw many people on the forum saying that its best optimal length is 35mm. Has anyone tested it? (I currently only have one 40mm extension ring, and testing has found significant black edges) Additional, if I carry an additional RF 35 1.8 or 501.8 as a supplement, will the image quality significantly decrease behind the 140 dome? （I just want to carry one dome）

what basis are you using for that comparison? You should be able to use all your existing ports and extensions on Isotta, perhaps not on Nauticam. Is that quote for a full set of ports for both options? The difficulty in explaining is hopping between two options . If you want to use the 24-50 on your current S&S housing is option 1. Option two is to go to a Z8 system either Nauticam or Isotta. . Option 1 just email Isotta and ask them if they can confirm the correct port to use with the 24-50 on your S&S housing. You would need to print a zoom gear and there are a few places that will do this you could try: https://www.deepshots.co.uk/collections/gears-for-olympus-and-panasonic?grid_list=grid-view&filter.v.price.gte=&filter.v.price.lte= https://eocean.eu/en/16-custom-design-machining F.I.T 3D printed zoom gear and focus gear of various styles[Instructions] Zoom ring/focus ring customized production If you have any questions, please contact [email protected] Option 2 if you went with a new housing , again email Isotta and ask what is needed to use your existing domes/extensions with a new Z8 housing. You can buy all you need for the 24-50 off the shelf. I believe you should be able to keep all of your existing domes. For the Nauticam option to make reusing your domes feasible you would need to source Nauticam lug rings for each S&S dome assuming they are removable, they used to be available but now discontinued. You would need to know the length of the Saga adapter if you wanted to go that way.

Great. Message me if you want me to get some to you for a reasonable price.

Aha! That's the test I couldnt figure out to do. And, it appears to be the cables. I can trigger the strobe using my super bright dive light, whether I do it directly, or through the cables. But, when I switch to a regular household LED flashlight, I can only trigger directly, but not through the cables. Same for the Nauticam flash trigger. So, I must be losing too much light between the housing flash and the strobe detector. Thanks for the help! Now, to see about building some new cables with the DIY info on here.

Try trigger the strobe without a cable. Just line up the strobe's optical port with the trigger directly to the flash trigger and housing bulkhead. Direct line of sight. I don't know about S&S, but most strobes I have used can even be triggered with a bright dive light or even phone flashlight. Just move the light right over the optical port from a couple inches/cm away. If line of sight does not generate a flash, then the strobe is defective. If it does flash, then your optical cables are not transmitting enough light. Could be due to bent, damaged, or low quality fiber.

I actually tried both, and simultaneously too, since the fiber optic cable is built to run two strobes. But, to directly answer, I initially used the one under the black spring-loaded flap (closest to the ball) mount.

There are two ports that the sync cable can plug into on that strobe, which are you using?

Remember that you can save quite alot on Nauticam N120 and N100 extensions if you comfortable printing them yourself. Also alot of zoom rings can be printed and this shouldnt require any courage like extensions.

To figure out flange distance I'd compare macro port length, not extension for domes. Just because companies seem to make different dome geometries for the same lenses.

Hi all, I'm hoping for a bit of help diagnosing a strobe issue. The problem at hand is that I cannot get my strobes to fire using the fiberoptic cable along with the Nauticam flash triger on my Sony A7RII. Here's what I know so far: The strobes are functional (and brand new, never used). I can fire them using the electrical sync cables, and they will fire in TTL or manual mode as set on the strobe. So, it's not a defective strobe, and the camera is set correctly to trigger a flash on exposure. (I'm shooting in fill flash mode on the camera.) The nauticam flash triger is functional. I have put brand new batteries in it, and I can see the light flash through the housing port when I take a picture. The fiberoptic cables are functional (to at least some degree). I can see the light flash at the strobe end of the fiberoptic cable when I take a picture. All surfaces the light signal passes through are clean and dust free. I just washed them all carefully with 70% isopropyl and visually inspected them. I believe light is making it through to the strobe, as I can see a faint flash of light from the front of the strobe when I take an exposure. I beleive that to be from spillover from the fiberoptic cable signal. It is NOT from the strobe filament. So, what am I missing? Is there some setting/switch on the strobe body I need to enable for it to respond to the fiberoptic signal? Any chance the cables I have are just not transmitting enough light for the strobe to respond (and how could I test this)? Something else? Any ideas or things to test would be MUCH appreciated. For now, I can work with the sync cables, but would much prefer to be able to use fiberoptic cables for the slimmer profile and lower chance of introducing a leak into my housing or strobe bodies.

