All Activity

I have a friend with a Nauticam Sony housing who noticed (by mounting a wet lens) that his Nauticam housing, camera tray is not manufactured telecentrically precise. So you might not be the only soul, suffering from this 🤷‍♂️😩 ..

Had busy weekend has Dive guide, very little time for filming...

Is this a language / word choice problem? Picture of a level below. Just check if the hood is parallel to the base of the dome. Put the level on top of the hood. If the hood is not taller than the dome, put the dome upside down with the hood on two equal sized block. Put the level on the base of the dome. Check to see if it's out of line.

I can rule out a hard impact, as I noticed this immediately after purchase, even before the first dive. To be honest, I can't imagine how I could check this with a bubble level. I'll probably measure the dimensions of the lens hood, but I don't expect to find anything conclusive. However, if all the other owners here in the forum report that they haven't been able to resolve the issue, I'll contact the dealer. The camera has IBIS, but I turned it off because it behaves strangely in combination with the Fisheye and Commlite adapter. So that can't be the cause.

My review of the Retra Maxi strobe is now available at Inside Scuba as part of issue #66. I started this review with some initial previews here on WaterPixels and really appreciate the input and ideas from everyone here. As I worked on this I decided that a long term review was the direction I wanted to take. Not just a few dives or a single trip, but experience with it over months and over 100 dives and very diverse environments. In the end I shot with the Maxi's from Dec 2025 to the end of June 2026 when I wrote the review in early July. Then a few weeks of editing and revision followed by a couple more getting it ready for publishing by Inside Scuba. Thanks to Andy Deitsch & Byron Conroy for agreeing to publish the article! Inside ScubaLong Term Review of the Retra Maxi StrobeDave Hicks tests the Retra Maxi strobe across 100+ dives in Raja Ampat and the Pacific Northwest, comparing it head-to-head with the Backscatter HF-1.

Just a thought, but does your camera have IBIS or the lens have stabilization? Turn it off. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems sometimes I see a corner in a RAW file and the jpeg is clean. I managed to trick myself into thinking my Nauticam was leaking. I was in Fort Lauderdale so dropped by Reef to have them check it over. I also mentioned I thought the camera off center. The service tech pressure checked and found no fault and said he made an adjustment and handed it back to me. Since they did not charge me anything for the checkover and adjustment I did not ask what it was he adjusted.

I don't have this issue with the 140fe on my Nikon 8-15 setup, with or without 1.4 tc. Can you examine your hood carefully, perhaps using a bubble level? It could be misaligned. A good hit might have altered it.

Thanks for your reply! Does the Nauticam triple flip have dedicated, fixed(!) 'detents' for each flip that hold the flips in position? The Saga has detents, but they are far too soft and therefore can no longer hold the weight beyond a certain tilt.

I have the Nauticam triple flip holder, no problem yet (with the MFO3, MFO1 and a +12.5 diopter) in positions I've tried. Only issue I found so far is that the central flip isn't compatible with the 100mm port's cold shoe mount - you can mount the triple flip + a cold-shoe ball mount attachement for instance, but the flip's central hinge is partially blocked by the ball mount's screw (one solution would be to mount the triple flip upside down, so that the central flip is under the housing, but it's not the safest for diopters)

I'm using the Nauticam 140mm FE dome with the Canon FE 8-15/4 in combination with the two RF extenders and I've noticed that when zooming out, the lower right corner of the dome's lens hood is always the first part of the image to appear. There's an inaccuracy and I don't know the cause. It could be due to the lens hood's manufacturing, or perhaps the camera's position in the housing isn't perfectly precise—or a combination of both. Has anyone else noticed this? It's not a major issue, but it does reduce the FOV somewhat.

Hello, I own a Saga M67 triple flip adapter, which is very good in principle. Unfortunately, it has a design flaw: at a vertical tilt of approximately 45°, it can't support the weight of heavier close-up lenses, causing them to flip forward. This can have serious consequences, as the lenses can get scratched because they collide with each other. Besides, there are rare situations where you actually want to shoot vertically. Does anyone know of another manufacturer of triple flip adapters that doesn't have this problem?

