All Activity

Hey all I'm traveling from work to Hong Kong at the end of October and staying through the beginning of November. I'll have a few days for diving from about the 6th to the 9th of November. Does anyone have a recommendation for a diving center or a guide in that area? I hope to find nudies, frogfish, etc., and who knows, maybe even a blue ring octopus :) Sagi

I used it at the lens' 60mm FF equivalent on the LX10, and there was quite an increase in image sharpness compared to the bare flat port. What also really impressed me is how focus peaking points doubled, this is the first thing I noticed, and how snappy the AF was. I'm not sure how the LX10's rather dreadful AF worked, but I'm guessing this linked to contrast somehow. I posted this in the other thread at the time, but here is a screen capture a raw clip shot, Lumix LX10 + MFO1 at 60mm equivalent, 4K 30fps (larval long-arm octopus)

You may be interested in this pool test, if you haven't seen it already: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2612-sony-100-mm-macro/page/6/#comment-21021 After 9 months of use - the 100mm is a fantastic lens. But I seldom add the 1.4xTC and never the 2.0xTC, the focal length and reach is too long for regular macro subjects. I would recommend getting the double adapter and the SMC-3.

So the question has been answered. Now, the youtube is full with X6 promotion reviews but only very few underwater footage so far. The only longer test is by Hugh Hou (only snorkelling) and the information he has shared is a bit troubling. In order to use the dive case, you have to change the lens on the camera. I think it has to do with the 1 inch sensor and the hyperfocal distance set by the above water lens, plus the dome of the dive case. It will be interesting to see some real scuba diving tests.

Hi Joakim, Chris beat me to it - that thread that he linked to should give you a pretty good idea on the various thoughts on what is available in the more compact/lightweight systems and the relative size differences.

I'm interested in having a tinker with some odd macro lenses from China, and also some CFWA lenses such as the Laowa 15mm CFWA lens. Laowa seem to have some unusual lenses in their range actually.

Is this at the wider angles available on the LX-10 zoom? As I understand things the MFO lenses are designed to compensate for diffraction problems of shooting through a flat port and this is deterioration of quality steadily getting worse as the angle of view increases. On 105mm macro lenses the effect is fairly minimal but noticeable on 50-60mm lenses (FF equivalent) and getting worse as you zoom out. It would make sense that macro lenses with a wider field would be helped more. Add to that there is less water to image through and things improve on both fronts.

You'll find a few people on here who are keen to try lenses that are not on the port charts, it's an interesting exercise and some people like the challenge and to try new things. Myself it's an exercise I know a bit about, but for me if it doesn't have AF and auto diaphragm I'm not that interested, apart from Nikonos lenses which are really only readily adaptable to a few specific systems I question if there is any possibility of significantly improved performance, at least as far as lenses behind a regular dome goes. If you search you might find some posts on specific lenses, popular topics include using Nauticam wet optics in other systems and alternative lenses not on the port chart for the wet lenses. There's also a lot of discussion about 3D printing zoom/focus gears for adapted lenses. I recall a classic I think triplet lens being talked about as well.

Welcome Joakim, hope you find the forum useful. Feel free to browse the forums, on you specific question there is a long thread which is likely relevant here: Have a good read and feel free to post follow up question in this topic or for different aspects open a new topic.

I've been wondering if a magnetic focus gear like Inon uses in their MRS system would be possible to adapt to other housings. Then you don't need a different gear when changing extensions or adding TCs. Just an idea I've had in the back of my mind.

Hi Joakim A warm welcome to Waterpixels. Good to have you with us. Marketplace is a service to members who can buy and sell items. Before you can post on Marketplace , you need to make a total of three posts on other threads. This is part of our system to try and deter spammers. Marketplace is free, essentially a deal reached between buyer and seller. There are no commissions involved as far as Waterpixels are concerned. We always advise caution. Is the seller a long-established member of Waterpixel; does the deal sound reliable; is the payment method something standard or weird? I’ve bought and sold lots of times and always found it easy and. hassle-free. We are fortunate that the vast majority of members are thoroughly decent people. I hope that helps. Best wishes Tim

I shoot rather a lot with Nikono manual wet lenses, it's rather a pain to get focus correct and they are literally built for it. I would not want to shoot a manual lens which wasn't a specific corrected wet optic especially behind a dome.

Hello, New member here, but interested in snorkeling ever since I first stuck my nose below the water surface in the Red Sea and the Maldives - and interested in photography since like forever. Freelance journalist based in Sweden, but travelling extensively across the world (www.joakimradstrom.com). Bought an underwater housing for my Canon EOS Mark IV, but found it a bit unwieldy. Therefore, happy to hear suggestions for equipment that combine excellent photo quality with light weight. Interested to know more about Marketplace - how does it work, and what is required before one can start posting there? //Joakim, Sweden

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