All Activity

BTW, one of my regular dive buddies has been borrowing my Kraken for the last several muck dives we have done off the beach in West Seattle. He is really having fun with CFWA shots of giant nudibranchs and loves shooting the Kraken.

Part number 31706 Marelux to Nauticam N120 extension ring 20, retail $200.00. Not yet posted on the products page. Any one going to take a shot at why Canon RF 28-70mm F/2.8 is not supported?

Here is a set of 4 photos taken with the Kraken 09s and Nikon 60mm., all on the same dive. The first three are of an 8 foot long Sixgill shark taken from just a few inches away. The fourth is a 1cm hermit crab taken with the 60mm and MFO-1. The Kraken (and I presume the MWL) is very versatile. Excellent for CFWA, and then you have the option for true macro with the 60mm. I tend to use it on dives where they might be a chance for bigger subjects, but also good macro opportunities. The Sixgill dives are ideal for it. You spend about 30 minutes (hoping to see a shark) at 90-100 feet until you exhaust NDL then you head up to shallow water with great macro subjects. Aside from that I like to use it for CFWA scenes and not standard wide angle subjects. Corners are not awesome, but that is not always relevant as you can see below. Nikon Z8 w/Nikon 60mm lens, Kraken KRL09 WA, f8@1/50s iso800, pair of Backscatter HF-1 strobes Nikon Z8 w/Nikon 60mm lens, MOF, f18@1/160s iso250, pair of Backscatter HF-1 strobes

You might experiment around with CineEL — which I believe was added in a firmware update.

Hi @Alex_Mustard and @MatthewSullivan , I remember seeing a post somewhere where you were asking for ideas for future episode topics for the Underwater Photography Show ( #UWPS ) on YouTube. I can't remember where it was, but it reminded me of something I'd genuinely love to see discussed on the show. I recently watched your "Nauticam Optics Primer" episode, which I really enjoyed. It covers a great range of Nauticam optics, and of course the EMWL earned its own dedicated episode. However, it left me wondering: was there a particular reason why the Nauticam MWL-1 wasn't mentioned at all? Was it and I just cannot remember? I've always found the concept behind such a lens fascinating, converting back from macro to true wide angle on a dive. There is also a review by Matthew, about its main (or so far only) competitor, the Kraken KRL-09S: Testing the Kraken KRL-09S Macro Wide-Angle Conversion Lens which makes him highly qualified to show some test images and discuss the pros and cons of such a lens. It would be really interesting to hear both of your opinions on this whole category of optics. The MWL-1 never really seemed to gain widespread adoption, and I've often wondered why. Was it image quality? Sharpness? Handling? Cost? Or was the concept itself simply too niche? I know if was mainly developed for the Nikon AF-S 60mm, but seem also to work on some Canon and Sony Macro 90-100mm lenses with less AOV as a result. I'd especially be interested to hear how you think the MWL-1 compares today with more recent water-contact optics such as the Nauticam MFO-1, MFO-3, and now the Marelux MacroView MV-60. These products seem to point towards an interesting philosophy: instead of owning separate dedicated wide-angle and macro systems, perhaps photographers could build a very flexible setup around a single 90–100 mm macro lens (Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc.) and then simply swap between one or two wet optics during a dive depending on the subjects they encounter. Do you think this concept has a future, or do the compromises still outweigh the advantages? Has this category quietly evolved, or was it ultimately a technological dead end? I'd love to hear your thoughts in a future episode. AND MOST IMPORTANT: see some you your excellent sample images discussed in such an episode! Furthermore everybody is invited to discuss experience and photos with these lenses in this thread on waterpixels.

With GP13 i was filming much closer to the subject due focus distance, on the Mission 1 pro in certain conditions it might work, but theres always the temptation to get closer and closer to the subject.

F11 is the bare minimum. F13 and F16 are necessary sometimes and who cares about diffraction 😀 On these macro shots a tripod is mandatory. What NLE are you using? On Davinci Resolve, the Midtone details tool makes miracles. It's a micro-contrast tool that sharpens or softens areas with high edge definition. Ciao

Hi @Chris Ross , I have version 1 of the EF to m43 Metabones adapter and I am having issues with AF-C to the point I can only use it with AF-S which is not great for moving subjects and forces me to recompose all the time or get the odd blurry shot every now and then. I am running the latest firmware on the adapter and the camera (OM-1). I was wondering if version II which claims to have full PDAF compatibility has this issue. Have you used the 8-15 with AF-C or AF-C + tracking? Cheers

@Alex_Mustard has published an excellent review of his OPP test drive in Raja Ampat on his homepage, which can be found here: https://www.amustard.com/seacam_opp/ What I especially liked and found very helpful to sort all the optical choices is the AOV graph he provided as a slide in this review. It especially emphasizes the range of the FCP that jumps right into your face when viewing the graph. I personally wondered how the popular Canon EF 8-15mm fisheye with teleconverter solutions would fit into that scale and created this refined graph:

Hi Adrian, I am currently shooting the OM1 mk2, also in an AOI housing with SUPE D-Pro strobes. I use Standard Live View for all underwater photography, and I shoot a fair bit of macro. I too have found the LCD can be dark in some situations, and to compensate I increase the brightness of the LCD screen. You must always remember though that it is not giving a true indication of exposure, so to assist me in this regard I also have a histogram included on my LCD information, and use that to adjust my composition, lighting and exposure. I find it helps me also finding smaller subjects. I have found a similar situation to @Chris Ross in that images tend under-exposed slightly, but thats how I like my images, so it doesn't worry me too much. I have been using the AOI LCD viewfinder accessory attached to the LCD bracket of the back of the housing for some time now, and have got to the point where I would not dive without it. It does take some getting used to though. I found using the camera viewfinder itself is a quite limiting, as @Chris Ross said.