I sent him an e-mail with some questions earlier today!

Sounds to me like you have reached a decision 🙂. I’d suggest picking up the phone and have a chat with Magnus @exposureunderwater in Malmö. He’d be able to give you the lowdown. And I’m pretty sure he recently received a lightly used macro port that could or could not be a part of your z8-package. Lycka till!

Again, thanks! Turns out S&S doesn't have a zoom ring for 24-50. I guess I could see if my existing zoom ring would fit, though I'll have to wait a week. But without zooom ring, S&S is no longer an option. And yes it would theoretically be possible to 3D-print one but in practice, probably not really. And I'm given to understand that you want to be well placed with your lens för WWL-C. "It's probably about 20 mm" sounds shaky. I do have a 20 mm extension, which could maybe see me over for using my existing macro port(s) on an Isotta housing. It's worth considering. Also, I did find a Saga adapter to use S&S ports on Nauticam housing, but if the flange distance is larger on Nauticam than S&S it doesn't help much. However. I did put one Nauticam WA package and one Isotta WA package together in a spreadsheet. Final prices will depend on the euro - SEK exchange rate, I've used 11.5 SEK for a euro now. Then I get Nauticam: 89000 SEK Isotta: 84000 SEK Not much of a difference really. Mind you, that's with Inon 45 degree viewfinder, I don't know how much superior Nauticam's own is. It costs three times as much. A macro port for nauticam would set me back about 5500 SEK more. So yes, Nauticam is a bit more expensive than Isotta but not a big difference, and then I have a Swedish retailer. I'd say the omens indicate a Nauticam solution - either that, or do nothing and stay put. Well, I won't have to decide today. And I could investigare Isotta a bit more.

Regarding expense it depends- you could just continue with your Z7 and just buy the Isotta flat port and it will be dirt cheap, you mentioned that as one option for you. I think the Isotta housings are certainly a lot cheaper in Australia, but it seems to vary by country, their extensions are about half the price of Nauticam in USA. Their ports are closer in price, but Isotta still a little cheaper. If you went with Isotta Z8 and assuming they 20mm more extension you just need one 20mm extension ring which would work with all of your other ports including your macro port. So you would be up for Housing plus 20mm extension (if you don't have one) plus a set of zoom gears. Looking at your lenses and guessing you have a 20/30/40mm extension you would appear to be fully covered?? If you went with Nauticam then it's a different story - you should Be able to convert your ports over to Nauticam bayonets, but the extension rings have their lugs machined in and are not adaptable meaning you need to buy some Nauticam extensions unless you can find an adapter. One exists for Nauticam ports on Isotta housings but doesn't seem to be one for Isotta/S&S ports on Nauticam housings so Nauticam will add up to more. You need Zoom gears if changing housings and Isotta are about 1/2 Nauticam price. To convert your ports to Nauticam they need to have a removable lug ring, not all S&S ports have this. The Nauticam lug rings also seem hard to find now and are essential to re-use your ports unless you find an adapter. On the WWL-C it mounts using a Nauticam bayonet only so you would have to take it off and put it "somewhere" to swap to a CMC/SMC and it's big lump of alloy and glass. I don't think swinging is an option. It should be a little wider than a 14mm rectilinear and much smaller physically. Something like equivalent to 12-13mm of horizontal field and will zoom into about a 50° horizontal field, equivalent to about a 40mm lens or so. They stretch more in the corners so are not as wide horizontal field wise as the diagonal field of view suggests. So it would replace your 14-30 and be both wider, longer lighter, physically smaller and won't need to stop down so much. Using the 24-50 with a macro lens is doable but fiddly getting to 0.9x and giving 49mm working distance, but that it from an approximately 150mm wide disc, rather than the ~75mm diameter OD of the nose of a macro port, which will limit approach angles a bit for many subjects.

The port charts don't agree unfortunately take the Nikon Z 14-30, on Isotta they suggest a 60mm extension for all ports. Sea and Sea suggests a 40mm extension again for all ports. The Canon 14-35mm f4 Isotta recommends 50mm, S&S say either 30 or 40mm depending upon port. The statement from Backscatter could mean the ports have the same mount and will fit, it doesn't specifically say the extension rings remain the same after all they would like to sell you some!

Last month in red sea I skipped on using relay as my new monitor allowed image rotation and the logistics became quite simple. Scubapro's new cargo shorts host the base plus 130 comfortably even on zodiac on the way to dive site. Then jump into water and based on needs and subject at first use atach both, disattach 130, clean bubbles and attach again and shoot. When not needed store the base+130 in cargo shorts. Done.