The max magnification varies depending of focal length for the MFO3 with the Sony 90mm reporting 0.8x from the port charts. All lenses focus between 0 and about 1500mm with the MFO3 added . The stated design from Nauticam is that the MFO3 corrects for having a flat port so has better corners than what a 50/60mm macro would have through a flat port and also shifts the the focus range of the so that in common 0.5x to min magnification range corresponds to the lens focusing to infinity and the fact the lens is out in the range where AF is fast and snappy on the bare lens, so AF improves. In my case with the olympus 60mm macro my limit is 0.5x - but for what I use the MFO3 for - it's a non issue. I've certainly found my MFO3 to be snappy when focusing once the lens racks out to the focal range needed after I first attach it, beyond that I don't even think about AF, it just snaps on. Whether or not the corners improve - I have not done any sort of detailed comparison, I'm just very happy with what it does. In terms of sharpness crushing - a lot of people are using the MFO2 now it seems and I don't recall anyone complaining about sharpness. These lenses are being used with Canon/Nikon/Sony top line macro lenses which are as a rule no slouch optically, seems to me it would be a hard ask for a different supplementary lens to claim to be crushing relative sharpness performance when using the add-on lens unless Nauticam is destroying it. As good as the bare lens or a little better - sure seems quite plausible. I haven’t used the Marelux version so don't know how it performs but have no reason to doubt it produces top notch images. Needs someone to spend some pool or test tank time shooting resolution targets to put the question to bed. Me personally - I'd rather go diving - but would certainly review the results with interest if someone was keen enough to produce some images to compare. Any volunteers?😅

I have now had Marelux 60 lens for about a month. I bought it for the specification of focusing well beyond the ~1 meter MFO-3 limit. The MFO-3 had been on my radar since the announcement. I was about to buy the MFO-3 about the time Phil wrote his blurb on the Marelux lens here on Wetpixels. I then looked on the Marelux site and contacted them to verify this specification which they did so I ordered it right away as I have one use case here in AK and it was due about 1 month after the solstice: the arrival of Pink Salmon in an intertidal creek near where I live. For a few days sea lice stay attached and I wanted to shoot them with a normal focal length. We had a lot of rain from several storm systems during July. When it cleared up the residents along the creek told me they had been there for just a couple of days and it looked like the whole run entered at once likely triggered by all the rain. So I had my chance. This was also my first salmon shoot with the new Maxi strobe which I had pre-ordered way back when. See pix. One is square crop of a D800 image showing the flank of a Pink Salmon. Note the bug near the center. I looked at it at 300% and did a frame grab which is attached as well. This is an early stage of a sea louse. Prior to the big rain I attempted shooting it in the nearby lake on a sunny day. Although it looks calm there was enough of a swell to cause the algae I was shooting to sway so those pix had to be binned. The other pix show how I used the lens on a Seacam housing. I used a Nauticam bayonet adapter and bayonet holder on a Saga port. I bought a cheap 77mm thread petal lens shade that has a plastic thread so is semi-disposable. I would avoid using metal-metal threads in seawater. The rubber shade used on my first trial (in pic) did vignette.

Thanks Phil, not surer how I missed the details on the Marelux page. I was mostly curious about minimum focus rather than maximum, and obviously cannot get much shorter than 0. Hopefully someone can share some experiences with the lens.

No, not as yet. Got a trip coming up and will try them then. Both seem very good.

Hey Tim! Welcome to Waterpixels. Very good to have you with us. We hope you enjoy the forum Best wishes from another Tim Tim

Hi folks I'm Tim. I've been diving for about 30yr but am a relatively inexperienced underwater photographer. I've been involved for a few years but only get to dive 100 divers/yr if I'm lucky (work, etc., and I don't dive locally). The Caribbean is only a half a day away and the water is warm... I've been reading posts here and am looking forward to learning more from WaterPixels members.

Nice reports. Have you made a selection yet?

Both the Nauticam and Marelux lenses have a 0.9X max magnification and on full frame are generally assumed to be suitable for 90mm, 100mm and 105mm macro lenses. So AOV's of 27 degrees, 24 degrees and 23 degrees. With the MFO-3 and MV-60 in place the result is an AOV of around 47 degrees+/-, 40 degrees and 38 degrees. Nauticam states it was tested with the Nikon Z 105mm macro and has a working distance of 0-1500mm or 59 inches. The Marelux MV-60 was tested using a 100mm macro so 24 degrees and 40 degrees with a working distance of 0-infinity, spec's from each websites. I am sure many will say that shooting beyond 59 inches/1500mm is a waist of time however what shooting to infinity points out is the large difference in lens design between these two lenses. My guess is that having a flat front element allows the MV-60 to focus to infinity while the curved front element of the MFO-3 restricts working distance. This may also explain a difference in AF speed although this is purely speculative. Different camera systems have a wide verity of AF choices and to have a relevant comparison you would need to be using the same system with the same AF setting I would think.