All Activity

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.

Can’t help you with any real advice, sorry, but even if the mount is the same you are as Bon Jovi sings, halfway there. Where AI seem to screw it up is the flange distance. Camera bodies sit at different distances to the opening in different UW housings. This is camera model specific. So you need to examine the Isotta z8 housing compared to a Sea&Sea z8 housing and measure the cameras position in each, and then calculate what needs to be added or subtracted in the way of isotta extensions for each specific lens and port. If you’re lucky, someone trustworthy has already done it and you don’t need to make any mistakes. Or you can volunteer as a guinea pig 🙂. YMMV.

Totally agree!

I think that AI got it right (this time). It seems to me that Sea&Sea and Isotta are totally compatible, but there are also different port sizes and this has to be taken into account also (but again - it is important to check with manufactureres/dealers before investing a single cent)... I found two dealers that praise this cross-compatibility in their advertisements (maybe ask these dealers in addition for specific camera/manufacturer/port combinations?): Backscatter states that "Many Port Options Isotta housings use a simple port system, which is identical to Sea & Sea's method. The good news here is that Sea & Sea brand ports are fully compatible, so if you have any in your arsenal they will carry right over. You could also run a Nauticam port as long as it has a Sea & Sea style bayonet mount on it, so right out of the box you have tripled your port options. Isotta also makes a full suite of domes and flat ports, along with extension rings so that you can dial in just about any lens combo you would want for underwater imaging. There are two port sizes, one for DSLR and full frame mirrorless cameras, and another for micro 4/3 cameras." https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Introducing-Isotta-Underwater-Camera-Housings Underwatercamerastore states "7. Wide Range of Port Options Isotta uses a simple and effective port system compatible with Sea & Sea ports, meaning photographers can easily transition to Isotta without needing to invest in entirely new port setups. Additionally, Nauticam ports with a Sea & Sea-style bayonet mount are also compatible, providing even more flexibility. Isotta also manufactures a full range of domes, flat ports, and extension rings, ensuring compatibility with nearly any lens combination. Isotta Underwater Housings | Premium Red Aluminum Protect...Discover Isotta underwater housings, featuring premium red anodized aluminum for superior camera protection. Perfect for deep diving, these housings offer...

Related to the subject in general: Has anyone tested the Nikon 24-50 with the SMC-1? nauticam lists CMC-1 as a functioning option. Thing is, I already have an SMC-1, and I thought it would be neat being able to use that on a 24-50 setup. I'm not expecting it to be a complete macro solution, but possibly useful? On the other hand, that would make most sense with SMC-1 and WWL-C mounted on a dual flip holder, and I recall someone saying that becomes too front heavy.

Thanks. I was confused. This takes some of the advantages going the Isotta route away. I would still be able to use my S&S wide-angle ports, which all have at least 20 mm of extension on my S&S housing, but the whole point of switching brands would be using WWL-C for most WA shooting. I would NOT be able to use my macro ports, which are monolithic. I have also started making a spreadsheet comparing costs for Isotta and Nauticam, and if I discount the need for new ports (admittedly a big if), Nauticam doesn't seem that much more expenisve.

You need to double and triple check AI. Gets it wrong consistently.

Thanks, I think I'll stay away. He's asking for roughly $150 USD, which is a bit much given the issue....

Nice shot, caught a good pose. I would suggest pulling in the white point followed by a light S curve to boost contrast a little.

Buried in the datasheet is the maximum discharge current of 2A, which seems a little low, a test of regular eneloops I found was measuring 5, 6, 7 up to 10A. This high discharge current is needed for fast recycle times on UW strobes. The recycle time for strobes is set by the internal resistance of the cells, so these would recycle slower than eneloops. The labelled capacity seems high but likely a work of fiction.

Very fine treads like that are a problem they can be difficult to start even when not damaged. Yes the aluminium is soft but if you are also screwing a soft aluminium adapter in to try and fix not much happens and there is a risk of cross threading and doing more damage. The correct way to try to fix this is using a thread file with the correct pitch of 0.75mm. You carefully place the teeth in an undamaged section and carefully move it around the circumference. It is meant to lift and straighten the teeth of the thread. It may be difficult to do with the glass in place though. The down side of fixing is you scrape off any anodising and it might be more prone to corrosion and seizing than a new thread. How much does the vendor want for it? with a damaged thread it should be close to free?😅

This sentence shows where AI got it wrong, it saying that as they share the same bayonet the housing flange distance must be the same, this is completely incorrect as that flange distance is totally different from the how the port is locked in place. You can see this with Nauticam when they first bought out RF and Z housings for Canon/Nikon, They both use N120 ports but the RF and Z housings have the flange distance longer by the thickness of the EF-RF and F-Z adapters specifically to allow the same zoom gear and extensions to be used when using adapted lenses when you upgrade housings. Doing a little research it lifted this comment from a comment on a post on Waterpixels. It didn't realise there is more to the problem than just being able to mount the domes/extensions. There seems to be some scatter in the port charts with S&S either 10 or 20mm less than what Isotta suggests with Z mount lenses. So I agree best to check with Isotta. In general I see a lot of the google AI summaries when searching for references related to topics raised here, for technical issues I see lots of problems, often conflating two or more topics to came to a false conclusion. AI can be great for example to develop a summary from a meeting transcript or similar tasks organising words, but the results need to be checked very carefully on technical topics. They are large language models which predict which words follow the previous and responses are highly tuned to the exact syntax used when asking a question. I glance at the results in the AI section and go into the actual results to find my answers.

Yes - I was actually wondering if it might not be possible to rethread it with a spacer ring or filter mount. The issue is the vendor says nothing can be screwed on, and I'm not sure how much force he used when trying.

I have access to a chamber which can do 100m, but it's in Victoria BC.