Thanks a lot James. I’m familiar with your work on the A7S III (the Lembeh WB-at-depth test is gorgeous and really impressive!) and I’m happy to hear you’re still using this camera after all these years. I understand what you mean about the higher base ISO, and I really don’t think shooting Log is worth it for what I do (which doesn’t involve sending footage to a third party for grading or matching multiple cameras), so I’ll follow your advice. In my experience, artificial-light-dominant footage just doesn’t require as much adjustment, so getting it right in camera does seem like the best approach in this case. Just to be clear, when you say "standard picture profile" do you mean turning Picture Profiles Off (rather than using PP1 / Movie), or are you referring to PP1 (movie standard)? It's interesting that you mention doing a custom white balance to the lights, as that was exactly what I was planning to try today. I use three main lights (Kraken Hydras and an MW4300), and on my previous camera I settled on a fixed 4700 K white balance to better integrate the warmer MW4300. I was thinking of setting up a custom white balance on the Sony instead for better accuracy. Edit- I just did the custom balance test, and result is surpringly close to what I had: with the Hydras + MW4300 in spot mode, 4900K and M2, and with the Hydras + MW4300 in wide mode, 4700K and M2.

Honestly, my biggest piece of advice for underwater video: DON'T SHOOT LOG. Film in the standard picture profile. I see a lot of people using Log just because they watched a YouTube video recommending it, but Log is really designed for shooters on land. Here's the issue: with Log, you're forced into a higher base ISO. Underwater, we are already in a dark environment, so boosting our ISO even higher means most Log footage just looks really noisy. Plus, you basically need a pro colorist to correct it. The A7SIII already has great dynamic range and brilliant white balance at depth, so shooting in standard gives you a significantly cleaner image with great color right out of the camera. Give me underwater footage shot in Log and fully graded, and put it next to correctly exposed, white-balanced footage shot in the standard picture profile. Trust me, you won't see any difference. If anything, it's most likely that the standard picture profile image looks cleaner. These are my go-to baseline settings for great looking footage straight out of camera: Standard Picture Profile. Aperture: f/8 Shutter: 1/125 (because I am shooting 60fps) ISO: Auto ISO Exposure Comp: -0.7 (this helps protect the highlights of the surface) To be fair, those specific exposure settings are mainly what I use for wide angle, but the core philosophy is basically the same for macro and blackwater. Since you are shooting macro and blackwater with artificial light, here is the real trick: make sure you custom white balance to your video lights. If you do this in standard profile, it gives you incredible color accuracy right out of the camera so you don't have to fiddle with it in post at all. I have been shooting the A7SIII since it came out and it is still my absolute go-to workhorse for work. If you want to see the results, check out any video on Backscatter and you will see most of the underwater footage was shot with this camera and these settings. Hope this helps you avoid those editing headaches!

I was shooting an OM System OM-1 Mark I in an AOI housing Wide: -- Lumix 8MM fish eye -- BackScatter Hybrid Strobes Macro - -- m.Zukio 90MM -- Backscatter Miniflash-2 -- Backscatter OS-1 snoot on the blenny d

@Davide DB I was shooting 60P and 1/125. I THINK I was F/8 and also auto ISO. So you feel a bump to F/11 would sharpen it? The focus was the hardest part because of the thin DOF and the fact that the little suckers kept moving in an out of the focus plane. I tried to get a focus. Then as they came closer re-focus. The sideways movement was easiest of course. For the head-on shots, I was trying manual focus on the green slug and trying to time the focus changes as he got closer but that was hit or miss. The black one I backed off distance wise so the DOF was a little deeper. And of course every breath in changed my buoyancy and that made it hard to keep steady too. I'm retooling from OM-1 to Sony a7rV right now so will have to work all this out again next trip.

Thank you, I quickly color graded in Premiere Pro and without blurring it, I see slight focus different between the front fishes and the ones in the back, but it is very gradual and I do not find it an issue. On the contrary, I think it makes the image quite appealing.

Nicely done, especially for a first video. You are correct, macro video is challenging, which is largely why I keep trying to get better at it. I probably shoot 5 or 6 hours of video to get a good 20 minutes or so of usable material. Lots of material on the cutting room floor as you say.

Underwater 240fps (opinion at 3m34s in first video)

you can capture details underwater that are impossible to see with naked eye. You got a camera that is able to do high frame rates and you dont test it.

Ive sent you link with original file..see for yourself