All Activity

As I look more at the photo from the nauticam website that I posted, I think I see now that the objective lens is right at the front of the lens, and what I thought was a recessed lens is just due to the limited reflection off the front glass. Sorry for my error.

Good points, surely a lot of things to consider. A pitty that the review ends with an advetisement, which undermines the feeling that the text was written from an objective perspective. The best thing that could happen is that the tecnicians of both companies would sit together to make a improved version.

The MFO-3 and MFO-3II are optically identical. The glass supplier changed so the nomenclature changed to differentiate for any repair/glass replacement purposes in the future. The dimensions are a few MM different but that is it

Hi Karlo, I love the diving in Croatia, very different from Red Sea type diving.

The test was dome with an older generation Apollo III and Marelux is improving with each new generation. Guide number is a balance between brightness, bean angle, fast recycle and more. I suggest you read the Retra response to the Backscatter strobe test.s in the thread above. In the case of the MX V BS top strobes the MX has a beaded dome with a 120 degree beam angle V. flat front with around 100. beam angle. The MX beaded dome softens the light output while the BS strobe needs a flat diffuser with a loss of a full stop of light to get to 120 degrees . Go to Marelux.co and checkout the difference shooting at 5 and 10 frames a second and decide which is more powerful and efficient.

Backscatter (BS) recently published a comparison of more than thirty underwater strobes. It is an impressive amount of work and contains genuinely useful data. We have now gone through that data in detail, repeated several measurements ourselves, and published our findings here: https://www.retra-uwt.com/blogs/news/a-closer-look-at-backscatters-strobe-test-retra-uwt We found several issues that we think deserve discussion: Guide numbers are plotted on a linear scale, which makes differences between powerful strobes appear larger than they are in photographic terms. We replotted the data in F-stops. The beam viewer uses different exposure settings for some strobes and does not normalize their centre brightness, so it should not be treated as a calibrated beam comparison. There are almost no error bars, variance figures or trial counts, making it difficult to tell whether smaller differences are meaningful. We could not reproduce the reported Retra Maxi color-temperature behaviour or its reported Boost recycle time. The Isotta RED64 guide-number result appears inconsistent with BS’s own beam images and flash-duration data. There is also a commercial context worth acknowledging. BS is both a retailer comparing products it sells and the owner of a strobe brand included in the comparison. That does not automatically make the data invalid, but it does make transparency about methods, uncertainty and commercial interests particularly important. This commercial focus is also visible in the content BS produces for its website and social media. The commanding majority of its promotional effort is focused on its own branded products. Including many competing brands in the test is commercially useful for BS. It creates the impression that they have a complete overview of the market and can offer neutral advice on almost every available strobe. Many customers come to BS precisely because they are undecided and want guidance. Once BS is accepted as the authority with all the data, it becomes much easier for them to steer those customers towards their own products. This does not automatically mean that the data is false, but it is an important reason to examine how the testing and presentation may support that sales strategy. The same standard applies to us. Retra manufactures two of the strobes discussed in the test, so we are not a neutral third party either. We have disclosed that interest and included our methods, measurements and reasoning so they can be challenged directly. Our intention is not to dismiss BS’s work. We would like to see the questionable readings checked, the charts improved and more information about measurement uncertainty published. If anyone finds an error in our analysis, please point it out. We will correct it. I’m interested to hear how others interpret the data, particularly the color-temperature results, the RED64 reading and whether guide-number charts should be presented in F-stops.

@Phil Rudin - the recent Backscatter strobe tests reported that the Apollo III 2.0's output was significantly less when tested compared to the Marilux claim of GN44 - has Marilux made any comment about this?

I wasn't aware of this thread until now! Copper mine shares went up another 11.5 cents today so not long now...

Thanks @Chris Ross and @bghazzal this helps explain a comment I'd seen regarding stabilization. It also explains why the MFO-3 worked flawlessly on my OM 60mm for photos. I expect the MV-60 to as well.

Thanks.

Mainland China / Shenzhen, if I'm not mistaken?

As a side note, stabilisation is very much an issue for video - I think this applies to both Marelux and Nauticam conversion lenses. From what I understood, the change in focal length confuses lens stabilisation calculations and the image bounces all over the place. I use the MFO3 with the Sony 100mm macro on the A7SIII, and turned off lens OSS (but didn't have to change anything with IBIS), no issues. I've heard similar feedback from someone shooting video on the Nikon Z8. But it's very much a video related issue. I think Davide had noticed a similar issue with another lens conversion for video - seems like the changes in focal length and real time lens stabilisation leads to issues. Manually setting the focal length in camera might be a work around if your camera allows it.

The only issue with lens stabilisation would be the fact that it is a ~35mm lens instead of a 60mm lens at least for the MFO3. The MV60 should be a similar multiplier as it is made for the same job so it should perform the same way a far as stabilisation goes. It is a camera thing rather than anything to do with the MFO3/MV60. I haven't tested video which may have different problems, but you can manually change the focal length in the menus of the OM-1.

If that is in fact an actual picture of the front of the “new” MFO-3 II, it does not look any different than the original MFO-3. However, if Nauticam were to change something on the II version, I would think they would add a threaded portion to the front like the MV-60 instead of that push on M82 FILTER HOLDER they offer for the MFO-3 instead of that redicules . that Phil mentioned is doubles as a protective guard for the front of the MFO-3. While it is treaded for 82mm size filter, they are not cheap (listed at $57 USD) and made of anodized aluminum that will instantly show where it made contact with a rock, coral, or anything else that is really hard that it is bumped into.

I have not heard of any IBIS issues using the MV60 and yes it should work well with the Oly 60 macro. Marelux US has one left in stock and more arriving soon.

The MFO-3 has a bulbous/curved front glass which was not designed for adding filters like ND's .They have an optional push on filter holder for an additional $50.00 plus for version I. I suspect this may now be built into the lens on V II. This is one of several differences for the Marelux MV60 which already has flatter front glass and a common 77mm thread size for a verity of filter types.including yellow for Flora.

A video well worth watching if you are considering the A7R VI. The best Youtube video explaining the value of the upgrades V older models for underwater use as both a stills and video camera,

Backscatter recently released their review for the Sony A7R VI. See the full review here: https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Sony-a7R-VI-Underwater-Camera-Housing-Review